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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 216 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        August 1, 2001.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4) to enhance energy conservation, research and development and to 
provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American people, 
and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 90 minutes, with 30 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 20 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of each of the following 
Committees: Science, Ways and Means, and Resources. After general debate the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
shall be considered as read. The amendment printed in part A of the report of 
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, 
shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment 
under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. No further amendment 
to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part B of the report of 
the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall 
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, 
to the House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
    Sec. 2. Upon receipt of a message from the Senate transmitting H.R. 4 with 
Senate amendments thereto, it shall be in order to consider in the House a 
motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or his 
designee that the House disagree to the Senate amendments and request or agree 
to a conference with the Senate thereon.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
MARTIN O’MALLEY 

GOVERNOR 

STATE HOUSE 

100 STATE CIRCLE 

ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401-1925 

(410) 974-3901 

(TOLL FREE) 1-800-811-8336 

TTY USERS CALL VIA MD RELAY 

 STATE OF MARYLAND 

 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

January 16, 2013 

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA Region 3 

1650 Arch Street, 16th Floor, 3RA00 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Dear Mr. Garvin: 

In accordance with the requirements of Section 107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act, Maryland’s 

boundary recommendations under the 2012 annual fine particle (PM2.5) standard are provided 

below in Table 1. 

Maryland recommends that EPA designate all of Maryland as attainment with respect to the 

2012 annual PM2.5 standard. Based upon the 2012 PM2.5 design values from Maryland’s air 

quality monitoring network, no counties in Maryland violate the 2012 annual primary and 

secondary PM2.5 standards. In making this recommendation, Maryland has utilized EPA’s 

“April 2013 Guidance for Area Designations for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS” and reviewed 

the Five-Factor Analysis which includes: Air Quality Data, Emissions and Emissions-Related 

Data, Meteorology, Geography/Topography, and Jurisdictional Boundaries. 

Maryland is pleased to submit this recommendation, as it represents the first designation 

recommendation for either the PM2.5 or Ozone standards in which all of Maryland is in 

attainment at the time of designation. 

Table 1 summarizes the specific areas that Maryland is recommending be designated as in 

attainment. 

Table 1 

Maryland’s Fine Particle Designation Recommendation 

Designated Area Designation 

Baltimore Area 

Anne Arundel County Attainment 

Baltimore City Attainment 

Baltimore County Attainment 
Mr. Shawn M. Garvin 

January 16, 2014 

Page 2 

 

Carroll County Attainment 

Harford County Attainment 

Howard County Attainment 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Area 

Cecil County Attainment 

Washington DC Area 

Calvert County Attainment 

Charles County Attainment 

Frederick County Attainment 

Montgomery County Attainment Prince Georges County Attainment 

Hagerstown – WV Panhandle Area 

Washington County Attainment 

Remaining Maryland Counties 

Washington County Attainment 

Allegany Country Attainment 

Caroline County Attainment 

Dorchester County Attainment 

Garrett County Attainment 

Kent County Attainment 

Queen Anne’s County Attainment 

St. Mary’s County Attainment 

Somerset County Attainment 

Talbot County Attainment 

Wicomico County Attainment 

Worcester County Attainment 

Maryland recognizes that this boundary recommendation submittal is only the first step in the 

fine particle designation process, and looks forward to working with EPA and Maryland 

stakeholders during the final steps of the designation process. 

If you have any questions about this submission, please do not hesitate to contact Robert M. 

Summers, Secretary of the Maryland Department of Environment at (410) 537-3086 or George 

(Tad) S. Aburn, Jr., Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration at (410) 537-3245. 

Sincerely, 

Governor 

cc: Mr. Robert M. Summers, Maryland Department of the Environment
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsShock wave interaction with an abrupt area changeThe wave patterns that occur when a shock wave interacts with an abrupt area changed are analyzed in terms of the incident shock wave Mach number and area-jump ratio. The solutions predicted by a semi-similar models are in good agreement with those obtained numerically from the quasi-one-dimensional time-dependent Euler equations. The entropy production for the wave system is defined and the principle of minimum entropy production is used to resolve a nonuniqueness problem of the self-similar model.Document ID19910017826Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsSalas, Manuel D.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1991Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberL-16878NASA-TP-3113NAS 1.60:3113Accession Number91N27140Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-62-31-07Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910017826.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Merrimack,

Dec., 1894.

#### Ayers *v.*Boston *&*Maine Railroad.

Whether a plaintiff who was injured while attempting to load milk-cans upon a slowly moving train was guilty of contributory negligence, is a question for the jury.

