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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 356 

Affirming that any offensive military action taken against Iran must be 

explicitly approved by Congress before such action may be initiated. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 25, 2007 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. SANDERS) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Affirming that any offensive military action taken against 

Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress before such 

action may be initiated. 

Whereas article I, section 8, of the Constitution of the United 

States vests in Congress all power to declare war: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That any offensive military action taken by 

2 the United States against Iran must be explicitly approved 

3 by Congress before such action may be initiated. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 427 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 427

  Congratulating the University of California at Berkeley men's water 
polo team for winning the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association 
                        Division I Championship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 25, 2008

  Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mrs. Boxer) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Congratulating the University of California at Berkeley men's water 
polo team for winning the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association 
                        Division I Championship.

Whereas the University of California at Berkeley (California) Golden Bears won 
        the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Men's Water 
        Polo Championship, 8-6, over the University of Southern California 
        Trojans on December 2, 2007, at the Avery Aquatics Center at Stanford 
        University;
Whereas the California Golden Bears had a 28-4 overall record during the 2007 
        season;
Whereas in 2007 the California Golden Bears won a Division I men's water polo 
        title for the 2nd year in a row and the 13th time in school history;
Whereas Michael Sharf was named the 2007 NCAA Tournament Most Valuable Player, 
        Zac Monsees, and Jeff Tyrrell were named to the NCAA Tournament 1st 
        team, and Spencer Warden was named to the NCAA Tournament 2nd team; and
Whereas Michael Sharf, Zac Monsees, and Mark Sheredy were named as first-team 
        All-Americans, Adam Haley was named a second-team All-American, and Jeff 
        Tyrrell and Spencer Warden were selected as third-team All-Americans for 
        their exceptional contributions during the 2007 season: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate congratulates the University of 
California at Berkeley men's water polo team for winning the 2007 
National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Championship.
                                 <all>
```
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on April 14, 2000, Sigma Aldrich Research Biochemicals, Inc., Attn: Richard Milius, 1-3 Strathmore Road, Natick, Massachusetts 01760, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed below: Drug
ScheduleCathinone (1235)
IMethcathinone (1237)
IAminorex (1585)
IAlpha-Ethyltryptamine (7249)
ILysergic acid diethylamide (7315)
ITetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
I4-Bromo-2, 5-dimethoxyamphetamine (7391)
I4-Bromo-2, 5-dimethoxyphenethylamine (7392)
I2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine (7396)
I3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (7400)
IN-Hydroxy-3, 4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (7402)
I3, 4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine (7404)
I3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (7405)
IPsilocybin (7437)
I1-[1-(2-Thienyl) cyclohexyl] piperidine (7470)
IHeroin (9200)
INormorphine (9313)
IAmphetamine (1100)
IIMethamphetamine (1105)
IIPentobarbital (2270)
IIPhenylcyclohexylamine (7460)
IIPhencyclidine (7471)
IICocaine (9041)
IICodeine (9050)
IIDiprenorphine (9058)
IIBenzoylecgonine (9180)
IILevomethorphan (9210)
IILevorphanol (9220)
IIMeperidine (9230)
IIMetazocine (9240)
IIMethadone (9250)
IIMorphine (9300)
IIThebaine (9333)
IILevo-alphacetylmethadol (LAAM) (9648)
IIFentanyl (9801)
II
 The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for laboratory reference standards and neurochemicals. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manfuacture such substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration. Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative (CCR), and must be file no later than August 1, 2000. Dated: May 12, 2000. John H. King, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 00-13787  Filed 6-1-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Argued and submitted November 20,

affirmed December 16, 1992

#### J. Robert BREIVOGEL, Patricia Kliewer, Susanna L. Stephenson, Michael Stephenson, Jerry L. Ross, Teresa Ross, M. Lianne McNeil, Patricia McIntyre and Clark King, *Petitioners, v.*WASHINGTON COUNTY and Kite/Cupp Legend Golf Development Company, *Respondents.*

(LUBA 91-146; CA A77026)

843 P2d 982

Randall L. Dunn, Portland, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Copeland, Landye, Bennett & Wolf, Portland.

David C. Noren, Assistant County Counsel, Hillsboro, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent Washington County.

*196Gregory S. Hathaway, Portland, argued the cause for respondent Kite/Cupp Legend Golf Development Company. With him on the brief were Virginia L. Gustafson and Garvey, Schubert & Barer, Portland.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.

RICHARDSON, P. J.

*197RICHARDSON, P. J.

In *Breivogel v. Washington County,*114 Or App 55, 834 P2d 473 (1992), we reversed and remanded LUBA’s reversal of the county’s dismissal of petitioners’ appeal to the county governing body from a land use decision by a county hearings officer. The basis for the county’s dismissal was that the appeal papers were not signed and therefore did not meet the requirements of section 209-3.7 of the county’s development code. We disagreed with the specific basis for LUBA’s decision and remanded for it to consider petitioners’ alternative arguments. On remand, LUBA rejected those arguments and affirmed the county’s decision.

