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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 179 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 45
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 179

                          [Report No. 107-113]

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2001

Ms. Pryce of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

    Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the legislative 
day of Wednesday, June 27, 2001, for the Speaker to entertain motions 
that the House suspend the rules relating to the following measures:
            (1) The resolution (H. Res. 172) honoring John J. Downing, 
        Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, who lost their lives in the course 
        of duty as firefighters.
            (2) The bill (H.R. 2133) to establish a commission for the 
        purpose of encouraging and providing for the commemoration of 
        the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. 
        Board of Education.
            (3) The bill (S. 757) to designate the Federal building and 
        United States courthouse located at 504 West Hamilton Street in 
        Allentown, Pennsylvania, as the ``Edward N. Cahn Federal 
        Building and United States Courthouse''.
            (4) The bill (H.R. 691) to extend the authorization of 
        funding for child passenger protection education grants through 
        fiscal year 2003.

                                                  House Calendar No. 45

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 179

                          [Report No. 107-113]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 26, 2001

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
-----Original Message-----

From: Daphne Sturgill [mailto:djsturgill12@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 7:13 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

We Americans are fully capable of choosing who we want to work with us in regards to our savings and 

retirement accounts.

LEAVE OUR ACCOUNTS ALONE!!!
ENTRY ORDER

201 9 VT 70

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2019

- 274

SEPTEMBER TERM, 2019

In re Michelle L. Sherer

(Office of Disciplinary Counsel) }

} Original Jurisdiction

} Professional Responsibility Board

}

}

} PRB DOCKET NO. 2020

- 013

In the above

- entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

¶ 1. On August 9, 2019, the Court received notice that respondent Michelle Lynn

Sherer, an attorney admitted to practice in Vermont, was disbarred from the practice of law in the

State of Colorado. The Colora do Supreme Court found that respondent engaged in multiple

instances of misconduct. As that court explained, respondent received a retainer from one client,

did almost no substantive work, abandoned the client

, and then refused to provide the client with

a refund or an accounting of her time. Respondent charged another client unreasonable fees while

failing to act diligently and reasonably communicate with her client. She also made knowing

misrepresentations to her client and to the opposing party during the representation. Additionally,

respondent failed to substantively respond to the clients’ allegations in the Colorado disciplinary

matter. The Colorado Supreme Court found that respondent ’s conduct violated Colorado Rules of

Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4(b), 1.5(a), 1.16(d), 1.15A, 1.15A(a) , 8.1(b), and 8.4(c) . It

determined that disbarment was the appropriate sanction

.

¶ 2. Our rules provide that thirty days after receiving notice that a Vermont licensed

attorney has been disciplined in another jurisdict ion, this Court “shall impose the identical

discipline unless the Court finds that upon the face of the record from which the discipline is

predicated it clearly appears, or disciplinary counsel or the lawyer demonstrates,” that such

discipline would be un warranted under the grounds set forth in Administrative Order 9, Rule

20.D(1) through (4). A.O. 9, Rule 20.D. Accordingly, th is Court issued an order providing

respondent and disciplinary counsel the opportunity to inform the Court within thirty days of any

claim that the imposition of identical discipline by this Court would be unwarranted on such

grounds. Absent such a showing, the imposition of discipline for misconduct in another

jurisdiction “establish[es] conclusively the misconduct” for the purpos e of imposing the identical

discipline in this State. A.O. 9, Rule 20.E. Neither respondent nor disciplinary counsel filed a

response.2

¶ 3. Accordingly, finding no basis in the record to conclude that the imposition of

identical discipline in this State would be unwarranted, an order of disbarment is hereby entered.

Respondent Michelle L. Sherer is hereby disbarred f rom the practice of law in Vermont.

Respondent shall comply with the requirements of Administrative Order 9, Rule 23

.

BY THE COURT:

Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

Publish

Beth Robinson, Associate Justice

Do Not Publish

Harold E. Eaton, Jr. , Associate Justice

Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.48 What steps must operators of collection sites and collectors take to protect the security and integrity of oral fluid collections? ( a ) Collectors and operators of collection sites must take the steps listed in this section to prevent unauthorized access that could compromise the integrity of collections.
( b ) As a collector, you must do the following before each collection to deter tampering with specimens: ( 1 ) Ensure that access to collection materials and specimens is effectively restricted;
( 2 ) Ensure that undetected access (*e.g.,* through a door not in your view) is not possible; and
( 3 ) Ensure the security of the facility during the collection process to maintain privacy to the employee and prevent distraction of the collector. Limited-access signs must be posted.
( c ) As a collector, you must take the following additional steps to ensure security during the collection process: ( 1 ) To avoid distraction that could compromise security, you are limited to conducting a collection for only one employee at a time. However, during the time one employee is in the period for drinking fluids in a “dry mouth” situation (*see* § 40.72(b)(1)), you may conduct a collection for another employee as long as the employee with “dry mouth” remains supervised.
( 2 ) To the greatest extent practicable, keep an employee's collection container within view of both you and the employee between the time the employee has provided the oral fluid specimen and the specimen is sealed.
( 3 ) Ensure you are the only person in addition to the employee who handles the specimen before it is sealed with tamper-evident seals.
( 4 ) In the time between when the employee gives you the specimen and when you seal the specimen, remain within the collection site.
( 5 ) Maintain personal control over each specimen and CCF throughout the collection process.
( d ) If you are operating a collection site, you must implement a policy and procedures to prevent unauthorized personnel from entering any part of the site in which oral fluid specimens are collected or stored. ( 1 ) Only employees being tested, collectors and other collection site workers, DERs, employee and employer representatives authorized by the employer (*e.g.,* employer policy, collective bargaining agreement), and DOT agency representatives are authorized persons for purposes of this paragraph (d).
( 2 ) You must ensure that all authorized persons are under the supervision of a collector at all times when permitted into the site.
( 3 ) You or the collector may remove any person who obstructs, interferes with, or causes a delay in the collection process.
( e ) If you are operating a collection site, you must minimize the number of persons handling specimens.
[88 FR 27640, May 2, 2023]
Exhibit 32.2

         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 Union Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [SECTION]1350, as adopted pursuant to [SECTION]906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of her 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 as of and for the
periods covered in the Report.

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


/s/ Marsha A. Mongeon
---------------------
Marsha A. Mongeon
Chief Financial Officer


August 11, 2005


<PAGE>
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 11


                            MERRIMAC INDUSTRIES, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)



                                                         Three Months Ended
                                                      ------------------------
                                                       April 3,      March 29,
                                                         2004           2003
                                                      ----------    ----------

Numerator:
Net income (loss) available to common stockholders..  $  230,931    $ (455,385)
                                                      ==========    ==========

Basic earnings (loss) per share
Weighted average number of shares outstanding for
basic net income (loss) per share
Common stock .......................................   3,120,891     3,120,591
                                                      ==========    ==========
Net income (loss) per common share - basic .........  $     0.07    $     (.15)
                                                      ==========    ==========

Diluted earnings (loss) per share
Weighted average number of shares outstanding for
diluted net income (loss) per share
Common stock .......................................   3,120,891     3,120,095
Effect of dilutive securities - stock options (1)         13,957           -
                                                      ----------    ----------
Weighted average number of shares outstanding for
diluted net income (loss) per share ................   3,134,848     3,120,095
                                                      ==========    ==========
Net income (loss) per common share - diluted .......  $      .07    $     (.15)
                                                      ==========    ==========


(1)  Represents additional shares resulting from assumed conversion of stock
     options less shares purchased with the proceeds therefrom.

Stock options and warrants did not have an effect on the computation of the
diluted loss per share in the first quarter ended March 29, 2003 since they were
antidilutive.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 238 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 14, 2001.
Whereas the retail price of motor fuels reportedly rose by as much as 300 
        percent in several locations in the United States during the hours and 
        days after the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001;
Whereas reliable reports suggest that the inventory of motor fuels in the United 
        States was adequate during that period;
Whereas no significant disruptions in the availability of motor fuels were 
        reported as a result of the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001;
Whereas several of the Nation's oil companies pledged to hold their fuel prices 
        steady during the period immediately following the terrorist acts;
Whereas the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has announced 
        that all of its member countries ``remain committed to continuing their 
        policy of strengthening market stability and ensuring that sufficient 
        supplies are available to satisfy market needs'' and ``are prepared to 
        use their spare capacity, if deemed necessary, to achieve those goals'';
Whereas some vendors of motor fuels in the United States may have taken 
        advantage of the uncertainty created by the terrorist acts of September 
        11, 2001, by knowingly charging in excess of a reasonable price for 
        motor fuels, a practice commonly known as ``price gouging''; and
Whereas price gouging is detrimental to consumer confidence and the economy of 
        the United States, and was particularly detrimental during the hours and 
        days after the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) condemns any price gouging with respect to motor fuels during 
        the hours and days after the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001; and
            (2) urges the appropriate Federal and State agencies to investigate 
        any incidents of price gouging with respect to motor fuels during the 
        hours and days after the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, and to 
        prosecute any violations of law discovered as a result of the 
        investigations.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 4.3(A)



 Exhibit 4.3(A) 
  
 CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF 
 Chase Auto Owner Trust 20    -     
  
 This Certificate of Trust of Chase Auto Owner Trust 20    -    (the “Trust”) is being duly
executed and filed by [                    ], a
[                    ], as trustee, to form a statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. §3801 et
seq.) (the “Act”). 
  
 1. Name. The name of
the statutory trust formed hereby is Chase Auto Owner Trust 20    -    . 
  
 2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust in the State of Delaware is
[                            ], Attn:
[                        ]. 
  
 3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate in accordance with the Act. 
  

			
	[                                      
      ], not in its individual
capacity but solely as trustee of the Trust
		
	By:	 	  


	Name:	 	 
	Title:
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 10.4(K)
(SOUTHTRUST BANK LOGO)
One Georgia Center
600 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308

March 26, 2004

Mr. David L. Gamsey
Chief Financial Officer
Innotrac Corporation
6655 Sugarloaf Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097

RE: Amended Loan and Security Agreement between Innotrac Corporation and
    SouthTrust Bank

Dear David:

In response to your request, SouthTrust Bank will begin working to document the
approved changes to your Loan and Security Agreement, as follows:

1.    The amount of the Facility will be reduced to $25,000,000, at your
      request, due to Innotrac's decreased borrowing needs.

2.    The Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio (Section 12.3) will be amended to be at
      least 1.30 times, effective December 31, 2003, through maturity of the
      line on June 1, 2005. As you know this covenant previously required an
      increase in the ratio from 1.25 times to 1.75 time on December 31, 2003.

3.    The Minimum Tangible Net Worth covenant requirement shall be $24 million,
      effective December 31, 2003, due to the valuation allowance that was
      recorded against deferred tax assets in the amount of $9.9 million.

All remaining covenants and terms of the Loan and Security Agreement will
remain the same, including, but not limited to, the Maximum Liabilities to
Tangible Net Worth covenant which requires the ratio to remain below 1.50:1.

These changes are being made based on the December 31, 2003, financial
information you have provided to us. A covenant waiver fee in the amount of
$15,000, will be debited from your account. David, we appreciate Innotrac's
relationship with SouthTrust, and look forward to working with you in the
future.

Sincerely,

/s/ Noble Jones
    -------------
Noble Jones
Vice President
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00305-CV

JOHN MARGETIS AND MICHAEL BRISCOE,

Appellants

v.

CANOPY CONSTRUCTION, LLC, EPSILON 

HOLDINGS, LP, GZH ENTERPRISES, INC., 

ANDREW HEAPE, TREY GIBSON AND NICK ZINDEL,

Appellees

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 82353

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, John Margetis and Michael Briscoe, have filed a motion to dismiss 

their appeal of the trial court’s summary-judgment order.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

Dismissal of this appeal would not prevent a party from seeking relief to which it 

would otherwise be entitled. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

 

1 Margetis and Briscoe have styled their motion as a “Motion to Withdraw”; however, we 

construe the motion to be a motion to dismiss.
Margetis v. Canopy Construction, LLC Page 2

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 21, 2012

[CV06]
#### § 374.301 Applicability.

These rules govern only motor passenger carriers conducting regular-route operations.

[55 FR 11199, Mar. 27, 1990. Redesignated at 61 FR 54709, Oct. 21, 1996, as amended at 81 FR 68345, Oct. 4, 2016]
Document Headings

                    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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), announces the establishment of the Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB).

The NIH Reform Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-482) provides organizational authorities to HHS and NIH officials to: (1) Establish or abolish national research institutes; (2) reorganize the offices within the Office of the Director, NIH including adding, removing, or transferring the functions of such offices or establishing or terminating such offices; and (3) reorganize, divisions, centers, or other administrative units within an NIH national research institute or national center including adding, removing, or transferring the functions of such units, or establishing or terminating such units. The purpose of the Scientific Management Review Board (also referred to as SMRB or Board) is to advise appropriate HHS and NIH officials on the use of these organizational authorities and identify the reasons underlying the recommendations.

Duration of this committee is tow years from the date of Charter is filed.

Dated: August 20, 2007.

Elias A. Zerhouni,

Director, National Institutes of Health.

[FR Doc. 07-4221  Filed 8-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
**ORDER** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0471 BRENDA ZASTOUPIL,

Petitioner and Appellant. vs. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD,

Respondent and Appellee. **ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME**  Upon consideration of Appellee ’s Motion for Extension of Time to file its response brief, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including February 14, 2024, to file the Appellee ’s Response Brief. DATED this ___ day of ______________________, 202 3 .

____________________________________ DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
cc: Brenda Zastoupil Aleea Sharp

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court December 27 2023

12/27/2023
Case Number: DA 23-0471
1210-AB32-2-1152.html[7/24/2015 7:01:06 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvr-56ui

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1646

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Hard working American Patriot

General Comment

This is just another money grabbing scheme by the government. Judging by how well they take care of our

 veterans and the fact that they give social security to people who never participated in the program but even give

 money to those who enter the country after retirement age, reminds us that the govt. is incapable of

 administering programs they set up and following their own laws. No way can we surrender the money we

 worked hard to save to federal employees to squander in the manner they have wasted and re-directed from

 social security the funds so earmarked. Collectively the government is corrupt, ill advised and power mad.

Let the people choose how to invest their retirement money and when in their life to use it. Do not let the

 government get hold of this large pot of money to waste and give to their political cronies. If we were smart

 enough to save it and dedicate it to our future, we can manage to spend it ourselves.