Case, for personal injuries. Verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff shipped milk daily from the defendants’ station at North Boscawen for six months before the accident. It was the duty of those shipping milk to deliver it upon a platform provided for the purpose, and to hahd the cans from the platform into the car. The brakeman of the train was accustomed to help load the milk, and, after it was loaded, to give tbe conductor a signal for him to start the train. December 30, 1892, the plaintiff, assisted by other milk-shippers and the brakeman, was loading milk; and when all but five cans were loaded, the train started without any signal from the brakeman and without notice or warning to the plaintiff. The plaintiff hurriedly took up three of the cans, walked along the platform beside the car, which he ' perceived to be moving, tried to put them into' the car, and was injured.

The defendants excepted to the 'denial of their motions for nonsuit and direction of verdict, and their request for the following instructions : “(1) The danger from placing the milk cans on the moving train was an obvious one and was voluntarily assumed by the plaintiff, and therefore he cannot recover. (2) The plaintiff’s attempt to place the milk cans upon the car while the car was moving, the plaintiff knowing said car to be moving, was negligence on the part of the plaintiff which caused the accident, and the plaintiff cannot recover.”

*Sargent $ Hollis,*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph W. Fellows*and *Edward B. S. Sanborn,*for the defendants.

Blodgett, J.

It would serve no useful purpose to comment upon evidence such as appears in this case.

The defendants’ motions and requests were properly denied. *layman*v. *Railroad,*66 N. H. 200, 2(34; *Fossr. Railroad,*66 N. H. 256, 260 ; *Felch*v. *Railroad,*66 N. H. 318, 320, 322, 323; *Boothby*v. *Railway,*66 N. H. 342; *Walker r. Railroad,*64 N. H. 414; *Paine*v. *Railway,*63 N. II. 623 ; *Merrill*v. *Express Co.,*62 N. H. 514; *Nutter*v. *Railroad,*60 N. H. 483, 485; *Tuttle*v. *Farmington,*
      *20958 N. H. 13, 14; *Griffin*v. *Auburn,*58 N. H. 121, 124; *Paine*v. *Railway,*58 N. H. 611; *Gilman*v. *Noyes,*57 N. H. 627; *Sleeper*v. *Sandown,*52 N. H. 244; *Cheshire Railroad*v. *Foster,*51 N. H. 490, 493; *Page*v. *Parker,*43 N. H. 363; *Palmer*v. *Portsmouth*43 N. H. 265.

*Exceptions*overruled.

"Wallace, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
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 March 31, 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


May 13, 2005


<PAGE>  34
§ 831.2 Responsibility of the NTSB. The NTSB is required to investigate— ( a ) Aviation accidents as described in subpart B of this part;
( b ) Highway accidents as described in subpart C of this part;
( c ) Railroad, pipeline, and hazardous materials accidents as described in subpart D of this part; and
( d ) Any accident that occurs in connection with the transportation of people or property that, in the judgment of the NTSB, is catastrophic, involves problems of a recurring nature or would otherwise carry out the intent of its authorizing statutes. This authority includes selected events involving the transportation of hazardous materials, including their release.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50537 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE ANTONIO GARCIA, also known as Pepe, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-96-CR-23-1

- - - - - - - - - - March 21, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Antonio Garcia pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Based on information contained in the presentence report (PSR), the district court imposed a two-level enhancement to Garcia’s base offense level for his leadership role in the offense. This court reviews such enhancements for clear error.No. 96-50537 - 2 - United States v. Ayala , 47 F.3d 688, 690 (5th Cir. 1995). There must be an adequate evidentiary basis for the court’s fact findings at the sentencing hearing. United States v. Rodriguez , 897 F.2d 1324, 1327-28 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 857 (1990). The PSR detailed Garcia’s distribution activity with Cortez. In specific relation to Garcia’s leadership role, the PSR stated, “[a]ccording to the case agents, Garcia appeared to control most of the negotiations, as well as the actions of Cortez, who was described as Garcia’s personal driver/bodyguard.” The PSR went on to say that Cortez had been introduced as the driver for the transaction and that Cortez "rarely participated" in the conversations regarding the drug transaction. This is more than a mere conclusional statement on the part of the agents. The case agents’ assessment that "Garcia appeared" to lead the enterprise based on specific facts, recited in the PSR, was sufficient to establish the factual predicate justifying the adjustment by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Elwood , 999 F.2d 814, 817 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1474.html[7/23/2015 11:48:08 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvo-w3kz

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-1474

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Jesus Escobedo

General Comment

Dear Sirs or To Whom it May Concern:

I have spent my life working towards your retirement, and I do not want any government bureaucrat redefining

 retirement or 

affecting my retirement plan . 

