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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 411 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 411

    Congratulating Jockey Calvin Borel for his victory at the 133rd 
                            Kentucky Derby.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2007

 Mr. Melancon (for himself, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mr. 
Boustany, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Baker, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Chandler, and Mr. 
Yarmuth) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Congratulating Jockey Calvin Borel for his victory at the 133rd 
                            Kentucky Derby.

Whereas Calvin Borel, born and raised in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana, began 
        riding match horse races at the age of 8 in the State of Louisiana;
Whereas Mr. Borel began his professional career as a jockey at the age of 16;
Whereas Mr. Borel is known for his work ethic and, even while ranked as a 
        leading rider, often gallops horses and does stable chores for his 
        brother before working horses in the morning;
Whereas Mr. Borel had raced, but not placed, in four prior Kentucky Derbies;
Whereas on May 5, 2007, in the presence of the Queen of England, Mr. Borel rode 
        Street Sense against several horses with stronger reputations; and
Whereas in 2 minutes and 2.17 seconds Mr. Borel and Street Sense completed the 
        race and placed first: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives commends Calvin Borel 
for his victory at the 133rd Kentucky Derby.
                                 <all>
```
From: braucgw@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:18:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Gary Brauckhoff

Burlington, WI 53105
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-570 and 731-TA-1346 (Review)]

## Determinations

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum foil from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission instituted these reviews on March 1, 2023 (88 FR 12990) and determined on June 5, 2023 that it would conduct expedited reviews (88 FR 44155, July 11, 2023).

                    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on September 19, 2023. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5459 (September 2023), entitled                     *Aluminum Foil from China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-570 and 731-TA-1346 (Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: September 19, 2023.

Katherine Hiner,

Supervisory Attorney.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2023-20594 Filed 9-21-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
EXHIBIT 10.6(b)







SCHEDULE A TO EXHIBIT 10.6(a)







The following individuals entered into director deferred fee agreements with The Ohio Valley Bank Company which are identical to the Second Amended and Restated Director Deferred Fee Agreement, dated December 18, 2012, between Thomas E. Wiseman and The Ohio Valley Bank Company filed herewith.







	
Name

	 	
Date of Agreement


	 	 	 
	
Harold A. Howe

	 	
December 18, 2012


	 	 	 
	
David W. Thomas

	 	
December 18, 2012


	 	 	 
	
Jeffrey E. Smith

	 	
May 20, 2003
From: praisehim@blackfoot.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:20:17 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services. STOP STEPPING ON OUR RIGHTS. WE DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR THESE THINGS

OR SUPPORT THEM.

Sincerely,

Luylla Claar

Ronan, MT 59864
From: kathrynjtoohill@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:06:41 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Michael Toohill

Sun City, CA 92587
Before the Second Division,

April 6, 1964

No. 68415.

protests 205444-K, etc. (New York).

#### Barbara Michaels Laces, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lace, not wholly or in chief value of cotton, rayon, or silk and that said lace is wholly or in chief value of a synthetic fiber (nylon), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: esteswmatthews@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:11:38 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Estes Matthews

, 97502-3314
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reydesel VALENZUELA-PARRA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50285

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Reydesel Valenzuela-Parra raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
| **Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders' Equity (Audited) (Parenthetical) (USD $)** | 12 Months Ended |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
||
| **Statement of Stockholders' Equity [Abstract]**                                                 |            |   |   |
| Common Stock, Dividends, Per Share, Declared                                                     | $ 0.785         | $ 0.78 | $ 0.78 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Aggregate dividends declared during the period for each share of common stock outstanding.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Regulation S-X (SX) -Number 210 -Section 04 -Article 3Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 505 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.3-04) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=27012166&loc=d3e187085-122770
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_CommonStockDividendsPerShareDeclared**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**num:perShareItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                         |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_StatementOfStockholdersEquityAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
No. P69/59.

protests 62/4181, etc. (New York).

#### William Adams, Inc. *v.*United States,

Maletz, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of glass articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Chadwick-Miller*Importers, Inc., *et al.*v. *United States*(59 Cust. Ct. 529, C.D. 3221), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 62242.

#### F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 313435-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. P68/518.

protests 61/5663, etc. (New York).

#### D. P. Harris Hdw. & Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of inner tubes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Seedman International Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 127, C.D. 3285), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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 Report of Credex Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-k for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the date indicated below, 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 his 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 operation of the Company.

Date: March 16, 2011

By: /s/ Denise Leonardo
    _____________________

    Denise Leonardo
    President (CEO)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Credex Corporation and
will be retained by Credex Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case No. 14,793.

#### UNITED STATES v. CHOTEAU et al.

[32 Hunt. Mer. Mag. 715.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

1855.

Customs Doties—Excess is Weight—Absorption op Moisture.

This was a suit to recover duty upon the alleged weight of a quantity of wool imported by the defendants • [Pierre Cboteau and others]. The custom house weighers made returns showing an excess over the weights specified in the invoice, which would amount to about $300.

Mr. Joaehimsen, Asst. U. S. Atty.,

produced witnesses to prove that the weight of the wool on its arrival here exceeded that specified in the invoice.

Messrs. Porter & Sanford, for defendants,

produced evidence to show that wool, by absorbing moisture while at sea, becomes heavier from one to five per cent.; that the wool in question was weighed in England, and the weighers gave the weight mentioned in the invoice; that the wool was kept here in a dry place after its arrival, and so decreased in weight that it was sold at a less weight than that mentioned in the invoice.

THE COURT

(BETTS, District Judge)

charged the jury that although the increased weight may have accrued from moisture, or any other action of the elements,—except being exposed to or injured by sea water,— tlie wool was liable to pay duty at this port on the weight here.

The jury brought in a sealed verdict for plaintiff.

Mr. Joaehimsen moved for a reference to ascertain the amount of duty to which the wool was liable, and named Mr. Bridgham as the reference.
H. Res. 370 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 8, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 

to consider in the House the concurrent resolution (S. Con. 

Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget for the 

United States Government for fiscal year 2008 and including 

the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and 

2009 through 2012. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 

consisting of the text of House Concurrent Resolution 99, as 

adopted by the House, shall be considered as adopted. All 

points of order against the concurrent resolution, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 

ordered on the concurrent resolution, as amended, to final 

adoption without intervening motion or demand for division 

of the question. If the Senate concurrent resolution, as 

amended, is adopted, then it shall be in order to move that 

the House insist on its amendment to the concurrent resolution and request a conference with the Senate thereon. The 
2 

•HRES 370 EH 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on that motion to adoption without intervening motion. 

Attest: 

Clerk.