alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 502 

Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Space Foundation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 3, 2008 

Mr. ALLARD submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Space 

Foundation. 

Whereas, on March 21, 1983, the United States Space Foundation was founded by a small group of pioneering individuals in Colorado Springs, Colorado; 

Whereas 2008 marks the 25th year of excellence and service 

of the Space Foundation; 

Whereas the mission of the Space Foundation is to advance 

space-related endeavors to inspire, enable, and propel humanity; 

Whereas the Space Foundation has become the leading nonprofit organization advancing the exploration, development, and use of space and space education for the benefit of all humankind; 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 502 IS 

Whereas the Space Foundation embraces all aspects of space 

including commercial, civil, and national security; 

Whereas the current national security environment requires 

extensive use and advancement of space-based assets; 

Whereas the Space Foundation has contributed to space education programs in all 50 States and also in Europe and 

Asia; 

Whereas the Space Foundation is regarded internationally as 

a leading space advocacy organization, and is a member 

of the United States Delegation to the United Nations 

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space; and 

Whereas the Space Foundation hosts the National Space 

Symposium and Strategic Space and Defense, 2 of the 

top conferences for space professionals: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (a) recognizes the contributions made by the Space 

3 Foundation; and 

4 (b) commemorates the Space Foundation’s 25 years 

5 of excellence and support to the Nation. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**







In
      connection with the Annual Report of Vertical Computer System, Inc. (the
“ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the United
      States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.






Date:April
                21, 2008
            
            By:*/s/
                Richard Wade*Name:Richard
                WadeTitle:Chief
                Executive Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      by
      Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Vertical Computer
      Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.
§ 100.902 Special Local Regulations; Annual Bayview Mackinac Race. ( a ) *Regulated area.* These Special Local Regulations apply to all U.S. navigable waters of the Black River, St. Clair River, and lower Lake Huron, bound by a line starting at latitude 042°58′47′′ N, longitude 082°26′0′′ W; then easterly to latitude 042°58′24′′ N, longitude 082°24′47′′ W; then northward along the International Boundary to latitude 043°2′48′′ N, longitude 082°23′47′′ W; then westerly to the shoreline at approximate location latitude 043°2′48′′ N, longitude 082°26′48′′ W; then southward along the U.S. shoreline to latitude 042°58′54′′ N, longitude 082°26′1′′ W; then back to the beginning [DATUM: NAD 83].
( b ) *Enforcement period.* These Special Local Regulations will be enforced annually at the commencement of the Bayview Mackinac Race. The enforcement period will last approximately seven hours on a single day each July. The Coast Guard will notify the public of the exact enforcement date and times via a Notice of Enforcement published in the Federal Register. Also, the Coast Guard may use marine broadcasts, local notice to mariners, local news media, on-scene oral notice, and broadcasts on VHF-FM marine radio Channel 16 (156.8 MHZ) to notify the public of the exact dates and times of enforcement.
( c ) *Special local regulations.* ( 1 ) No vessel may enter the regulated area established in paragraph (a) of this section without prior approval from the Coast Guard's designated Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may restrict vessel operation within the regulated area to vessels having particular operating characteristics.
( 2 ) Vessels permitted to enter this regulated area must operate at a no wake speed and in a manner that will not endanger race participants or any other craft.
( 3 ) The PATCOM may direct the anchoring, mooring, or movement of any vessel within this regulated area. A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the area under the direction of the PATCOM shall serve as a signal to stop. Vessels so signaled shall stop and shall comply with the orders of the PATCOM. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, a Notice of Violation for failure to comply, or both.
( 4 ) If it is deemed necessary for the protection of life and property, the PATCOM may terminate at any time the marine event or the operation of any vessel within the regulated area.
( 5 ) In accordance with the general regulations in § 100.35 of this part, the Coast Guard will patrol the regatta area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “Coast Guard Patrol Commander.”
( 6 ) The rules in this section shall not apply to vessels participating in the event or to government vessels patrolling the regulated area in the performance of their assigned duties.
[USCG-2012-0403, 77 FR 36392, June 19, 2012]
§ 105.545 Screening equipment. The following screening equipment may be used, provided it is specifically documented in an approved TSP. ( a ) *Metal detection devices.* ( 1 ) The owner or operator of a cruise ship terminal may use a metal detection device to screen persons, baggage, and personal effects.
( 2 ) Metal detection devices used at any cruise ship terminal must be operated, calibrated, and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.
( b ) *X-ray systems.* The owner or operator of a cruise ship terminal may use an x-ray system for the screening and inspection of personal effects and baggage if all of the following requirements are satisfied— ( 1 ) The system meets the standards for cabinet x-ray systems used primarily for the inspection of baggage, found in 21 CFR 1020.40;
( 2 ) Familiarization training for screeners, in accordance with § 105.535, includes training in radiation safety and the efficient use of x-ray systems;
( 3 ) The system must meet the imaging requirements found in 49 CFR 1544.211;
( 4 ) The system must be operated, calibrated, and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's instructions;
( 5 ) The x-ray system must fully comply with any defect notice or modification order issued for that system by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), unless the FDA has advised that a defect or failure to comply does not create a significant risk of injury, including genetic injury, to any person;
( 6 ) The owner or operator must ensure that a sign is posted in a conspicuous place at the screening location where x-ray systems are used to inspect personal effects and where screeners accept baggage. These signs must— ( i ) Notify individuals that items are being screened by x-ray and advise them to remove all x-ray, scientific, and high-speed film from their personal effects and baggage before screening;
( ii ) Advise individuals that they may request screening of their photographic equipment and film packages be done without exposure to an x-ray system; and
( iii ) Advise individuals to remove all photographic film from their personal effects before screening, if the x-ray system exposes any personal effects or baggage to more than one milliroentgen during the screening.
( c ) *Explosives detection systems.* The owner or operator of a cruise ship terminal may use an explosives detection system to screen baggage and personal effects for the presence of explosives if it meets the following requirements: ( 1 ) At locations where x-ray technology is used to inspect baggage or personal effects for explosives, the terminal owner or operator must post signs in accordance with paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
( 2 ) All explosives detection equipment used at a cruise ship terminal must be operated, calibrated, and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40471

