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

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5489

To provide Capitol-flown flags to the families of deceased law enforcement

officers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 18, 2000

Mr. GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide Capitol-flown flags to the families of deceased

law enforcement officers.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Law Enforcement Offi5 cers Flag Memorial Act of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. CAPITOL-FLOWN FLAGS FOR FAMILIES OF DE7 CEASED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

8 (a) AUTHORITY.—

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—The family of a deceased law

10 enforcement officer may request, and the Attorney
2

•HR 5489 IH

1 General shall provide to such family, a Capitol-flown

2 flag, which shall be supplied to the Attorney General

3 by the Architect of the Capitol. The family shall pay

4 the cost of such flag, including shipping.

5 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Paragraph (1) shall

6 take effect on the date on which the Attorney Gen7 eral establishes the procedure required by subsection

8 (b).

9 (b) PROCEDURE.—Not later than 180 days after the

10 date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall

11 establish a procedure (including any appropriate forms)

12 by which the family of a deceased law enforcement officer

13 may request, and provide sufficient information to deter14 mine such officer’s eligibility for, a Capitol-flown flag.

15 (c) APPLICABILITY.—This Act shall only apply to a

16 deceased law enforcement officer who died on or after the

17 date of enactment of this Act.

18 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act—

19 (1) the term ‘‘Capitol-flown flag’’ means a

20 United States flag flown over the United States

21 Capitol in honor of the deceased law enforcement of22 ficer for whom such flag is requested; and

23 (2) the term ‘‘deceased law enforcement officer’’

24 means a person who was charged with protecting

25 public safety, who was authorized to make arrests by
3

•HR 5489 IH

1 a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency,

2 and who died while employed by such an agency or

3 after retiring in good standing from such an agency.

Æ
§ 109-1.5112 Loss, damage, or destruction of personal property in possession of DOE direct operations. DOE offices shall establish procedures to provide for the reporting, documentation, and investigation of instances of loss, damage, or destruction of personal property including: ( a ) Notification to appropriate DOE organizations and law enforcement offices;
( b ) Determination of cause or origin;
( c ) Liability and responsibility for repair or replacement; and
( d ) Actions taken to prevent further loss, damage, or destruction, and to prevent repetition of similar incidents.
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

Plaintiff, COLLECTIVE ACTION 

vs.

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC,

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, 

RJ RIVER, LLC AND 

ROMAN JONES,

Defendants.

______________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF FILING AMENDED CONSENTS TO JOIN 

(Martin Viteri and Alexander Martinez) 

 

Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, notices the Court and all parties of the filing of the Amended 

Consents to Join in these proceedings by Martin Viteri and Alexander Martinez.

Dated this 18th day of August 2023. 

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 174742

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiff(s)

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 191 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2023 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 121 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15773]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Report No. 2418; Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification 
of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

June 16, 2000.
    Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification have been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and 
published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of this 
document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. or may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to 
these petitions must be filed by July 7, 2000 (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). 
Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time 
for filing oppositions has expired.
    Subject: Establishment of a class A Television Service (MM Docket 
No. 00-10).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 15.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15773 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
§ 109-28.5004 Justification and review procedures. Procedures shall provide for the following: ( a ) The original decision to classify and retain equipment as EHFFP shall be justified in writing, providing sufficient detail to support the need for retention of the equipment. This justification will cite the project for which retained, the potential use to be made of the equipment, or other reasons for retention.
( b ) The validity of the initial classification EHFFP shall be reviewed by management at a level above that of the individual making the initial determination.
( c ) Retention of equipment as EHFFP must be rejustified annually to ensure that original justifications remain valid. The rejustifications will contain sufficient detail to support retention.
( d ) When equipment is retained as EHFFP for longer than one year, the annual rejustification shall be reviewed at a level of management at least two levels above that of the individual making the determination to retain the EHFFP. Equipment retained as EHFFP for longer than three years should be approved by the head of the DOE field organization.
<PAGE>


                                  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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Allis-Chalmers
Corporation. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.



DATE: MAY 6, 2005                   BY: /S/ MUNAWAR H. HIDAYATALLAH
                                        ----------------------------------
                                        MUNAWAR H. HIDAYATALLAH
                                        CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


DATE: MAY 6, 2005                   BY: /S/ VICTOR M. PEREZ
                                        ----------------------------------
                                        VICTOR M. PEREZ
                                        CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 2458 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NM

- 122

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 1 

### 8 .0 $ 1,530.0 0 $ 1,530.00 

### 8 51 $ 1,302,030.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of p roducts in compliance: 

### 0 Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 1,302,030 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Replacement 18 $ 1, 530.00 

### $4,110 $ 5,640.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field ca n also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibili ty Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to in clude specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 7, 2016

p0906 

# Order

Clerk September 7 , 2016

154359 & (4)(5)

MICHIGAN COMPREHENSIVE CANNABIS

LAW REFORM COMMITTEE, a/k/a

MILEGALIZE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 154359

COA: 334560

Ct of Claims: 16

- 000131

- MM

SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF

ELECTIONS, and BOARD OF STATE

CANVASSERS

, Defendants

- Appellees.

