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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 132 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 132

 To authorize testimony and representation in  United States v. Grillo.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 28, 2023

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize testimony and representation in  United States v. Grillo.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Grillo, Cr. No. 21-690 (D.D.C.), 
        pending in the United States District Court for the District of 
        Columbia, the prosecution has requested the production of testimony from 
        Daniel Schwager, a former employee of the Office of the Secretary of the 
        Senate;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent current and former officers and 
        employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request 
        for evidence relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Daniel Schwager, a former employee of the Office of 
the Secretary of the Senate, is authorized to provide relevant 
testimony in the case of United States v. Grillo, except concerning 
matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Mr. 
Schwager, and any current or former officer or employee of the 
Secretary's office, in connection with the production of evidence 
authorized in section one of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) All-19 

Democratic Party of South Carolina ) Agenda Document No. 14-15 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth, recording secretary for the Federal Election Coinmission 

open meeting on March 06,2014, do hereby certify that the Commission decided by a vote of 6-

0 to approve Agenda Document No. 14-15, the Proposed Final Audit Report on the Democratic 

Party of South Carohna. 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Peterseuj Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub voted 

affinnatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

Date' Shawn Woodhead Werth ( 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5

<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                         OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                 74,179
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       74,179
<PP&E>                                                 98,655
<DEPRECIATION>                                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        172,834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  39,635
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                               16,545
<OTHER-SE>                                            116,654
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          172,834
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            0
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    1,785,691
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (1,785,341)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (1,785,341)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (1,785,341)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.11)



</TABLE>
#### § 2555.600 Notice of covered programs.

Within 60 days of September 29, 2000, each Federal agency that awards Federal financial assistance shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the programs covered by these Title IX regulations. Each such Federal agency shall periodically republish the notice of covered programs to reflect changes in covered programs. Copies of this notice also shall be made available upon request to the Federal agency's office that enforces Title IX.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 04-625.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION 

Federal Programs and Services 

 Agreement between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MICRONESIA 

Signed at Palikir May 14, 2003 

 

 with 

Annex 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 MICRONESIA 

 

 Compact of Free Association: Federal Programs and 

 Services 

 Agreement signed at Palikir May 14, 2003; 

 Entered into force June 25, 2004. 

 With annex.
# PAC Table 5a

&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000This table was generated on 8/31/23.
§ 2556.400 What is termination for cause and what are the criteria for termination for cause? ( a ) Termination for cause is discharge of a VISTA from the VISTA program due to a deficiency, or deficiencies, in conduct or performance.
( b ) AmeriCorps may terminate a VISTA for cause for any of the following reasons: ( 1 ) Conviction of any criminal offense under Federal, State, or local statute or ordinance;
( 2 ) Violation of any provision of the Domestic Service Volunteer Act of 1973, as amended, or any AmeriCorps or VISTA program policy, regulation, or instruction;
( 3 ) Failure, refusal, or inability to perform prescribed project duties as outlined in the project plan, assignment description, or as directed by the sponsor to which the VISTA is assigned;
( 4 ) Involvement in activities which substantially interfere with the VISTA's performance of project duties;
( 5 ) Intentional false statement, misrepresentation, omission, fraud, or deception in seeking to obtain selection as a VISTA in the VISTA program;
( 6 ) Any conduct on the part of the VISTA which substantially diminishes their effectiveness as a VISTA; or
( 7 ) Unsatisfactory performance of an assignment.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7265

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1)

Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley,

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; 

Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Edward Chestnut appeals the district court’s 

orders denying without prejudice his motion to correct the 

presentence investigation report and denying his motion for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Chestnut, No. 4:05-cr01044-RBH-1 (D.S.C. Aug. 1 & Aug. 18, 2014). Chestnut’s motions 

for appointment of counsel and for preparation of a transcript 

at Government expense are denied. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### HARDWOOD MANUFACTURING CO. *v.*WOOTEN, for use, etc

Submitted March. 3,

Decided July 30, 1906.

Trespass. Before Judge Parker. Wilcox superior court. January 30, 1905.

*Nal Lawson,*for plaintiff in error. *Naygood & Cutis,*contra.