Petitioners seek our review. Their principal argument is that an information sheet provided by the county did not mention the signature requirement and that the county did not fulfill its purported duty to inform petitioners about the requirement in other ways before the time for the appeal elapsed. That is, in essence, an estoppel argument. We agree with LUBA that, given the clear provision in the code, the county had no affirmative duty to apprise petitioners of it and they had no basis for relying on the county’s silence.

Petitioners also advance the argument that the county’s requirement or the manner in which it was implemented here is contrary to the policy of ORS 215.402 *et seq*and the cases construing those statutes. We noted in our earlier opinion, 114 Or App at 58-59, as did LUBA in its opinion on remand, that that argument was not made in the first appeal to LUBA or on our first review. Therefore, we cannot address it now. *See Beck v. City of Tillamook,*313 Or 148, 831 P2d 678 (1992).

We expressly note that petitioners’ arguments do not require us to comment on other aspects of the county’s action or LUBA’s decision on remand, and we do not do so.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 105 (Wednesday, May 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13555]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) will 
meet on June 14 and 15, 2000, at the Town Hall in Fort Bragg, 
California. The meeting will be held from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 
Wednesday, June 14, and from 8:30 a.m. to noon, on Thursday, June 15. 
The Town Hall is located at 363 No. Main St. in Fort Bragg. Agenda 
items to be covered include: (1) Issues criteria and process; (2) 
status of watershed analyses on federal lands in the Province, their 
effectiveness and prioritization; (3) Protection of federal habitat for 
remnant native fish stocks; (4) regional Ecosystem Office (REO) update 
to include Survey and Manage Environmental Impact Statement, PAC 
rechartering and Interagency Species Management List; (5) Regional 
Interagency Executive Committee (REIC) and Interagency Advisory 
Committee (IAC) communication with the PAC; (6) Megram Fire update; (7) 
presentation on the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation proposal; 
(8) Northwest Forest Plan regional implementation monitoring schedule 
for 2000; (9) National Marine Fisheries Service presentation on impacts 
of Judge Rothstein's ruling; and (10) open public comment. All 
California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee meetings are open to the 
public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
meeting to James Fenwood, Forest Supervisor, or Phebe Brown, Province 
Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, 825 N. Humboldt Avenue, 
Willows, CA, 95988, (530) 934-3316.

    Dated: May 23, 2000.
James D. Fenwood,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 00-13555 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.359 Chattahoochee River.

See § 117.107, Chattahoochee River, listed under Alabama.

[CGD 92-015, 57 FR 37880, Aug. 21, 1992]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTON 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


          In connection with the Quarterly Report of PFSB Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Eldon R. Mette, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of my knowledge and belief:

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

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.


                                        By: /s/ Eldon R. Mette
                                            -----------------------------
                                                Eldon R. Mette
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                August 14, 2002
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.293 Indian Creek. The draw of the 63rd Street Bridge across Indian Creek, mile 4.0 at Miami Beach, FL, shall open on signal except that: ( a ) Each day from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., except Federal holidays, the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour;
( b ) From 7:10 a.m. to 9:55 a.m. and 4:05 p.m. to 6:59 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels.
( c ) In February of each year during the period seven days prior to the City of Miami Beach Yacht and Brokerage Show and the four days following the show, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., the bridge need not open except for 10 minutes at the top of the hour. At all other times the bridge shall operate on its normal schedule.
[USCG-2015-0940, 81 FR 36800, June 8, 2016, as amended by USCG-2020-0658, 87 FR 16987, Mar. 25, 2022]
EXHIBIT 32



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 Quarterly Report of Big Sky Energy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce Gaston, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

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



(2)

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







Date:  August 22, 2005

By: /s/ Bruce Gaston

Name:  Bruce Gaston

Title:   Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32





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 Quarterly Report of LCNB Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Stephen P. Wilson, Chief Executive Officer, and Steve P. Foster, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

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







|/s/ Stephen P. Wilson                     |  | /s/ Steve P. Foster                    
|----------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Stephen P. Wilson
Chief Executive Officer |  | Steve P. Foster
Chief Financial Officer





Date: October 31, 2005
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350