____________________________________/

On order of t he Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

The application for leave to appeal prior to decision by the Court of Appeals is treated as

an application for leave to appeal the September 7, 2016 order of the Court of Appeals.

The applicati on for leave to appeal is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for

consolidation is DENIED.
§ 105-68.935 Debarring official. ( a ) *Debarring official* means an agency official who is authorized to impose debarment. A debarring official is either— ( 1 ) The agency head; or
( 2 ) An official designated by the agency head.
( b ) [Reserved]
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-2458 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-122-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 18.0 $1,530.0

0

$1,530.00 851 $1,302,030.0

0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,302,030

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Replacement 18 $1,530.00 $4,110 $5,640.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
NO. 07-09-0106-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL B 

FEBRUARY 17, 2010 

_____________________________ 

JESSE EARL ANDREWS, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

____________________________ 

FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY; 

NO. 20512-C; HONORABLE ANA ESTEVEZ, JUDGE 

______________________________ 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Jesse Earl Andrews, was convicted of burglary of a building.1

 After 

appellant pleaded true to the allegations contained in the enhancement paragraph, the 

jury sentenced him to 20 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant has appealed the trial court=s decision. We 

affirm. 

 1

 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a) (Vernon 2003). 
Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his 

motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in 

his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be 

predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 

(Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling 

authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has 

certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to 

withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this 

matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has 

also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has filed a 

response which we have carefully reviewed. After reviewing the response filed by 

appellant, we note that it does not raise any additional grounds to support an appeal. 

By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an 

appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and 

made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any 

arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 

109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 

(Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with 

counsel that the appeal is frivolous. 
Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s 

judgment is affirmed.2

 Mackey K. Hancock 

 Justice 

Do not publish. 

 2

Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client 

a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a 

pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
#### § 105-68.955 Indictment.

*Indictment* means an indictment for a criminal offense. A presentment, information, or other filing by a competent authority charging a criminal offense shall be given the same effect as an indictment.
Exhibit 99.6



[Logo of PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS]



| |  |                                                                                                                                                                         
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP Chartered Accountants One Lombard Place, Suite
2300 Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3B 0X6 Telephone +1 (204) 926 2400 Facsimile +1 (204) 944 1020



November 17, 2005





Consent of Independent Auditors



We
hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of CanWest Global Communications Corp. of our report dated November 17, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements of CanWest Global Communications
Corp. as of August 31, 2005 and 2004 and for the years ended August 31, 2005 and 2004. We also consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of our comments by auditors on Canada-US reporting difference dated
November 17, 2005.





/S/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS



Chartered Accountants





PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to the Canadian firm of
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1176

___________

Bernard Gerstner, Jr.; Dale Sprague; *

Ronald Cornelius, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Sebig, LLC; Arlo W. Erickson, in his *

individual capacity only; Donald * [UNPUBLISHED]

Roberts, in his individual capacity only; *

B. A. Schawinsky, in his individual *

capacity only; Pat Stewart, in her *

individual capacity only, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 28, 2011

Filed: July 5, 2011

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bernard Gerstner, Dale Sprague, and Ronald Cornelius (collectively,

appellants) previously appealed the dismissal of their civil complaint alleging

securities violations. We affirmed the dismissal, except as to their claim based on the

sale of unregistered securities under 15 U.S.C. § 77e(a). See Gerstner v. Sebig, LLC,

386 Fed. Appx. 573 (8th Cir. 2010) (unpublished per curiam). They now appeal the
district court’s1

 dismissal of the unregistered-securities claim as untimely. After

careful review, we agree with the district court that the claim was not timely filed, and

conclude that appellants were not entitled to equitable tolling. See 15 U.S.C.

§ 77l(a)(1) (allowing private cause of action for violations of § 77e); 15 U.S.C. § 77m

(providing limitations period for actions to enforce liability created under § 77l(a)(1));

Firstcom, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 555 F.3d 669, 674-75 (8th Cir. 2009). We also

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’

motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440

F.3d 930, 933-34 (8th Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-
#### § 101-29.218 Voluntary standards.

*Voluntary standards* are established generally by private sector bodies and available for use by any person or organization, private or governmental. The term includes what are commonly referred to as “industry standards” as well as “consensus standards,” but does not include professional standards of personal conduct, institutional codes of ethics, private standards of individual firms, or standards mandated by law such as those contained in the United States Pharmacopeia as referenced in 21 U.S.C. 351.
Exhibit 13.1




Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on
Form 20-F of Stena AB (publ) (the "Company") for the year ended December 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Dan Sten Olsson, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Staffan Hultgren, as Principal Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their
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/
      Dan Sten OlssonName:
      Dan Sten OlssonTitle:
      Chief Executive OfficerDate:
      November 3, 2008­­­/s/
      Staffan HultgrenName:
      Staffan HultgrenTitle:
      Principal Financial OfficerDate:
      November 3, 2008




This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except
to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.




A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.