Cobb, P. J.

1. In the trial of an action of trespass for cutting timber it was not error to reject the evidence of a witness who offered to testify that about the time the timber was cut the plaintiff offered to sell the same "for a good deal less” than he testified on the trial it was worth. The evidence was too indefinite to be of any aid to the jury in determining the value of the timber in controversy.

2. The relevancy of the parol evidence and letter referring to an alleged settlement of another suit relating to the timber in controversy, to which the plaintiff and the person under whom defendant claimed were parties, does not sufficiently appear to authorize a reversal of the judgment on the ground of the rejection of such evidence, even if such evidence would be admissible at all, in the absence of a certified transcript of the record of such suit.

3. An instruction that the jury.might, if they saw proper, increase the amount of their verdict by the addition of interest is not rendered erroneous by the failure to state the rate of interest. It is to be presumed that a jury would understand that interest should be computed at the legal rate of seven per cent, per annum.

4. The verdict though apparently full, is not entirely unsupported by the evidence; and the discretion of the judge exercised in refusing to grant a new trial will not be controlled.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Reef Global Energy VIII, L.P. (the
Partnership) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Michael J. Mauceli, principal executive officer of Reef Oil & Gas Partners,
L.P., the managing general partner of Reef Global Energy VIII, L.P., certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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
      Partnership.





Date:  April
      2, 2010
              Reef
      Oil & Gas Partners, L.P.Managing
      General PartnerBy:
      Reef Oil & Gas Partners, GP, LLC/s/
      Michael J. MauceliMichael
      J. MauceliManager
      and Member(principal executive
      officer)





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 Partnership for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the
Partnership and will be retained by the partnership and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
BEFORE THE FEIXRAL ELECTIGN COMMISSION 

A15-03 

In the Matter of 

Audit Division ReeonmiendatiGn 

Memonndum on Brenda LawicBoe fiir 

Congress (BLFC) 

CKkTIKICA-nON 

I, Shdl^ R Gair, Deputy SecMaiy of the Fedcial ElcGtion Conunissioi^ 

do hereby certify that on August 03,2016, the Conunisskui decided by a vote of 

6-0 to qqnove the Audit Division Recommendation Memonndum on Brenda 

Lawrence for Conpess (BLFpX as recommended in the Memonndum fiom die 

Chief Compliance OflBcer and the Audit Division dated June 30,2016. 

Commissionen Goodman, Hiuiter, Pdenen, Ravel, WaMier, and Weintnub 

voted a&innalively for the decision. 

Attest: 

Q Date ' &lleyE.Q^ ~ 

Dqnily Secietaiy of the Commission
Rockingham,

No. 5370.

#### Mary Frances Staltare *& a. v.*Granite State Fire Insurance Company *& a.*

Argued December 7, 1965.

Decided January 31, 1966.

*Flynn, Powell & McGuirk*and *Raymond P. Blanchard (Mr. Blanchard*orally), for the plaintiffs.

*Sheehan, Phinney, Bass, Green & Bergevin*and *Robert E. Dastin (Mr. Dastin*orally), for the defendants.

Duncan, J.

RSA 514:9 provides in part that amendments “in *7matters of substance may be permitted in any action . . . when it shall appear to the court that it is necessary for the prevention of injustice . . . .” The defendants in support of their exceptions argue that while our system of pleading and practice is regarded as “liberal” and free from technical rules, “we have not advanced to the stage where liberality dictates that a party must defend in one action, two separate and distinct controversies not arising out of the same transaction.” They recognize the plaintiffs’ right “to bring the actions that they have against the defendant . . . companies.” No claim is made that the actions may not be rightly understood. *Cf. Porter*v. *Dziura,*104 N. H. 89. They urge however that the Trial Court erred because the causes alleged do not meet the standard for the consolidation of actions laid down by *Tinkham*v. *Railroad,*77 N. H. 111 as to “what on the whole justice requires,” and because the distinct issues presented by the new counts would unduly complicate the issues and confuse a jury, to the prejudice of the defendants.