(Section 906of the Sarbanes — Oxley Act of 2002)

 

----

 

In connection withthe filing by Senior Housing Properties Trust (the “Company”) of the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”),each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.               The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Barry M. Portnoy                     |   | /s/ David J. Hegarty                   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
| Barry M. Portnoy                         |   | David J. Hegarty                       |
| Managing Trustee                         |   | President and Chief  Operating Officer |
|                                     |   |                                   |
|                                     |   |                                   |
| /s/ Adam D. Portnoy                      |   | /s/ Richard A. Doyle                   |
| Adam D. Portnoy                          |   | Richard A. Doyle                       |
| Managing Trustee                         |   | Treasurer and Chief  Financial Officer |
|                                     |   |                                   |
|                                     |   |                                   |
| Date:   May 5,  2010 |   |                                   |

 

----
50714 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: August 10, 2011. 

Kathryn Sinniger, 

Chief, Office of Regulations and 

Administrative Law, United States Coast 

Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20763 Filed 8–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Part 42 

[FAR Case 2009–042; Docket 2011–0087, 

Sequence 1] 

RIN 9000–AM09 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Documenting Contractor Performance; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects the 

comment date published in the Federal 

Register of August 9, 2011, regarding 

the proposed rule for Documenting 

Contractor Performance. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published June, 28, 2011, 

at 76 FR 37704, is extended. Comments 

will be received until September 29, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement 

Analyst, at (202) 501–1448. Please cite 

FAR Case 2009–042. 

Correction 

In the proposed rule FR Doc. 2011– 

20089, beginning on page 48776, in the 

2nd column, in the issue of August 9, 

2011, make the following correction, in 

the DATES section: 

Remove ‘‘September 8, 2011’’ and add 

‘‘September 29, 2011’’ in its place. 

Hada Flowers, 

Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat, 

Office of Governmentwide Policy, Office of 

Acquisition Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20778 Filed 8–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and conservation.**
 
2009
2014 | 2015
Summaries:2019-2022(Scroll Down)
 
SuDoc Number:Y 3.M 33/3:9-2/
Item Number:1064-C-03 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001093369
 
October 30, 2019
§ 801.20 Adverse employment action under ongoing investigation exemption. ( a ) Section 8(a) (1) of the Act provides that the limited exemption in section 7(d) of the Act and § 801.12 of this part for ongoing investigations shall not apply if an employer discharges, disciplines, denies employment or promotion or otherwise discriminates in any manner against a current employee based upon the analysis of a polygraph test chart or the refusal to take a polygraph test, without additional supporting evidence.
( b ) “Additional supporting evidence”, for purposes of section 8(a) of the Act, includes, but is not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) ( i ) Evidence indicating that the employee had access to the missing or damaged property that is the subject of an ongoing investigation; and
( ii ) Evidence leading to the employer's reasonable suspicion that the employee was involved in the incident or activity under investigation; or
( 2 ) Admissions or statements made by an employee before, during or following a polygraph examination.
( c ) Analysis of a polygraph test chart or refusal to take a polygraph test may not serve as a basis for adverse employment action, even with additional supporting evidence, unless the employer observes all the requirements of sections 7(d) and 8(b) of the Act, as described in §§ 801.12, 801.22, 801.23, 801.24, and 801.25 of this part.
#### § 788.11 “Transporting [such] products to the mill, processing plant, railroad, or other transportation terminal.”

The transportation or movement of logs or other forestry products to a “mill processing plant, railroad, or other transportation terminal” is among the described operations. Loading and unloading, when performed by employees employed in the named operations, are included as exempt operations. Loading logs or other forestry products onto railroad cars or other transportation facilities for further shipment if performed as part of the exempt transportation will be considered a step in the exempt transportation (*Woods Lumber Co.* v. *Tobin,* 199 F. 2d 455 (C.A.5)). However, any other loading, transportation, or other activities performed in connection with the logs or other forestry products after they have been unloaded at one of the described destinations is not exempt. “Other transportation terminal” refers to any place where there are established facilities or equipment for the shipment or transportation of logs or other forestry products. Motor carrier yards, docks, wharves, or similar facilities are examples of other transportation terminals, but the place where logs are picked up by contract motor carriers or haulers at the site of the woods operations for transportation to the mill, processing plant, or railroad is not such a terminal.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00526-CR

EX PARTE Gregory JONES

From the Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014W0238

Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE MARION, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s denial of appellant’s 

habeas corpus relief is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED October 29, 2014.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice