alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1612.6 Permissible activities using non-LSC funds. ( a ) If the conditions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are met, recipients and their employees may use non-LSC funds to respond to a written request from a governmental agency or official thereof, elected official, legislative body, committee, or member thereof made to the employee, or to a recipient to: ( 1 ) Testify orally or in writing;
( 2 ) Provide information which may include analysis of or comments upon existing or proposed rules, regulations or legislation, or drafts of proposed rules, regulations or legislation; or
( 3 ) Participate in negotiated rulemaking under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, 5 U.S.C. 561, *et seq.,* or comparable State or local laws.
( b ) Communications made in response to requests under paragraph (a) may be distributed only to the party or parties that made the request and to other persons or entities only to the extent that such distribution is required to comply with the request.
( c ) No employee of the recipient shall solicit or arrange for a request from any official to testify or otherwise provide information in connection with legislation or rulemaking.
( d ) Recipients shall maintain copies of all written requests received by the recipient and written responses made in response thereto and make such requests and written responses available to monitors and other representatives of the Corporation upon request.
( e ) Recipients may use non-LSC funds to provide oral or written comment to an agency and its staff in a public rulemaking proceeding.
( f ) Recipients may use non-LSC funds to contact or communicate with, or respond to a request from, a State or local government agency, a State or local legislative body or committee, or a member thereof, regarding funding for the recipient, including a pending or proposed legislative or agency proposal to fund such recipient.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 88 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 88

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
    Protection Agency relating to ``National Emission Standards for 
 Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam 
 Generating Units Review of the Residual Risk and Technology Review''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 16, 2024

 Mr. Hoeven (for himself, Mr. Daines, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. Capito, Mr. 
Barrasso, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Lee, Mr. Mullin, and 
 Mrs. Hyde-Smith) introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
  read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 
                                 Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
    Protection Agency relating to ``National Emission Standards for 
 Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam 
 Generating Units Review of the Residual Risk and Technology Review''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and 
Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units Review of the 
Residual Risk and Technology Review'' (89 Fed. Reg. 38508 (May 7, 
2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.1

             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
                  UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:
1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
   required to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
   10-K of RFMSI Series 2006-S7 Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");
2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
   do not contain  any untrue  statement  of a material  fact or omit to state a
   material  fact  necessary  to make  the  statements  made,  in  light  of the
   circumstances  under which such  statements  were made, not  misleading  with
   respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based  on  my  knowledge,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
   information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
   this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
   based on my knowledge and the compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
   servicer  compliance  statements  required in this report  under Item 1123 of
   Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
   the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
   in all material respects; and
5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
   asset-backed  securities and their related  attestation reports on assessment
   of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
   be included in this report in accordance  with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
   Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
   report,  except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
   of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
   on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
   information  provided  to me by  the  following  unaffiliated  parties:  HSBC
   Mortgage  Corporation  (USA),  Wachovia  Mortgage  Corporation  and U.S. Bank
   National Association.

Date:  March 26, 2007

By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:   Managing Director
IIA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 86 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service relating to ‘‘Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Regulations for Interagency Cooperation’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 16, 2024 

Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. RICKETTS, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. 

DAINES, Mr. LEE, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROUNDS, Mrs. BRITT, 

Mr. WICKER, Mr. CRAPO, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. MARSHALL, and Mr. 

HOEVEN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to 

‘‘Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Interagency Cooperation’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the 

4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to ‘‘En5 dangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SJ 86 IS 

1 for Interagency Cooperation’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 24268 (April 

2 5, 2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT 32.1





Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)








In connection with the quarterly report of Heartland, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Terry Lee, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Date: November 15, 2010





/s/ Terry Lee


Chief Executive Officer and Chairman


(Principal Executive Officer)
BILLING CODE: 6715-01-M 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION NOTICE OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 

84 FR 16671 

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME, DATE, AND PLACE OF THE MEETING:

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2019 AT 10:00 A.M. 

1050 FIRST STREET, N.E., WASHINGTON, D.C. (12TH FLOOR) 

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: 

The following matters were also considered: 

 

Preliminary Discussion of Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 

206 Presidential Election 

Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the New Jersey Republican State 

Committee (A17-17) 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Judith Ingram, Press Officer 

Telephone: (202) 694-1220 

Signed: _____________________________________ 

 Dayna C. Brown 

 Secretary and Clerk of the Commission 

Submitted: April 25, 2019
Exhibit 10.3

OUTSIDE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PACKAGE

Effective January 1, 2008, CompuCredit Corporation (the
Company) will pay each outside director who is independent in accordance with the NASDAQ and SEC rules governing director independence (an Eligible Director) the following for service to the Company:



|                                                                            |  |   |       
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | - | ------
|Annual Cash Retainer                                                        |  | $ | 50,000
|Attendance Fee for Each Board Meeting (including telephonic attendance)     |  | $ | 2,500 
|Attendance Fee for Each Committee Meeting (including telephonic attendance) |  | $ | 1,000 

In addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee will receive an additional annual fee of $25,000.
The Chairman of each of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the Compensation Committee will receive an additional annual fee of $5,000.