The record indicates that the counts presented by amendment relate to the same contracts which give rise to the original actions. The record permits no determination of the extent to which evidence with respect to the alleged windstorm loss would be material upon trial of the counts alleging wrongful cancellation of the policies, the terms of which are not before us. The order of the Court to which exception was taken did not purport to determine the extent to which the issues between the parties should be decided in a single trial. So far as appears, it merely determined that justice does not require that the plaintiffs be required to bring new suits to present their additional causes of action. See Annot. 68 A.L.R. 2d 1372, 1375-1376. In this determination we see no abuse of discretion.

The defendant however regards the order granting the motion to amend as a determination that the “several actions ... be tried together”; and in oral argument stated that this issue was argued before the Trial Court at the hearing on the motion to amend. If in fact the order on the motion was understood by the Court and the parties to require consolidation of the counts for trial, the record before us, which contains no transcript of the hearing, affords no basis for holding such an order erroneous as a matter of law. *Pike*v. *Scribner,*101 N. H. 314. See *Allbee*v. *Elms,*93 N. H. 202, 204.

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.
**Exhibit 15.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statement (No. 333-185852) on Form F-6 of our reports dated August 15, 2014, relating to (1) theconsolidated financial statements of Sesa Sterlite Limited and subsidiaries (the “Company”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs regarding (i) the convenience translation of the Indian Rupeeinto United States dollar amounts, and (ii) the consolidated financial statements being retroactively adjusted to reflect the Reorganization Transactions) and (2) to the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting,appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2014. We also consent to the reference to us in Item 3A. Selected Consolidated Financial Data. 

/s/ Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP 

Deloitte Haskins &Sells LLP 

Gurgaon, India 

August 15, 2014
#### § 1706.149 Program accessibility: Discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 1706.150, no qualified handicapped person shall, because the agency's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by handicapped persons, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the agency.
§ 261.56 What happens if a parent cannot obtain needed child care? ( a ) ( 1 ) If the individual is a single custodial parent caring for a child under age six, the State may not reduce or terminate assistance based on the parent's refusal to engage in required work if he or she demonstrates an inability to obtain needed child care for one or more of the following reasons: ( i ) Appropriate child care within a reasonable distance from the home or work site is unavailable;
( ii ) Informal child care by a relative or under other arrangements is unavailable or unsuitable; or
( iii ) Appropriate and affordable formal child care arrangements are unavailable.
( 2 ) Refusal to work when an acceptable form of child care is available is not protected from sanctioning.
( b ) ( 1 ) The State will determine when the individual has demonstrated that he or she cannot find child care, in accordance with criteria established by the State.
( 2 ) These criteria must: ( i ) Address the procedures that the State uses to determine if the parent has a demonstrated inability to obtain needed child care;
( ii ) Include definitions of the terms “appropriate child care,” “reasonable distance,” “unsuitability of informal care,” and “affordable child care arrangements”; and
( iii ) Be submitted to us.
( c ) The TANF agency must inform parents about: ( 1 ) The penalty exception to the TANF work requirement, including the criteria and applicable definitions for determining whether an individual has demonstrated an inability to obtain needed child care;
( 2 ) The State's process or procedures (including definitions) for determining a family's inability to obtain needed child care, and any other requirements or procedures, such as fair hearings, associated with this provision; and
( 3 ) The fact that the exception does not extend the time limit for receiving Federal assistance.
[64 FR 17884, Apr. 12, 1999; 64 FR 40291, July 26, 1999]
|   | 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. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Date:      October 22, 2008 |   | By: /s/Neil K.      Warma                  |   |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                        |   | Neil      K. Warma                         |   |
|   |                        |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
----

----

First California Financial Group - 10K

|   | 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 operations of Registrant. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ C. G. Kum                                                                                             |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | C. G. KumPresident and Chief Executive Officer                                                            |
|   |
|   | /s/ Romolo Santarosa                                                                                      |
|   | Romolo SantarosaSenior Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer |
#### § 265.6 Must States file reports electronically?

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 53877, June 28, 2024.

Each State must file all quarterly reports (i.e., the TANF Data Report, the TANF Financial Report (or, as applicable, the Territorial Financial Report), and the SSP-MOE Data Report) electronically, based on format specifications that we will provide.
EPA Registration Jacket 69361

‐ 28