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARCOS ANTONIO DELMORAL,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-109-ALL

--------------------

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

 PER CURIAM:*

Marcos Antonio Delmoral appeals from the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea to illegal reentry into the United

States following deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues

that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). He concedes that his challenge

is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224, 235 (1998), and he raises it to preserve it for further

review by the Supreme Court. 
No. 05-40471

- 2 -

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). We therefore must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      31,794,669
<SECURITIES>                                49,049,172
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,155,926
<ALLOWANCES>                                   413,000
<INVENTORY>                                     96,830
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            91,227,957
<PP&E>                                       5,089,497
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,057,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              96,288,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,711,787
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    78,153,944
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,422,533
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                96,288,264
<SALES>                                      8,403,554
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,379,770
<CGS>                                        1,068,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,068,660
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,127,955
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,416,019
<INCOME-TAX>                                   904,306
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,511,713
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,511,713
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
§ 785.48 Use of time clocks. ( a ) *Differences between clock records and actual hours worked.* Time clocks are not required. In those cases where time clocks are used, employees who voluntarily come in before their regular starting time or remain after their closing time, do not have to be paid for such periods provided, of course, that they do not engage in any work. Their early or late clock punching may be disregarded. Minor differences between the clock records and actual hours worked cannot ordinarily be avoided, but major discrepancies should be discouraged since they raise a doubt as to the accuracy of the records of the hours actually worked.
( b ) *“Rounding” practices.* It has been found that in some industries, particularly where time clocks are used, there has been the practice for many years of recording the employees' starting time and stopping time to the nearest 5 minutes, or to the nearest one-tenth or quarter of an hour. Presumably, this arrangement averages out so that the employees are fully compensated for all the time they actually work. For enforcement purposes this practice of computing working time will be accepted, provided that it is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked.
Mr. William Freeman

Director of Aviation Michael Waltrip Racing 329 Hanger Drive Statesville, NC 28677 Dear Mr. Freeman : This is in response to your May 1, 2012 letter sent to the public docket (No. FAA - 20 12 - 0515 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation A dministration (FAA) on behalf of Michael Waltrip Racing (MWR) for an exemption from § 125.367(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) . That exemption, if granted, would allow MWR to comply with the alternate airport requirements contained in §§ 135.223 or 121.619 instead of those contained in § 125.367(a) . You contacted the FAA on July 12, 2012 and stated that you are no longer requesting this relief. Therefore, we will take no further action on this petition, and Docket No. FAA - 2012 - 0515 is be ing closed . Sincerely ,