Please stop any presidential plan administered by the DOL that will restrict my own retirement plans. I am not in

 favor

of any plan that may influence or restrict my plans for me and my family.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00174-CR

GILBERT SANTOS GARCIA JR.

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 213-10-CR-S1

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified. 

The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 20, 2014
#### § 601.28 Consideration of comments received.

All timely comments are considered before final action is taken on a rulemaking proposal. Late filed comments may be considered so far as practicable.
§ 577.12 Notification pursuant to an accelerated remedy program. ( a ) When the Administrator requires a manufacturer to accelerate its remedy program under § 573.14 of this chapter, or when a manufacturer agrees with a request from the Administrator that it accelerate its remedy program in advance of being required to do so, in addition to complying with other sections of this part, the manufacturer shall provide notification in accordance with this section.
( b ) Except as provided elsewhere in this section or when the Administrator determines otherwise, the notification under this section shall be sent to the same recipients as provided by § 577.7. If no notification has been provided to owners pursuant to this part, the provisions required by this section may be combined with the notification under §§ 577.5 or 577.6. A manufacturer need only provide a notification under this section to owners of vehicles or items of equipment for which the defect or noncompliance has not been remedied.
( c ) The manufacturer's notification shall include the following: ( 1 ) If there was a prior notification, a statement that identifies that notification and states that this notification supplements it;
( 2 ) When the accelerated remedy program has been required by the Administrator, a statement that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has required the manufacturer to accelerate its remedy program;
( 3 ) A statement of how the program has been accelerated (e.g., by expanding the sources of replacement parts and/or expanding the number of authorized repair facilities);
( 4 ) Where applicable, a statement that the owner may elect to obtain the recall remedy using designated service facilities other than those that are owned or franchised by the manufacturer or are the manufacturer's authorized dealers, and an explanation of how the owner may arrange for service at those other facilities;
( 5 ) Where applicable, a statement that the owner may elect to obtain the recall remedy using specified replacement parts or equipment from sources other than the manufacturer;
( 6 ) Where applicable, a statement indicating whether the owner will be required to pay an alternative facility and/or parts supplier, subject to reimbursement by the manufacturer; and
( 7 ) If an owner will be required to pay an alternative facility and/or parts supplier, a statement that the owner will be eligible to have those expenditures reimbursed by the manufacturer, and a description of how a consumer may obtain information about reimbursement from the manufacturer consistent with § 577.11(b)(2), (c) and (d).
[67 FR 72393, Dec. 5, 2002]
From: Knight, Brian [mailto:Brian.Knight@cbn.org] 

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 4:54 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Stay away from my retirement accounts. 

I have no desire to have the purchase of an income product imposed upon me. 

When I need/want to have an income product in retirement, I will go out and 

purchase one. 

Quite often, they are called ‘annuities’. 

Sincerely, 

Brian Knight, Ph.D.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

EXHIBIT 4.2  



	Number

B-	 	Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware Shares	 	Shares

-0-

Cusip No.




 
 

LIBERTY MEDIA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
  Series B Common Stock, par value $.01 per share
  Specimen Certificate    
    


This
Certifies that                        is the owner
of                                    FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE
SHARES OF SERIES B COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.01 PER SHARE, OF LIBERTY
MEDIA INTERNATIONAL, INC. (hereinafter called the "Corporation") transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of the
Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. 


Witness,
the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized officers. 



	Dated:	 	 	 	 
	

 	
 	

Liberty Media International, Inc.

[Corporate Seal]	
 	

 
	

 President	
 	

 	
 	

 Secretary














QuickLinks


LIBERTY MEDIA INTERNATIONAL, INC. Series B Common Stock, par value $.01 per share Specimen Certificate
Editorial Note on Part 396
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 396 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 396.7 Unsafe operations forbidden. ( a ) *General.* A motor vehicle shall not be operated in such a condition as to likely cause an accident or a breakdown of the vehicle.
( b ) *Exemption.* Any motor vehicle discovered to be in an unsafe condition while being operated on the highway may be continued in operation only to the nearest place where repairs can safely be effected. Such operation shall be conducted only if it is less hazardous to the public than to permit the vehicle to remain on the highway.
1210-AB32-2-1092.html[7/24/2015 5:44:52 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvp-sy9b

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-1586

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Jeffrey Hinton

General Comment

I think I will cash out my 401k so. U can't get it
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 amended Quarterly Report of Hampton's Luxury Homes, Inc..
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2001 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roy
Dalene, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

1.       The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of
         the Company.


/s/ Roy Dalene
Roy Dalene
Chief Executive Officer
May 27, 2005