Each Eligible Director will also receive an annual award of the Companys equity with a value of $50,000 on the grant date. Each Eligible Director can elect to receive the equity award in one of the following
forms:



| |  |  | $50,000 award of restricted stock that vests in three equal annual installments beginning on the first anniversary of the grant date;
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | $50,000 award of stock options that expire five years from the grant date; or
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | $25,000 award of restricted stock that vests in three equal annual installments beginning on the first anniversary of the grant date and $25,000 award of stock
options that expire five years from the grant date.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Company will also reimburse all reasonable out-of-pocket travel
expenses that are incurred in connection with board and committee meetings.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1


                                AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                      TO
                            STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P.
                         EMPLOYEE UNIT INCENTIVE PLAN


          The Star Gas Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership") Employee Unit
Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended to increase the number of senior
subordinated units (the "Units") of limited partner interests that may be issued
under the Plan from 518,000 Units to 600,000 Units.

          As amended, the Plan remains in full force and effect.


Effective as of December 10, 2000
§ 905.735-502 Statements of employment and financial interests by employees. ( a ) Employees of the Corporation in the following named positions shall prepare and submit statements of employment and financial interests: ( 1 ) Executive Director;
( 2 ) Assistant Director Legal—General Counsel;
( 3 ) Assistant Director/Finance;
( 4 ) Development Director;
( 5 ) Secretary of the Corporation Administrative Officer;
( 6 ) Construction Manager;
( 7 ) Senior Architect/Planner;
( 8 ) Chief, Real Estate Operations;
( 9 ) Any Contracting Officer of the Corporation; and
( 10 ) Any employee classified as a GS-13 or above whose duties and responsibilities are such that the ethics counselor determines a statement should be filed.
( b ) Each statement of employment and financial interests required by this section, except that of the General Counsel, shall be submitted to the Ethics Counselor, Office of the General Counsel, Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1220 North, Washington, DC 20004. The General Counsel, as Ethics Counselor, shall submit his statement directly to the Chairman for review.
( c ) An employee who believes that his position has been improperly included in this section as one requiring the submission of a statement of employment and financial interests may obtain a review of this determination upon a written request to the Chairman.
[43 FR 60902, Dec. 29, 1978, as amended at 50 FR 45824, Nov. 4, 1985]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: November 6, 2009 meeting with Chrysler at NVFEL

FROM: Antonio Fernandez

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472

DATE: November 6, 2010



### ___________________________________________________ ___________________________

This memorandum documents a meeting held on Friday, November 6, 2009 between Tony Fernandez, Tad Wysor and Ed Nam of the Environ mental Protection Agency (EPA) and the following Chrysler representatives:

-Gary Oshnock

-Mike Renaldi

-Pete Mueller

-Mike Hartrick

Also participating via phone were representatives f or NHTSA including:

-Rebecca Yoon -Greg Powel

-Kevin Green

The discussion centered around additional clarifica tion of the proposed air conditioning credits, both direct and indirect. Additionally, Chrysler r epresentatives suggested additional detail in the descriptions of indirect emissions technology descr iptions. OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board, and as the Chief Financial Officer, respectively, ofCompuCredit Corporation, certify that, to the best of their knowledge andbelief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2004, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and theinformation contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of CompuCreditCorporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoingcertifications are made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.

This3rd day of August, 2004.
|        | /s/ David G. Hanna                                    |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   | David G. Hanna                                        |
|   | *Chief  Executive Officer and  Chairman of the Board* |
|   | /s/  J.Paul Whitehead, III                       |
|   | J.Paul  Whitehead, III                           |
|   | *Chief  Financial Officer*                            |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to CompuCredit Corporation and will be retained by CompuCreditCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-12294

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20717-JAL-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

ROMANCEE OSHAY GEORGE, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(September 18, 2017)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ROSENBAUM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-12294 Date Filed: 09/18/2017 Page: 1 of 3 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Romancee George appeals his conviction after pleading guilty to carjacking, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1). On appeal, George argues that the district 

court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to convict him because the government 

failed to demonstrate that George had the requisite intent to cause serious bodily 

injury or death: a required element of his offense. No reversible error has been 

shown; we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, even 

when raised for the first time on appeal. United States v. Iguaran, 821 F.3d 1335, 

1336 (11th Cir. 2016). “So long as the indictment charges the defendant with 

violating a valid federal statute as enacted in the United States Code, it alleges an 

‘offense against the laws of the United States’ and, thereby, invokes the district 

court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.” United States v. Brown, 752 F.3d 1344, 1354 

(11th Cir. 2014). 

Here, the indictment -- tracking the pertinent statutory language -- stated that 

George “with the intent to cause death and serious bodily harm, did take a motor 

vehicle that had been transported, shipped, and received in interstate and foreign 

commerce . . . from the person and presence of another . . . by force and violence, 

and by intimidation, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2119(1) 

Case: 16-12294 Date Filed: 09/18/2017 Page: 2 of 3 
3

and 2.” Because the indictment charged George with violating a valid federal 

statute, the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over George’s criminal 

case. See id. 

George’s contention that the government failed to provide a factual basis 

sufficient to prove the intent element of the crime does not implicate the district 

court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.*

 See United States v. Fairchild, 

803 F.2d 1121, 1124 (11th Cir. 1984) (defendant’s claim that an insufficient 

factual basis existed to support the indictment was non-jurisdictional). 

AFFIRMED. 

 * George denies expressly that he is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his 

guilty plea. His challenge is only to the district court’s jurisdiction. 

Case: 16-12294 Date Filed: 09/18/2017 Page: 3 of 3
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT 

George H. Wu (Cal. No. 38)

Ordered, That at 11:50 a.m. on Tuesday, March 27, 2007, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider 

the nomination of George H. Wu, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of 

California; that there be 20 minutes for debate, equally divided between the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 

Committee on the Judiciary; that at the conclusion, or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the nomination; that 

following the vote the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 

action and the Senate then return to legislative session. 

(March 26, 2007.)
RESOLUTIONS

CALENDAR 

NO

S. RES 

NO

SUBJECT REPORTED 

BY

1

 
TREATIES

CALENDAR 

NO

TREATY

DOC NO

SUBJECT REPORTED 

BY

2

 
* Signifies nominee’s commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate 

NOMINATIONS

CALENDAR 

NO

MESSAGE

NO

NOMINEE, OFFICE, AND PREDECESSOR REPORTED 

BY

3

THE JUDICIARY 

38 33 George H. Wu, of California, to be United States 

District Judge for the Central District of 

California, vice Ronald S. W. Lew, retired. 

Mar 01, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Leahy, Committee on the 

Judiciary, without printed 

report. 

43 6 Vanessa Lynne Bryant, of Connecticut, to be 

United States District Judge for the District of 

Connecticut, vice Dominic J. Squatrito, retired. 

Mar 08, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Leahy, Committee on the 

Judiciary, without printed 

report. 

ARMY 

44 212 The following named officer for appointment as 

the Chief of Engineers/Commanding General, 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, and 

appointment to the grade indicated in the 

United States Army, while assigned to a 

position of importance and responsibility under 

title 10, U.S.C., sections 601 and 3036: 

Mar 15, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Levin, Committee on Armed 

Services, without printed 

report. 

to be Lieutenant General 

 Lt. Gen. Robert L. Van Antwerp, Jr., 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

49 185 John Wood, of Missouri, to be United States 

Attorney for the Western District of Missouri 

for the term of four years, vice Todd Peterson 

Graves, resigned. 

Mar 19, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Leahy, Committee on the 

Judiciary, without printed 

report.
Case 16-29776 Doc 5 Filed 09/19/16 Entered 09/19/16 14:37:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-29776 Doc 5 Filed 09/19/16 Entered 09/19/16 14:37:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report for Rainchief Energy Inc. (the“Company”) on

Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange

Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned,Brad J. Moynes, President of the Company do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:

 

 

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the

Financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 

 

By:

 

 

/s/ Brad J. Moynes

Brad J. Moynes

President

May 3, 2013
#### § 16.23 How long an appeal takes.

The Board has established general goals for its consideration of cases, as follows (measured from the point when the Board receives the first submission after the notice of appeal):

—For regular review based on a written record under § 16.8, 6 months. When a conference under § 16.10 is held, the goal remains at 6 months, unless a requirement for post-conference briefing in a particular case renders the goal unrealistic.

—For cases involving a hearing under § 16.11, 9 months.

—For the expedited process under § 16.12, 3 months.

These are goals, not rigid requirements. The paramount concern of the Board is to take the time needed to review a record fairly and adequately in order to produce a sound decision. Furthermore, many factors are beyond the Board's direct control, such as unforeseen delays due to the parties' negotiations or requests for extensions, how many cases are filed, and Board resources. On the other hand, the parties may agree to steps which may shorten review by the Board; for example, by waiving the right to submit a brief, by agreeing to shorten submission schedules, or by electing the expedited process.