Id a M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division Enclosure2

Project No.: A FS - 12 - 0515 - E Project Officer: _______________ ARM - 10 1 : KJones : 7/13/2012 :Doc# 34520 ARM - 1/100/10 1 :Program Office Statistics: Clos eout Letter (Michael Waltrip Racing) AFS - 820 7.12.12.DOC, 212 wo rds Original, 13 Jul 2012 14:02 Style Index 9 **Excellent** for a Legal Document Average Sentence Length 21 **Good** Passive Index 20 **Excellent MR WILLIAM FREEMAN**  **DIRECTOR OF AVIATION**  **MICHAEL WALTRIP**  **RACING 329**  **HANGER DRIVE**  **STATESVILLE NC 28677**
§ 110.237 Pacific Ocean at Waimea, Hawaii, Naval Anchorage. ( a ) *The Anchorage grounds.* All the waters within a circle having a radius of 300 yards centered at latitude 21°56′50.7′′ N., longitude 159°41′22.9′′ W. (Datum NAD 83)
( b ) *The regulation.* Except in an emergency, no vessel except a Naval vessel may anchor or moor in this anchorage without permission of the Captain of the Port, Honolulu, Hawaii.
[CGD 74-187, 41 FR 54176, Dec. 13, 1976, as amended by CGD 96-026, 61 FR 33663, June 28, 1996; USCG-2002-12471, 67 FR 41332, June 18, 2002]
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 292 

Designating the week beginning September 9, 2007, as ‘‘National Assisted 

Living Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2007 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. THUNE) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 

Considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week beginning September 9, 2007, as 

‘‘National Assisted Living Week’’. 

Whereas the number of elderly and disabled citizens of the 

United States is increasing dramatically; 

Whereas assisted living is a long-term care service that fosters choice, dignity, independence, and autonomy in the 

elderly and disabled across the United States; 

Whereas the National Center for Assisted Living created National Assisted Living Week; 

Whereas the theme of National Assisted Living Week 2007 

is ‘‘Legacies of Love’’; and 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

SRES 292 ATS 

Whereas this theme highlights the privilege, value, and responsibility of passing the legacies of the lives of the elderly and disabled of the United States down through the 

generations that care for and love them: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week beginning September 9, 

3 2007, as ‘‘National Assisted Living Week’’; and 

4 (2) urges all people of the United States— 

5 (A) to visit friends and loved ones who re6 side at assisted living facilities; and 

7 (B) to learn more about assisted living 

8 services, including how assisted living services 

9 benefit communities in the United States. 

Æ 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
### Hydrology of the Long Beach-Santa Ana area, California with special reference to the watertightness of the Newport-Inglewood structural zone, with a section on withdrawal of ground water, 1932-41

By: J. F. PolandAllen Sinnott

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1471

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 9**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 10**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 23, 2011

h1116 

# Order

November 23, 2011

143286 & (65)

BOBBY BURLESON, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 143286 COA: 292916 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTA L Ingham CC: 08-001507-AA QUALITY, Respondent-Appellant.

___________________ _________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for le ave to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The application for leave to app eal the May 12, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENI ED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>   1
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form S-8 Registration
Statements (Nos. 33-37961, 33-47580 and 33-53421) of our report dated May 8,
2000 accompanying the financial statements of The Mead 401(k) Plan included in
this Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Mead
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1999.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
-----------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dayton, Ohio
May 8, 2000




                                      -16-
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7660** 

RONNIE EWINGS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. TERRY O'BRIEN, Warden, USP Hazelton , Respondent

– Appellee, and UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg
. Irene M. Keeley , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 00153

- IMK

- JSK )

Submitted : December 20, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN , Cir cuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Linn Richard Walker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant . Jarod James Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Ronnie Ewings , a District of Columbia Code offender, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on his 28
U.S.C.A . § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012 ) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (200 6). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstra ting that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003).
W hen the district court denies relief on procedural g rounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive p rocedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have indep endently reviewed the record and conclude that Ewings has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal4 contentions are adequately pr esented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED