alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## J~E SlI, 

## /999

OnMay 7, 1999, the Department published aFederal Register Notice ofPublic Workshops, announcing aworkshop for water heaters onJuly 23, 1999. At the workshop, the Department is seeking discussion ofthe policy implications supported by the analysis. In addition,the Department will briefly review the analysis results and any comments on the trial standard levels. Priorto the public workshop, the Department will make publicly available the anlaytical results that it presently plans to use in its formal decision process. the material to bepresented will be the basis forthe technical Support Document for theNotice ofProposed Rulemakings. DOE staffand contractors are preparing thematerial. We have posted the analyses for water heaters at hlhtp://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/applbrf/clotheswasher.htm Please continue to checkthis site for additional postings. TheJuly 23 workshop format willbe a summary ofthe analytical results that will have been publicly available prior to the workshop, followed by a summary discussion ofthe comments received prior to the workshop. A senior DOE official also will facilitate a discussion on which standard levels participants at the workshop believe can be supported bythe analyses. The Department will conduct this workshop prior to our selection ofproposed revisions to the energy efficiency standards for water heaters andthe Department will consider output fromthe workshop in the development ofits proposal. Following the workshop, the Department will provide an additional comment period, during which interested particies will have an opportunity to comment on the proceedings at the workshop, aswell as on any aspect ofthe rulemaking proceedings, including what policy implications the commenters might draw fromthe analyses. The following table liststhe relevant dates. Clothes Washer Comments Due on web materials July 6, 1999 Workshop July 22, 1999 Comments Due onworkshop August 3, 1999

Please submit your written comments by e-mail toBryan.Berringer ,ee.doe.gov and/or to .Brenda.Edwards-Jones(bee.doe.gov Please send one signed copyto: U.S. Department of Energy, Attn: Brenda Edwards-Jones, Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable energy, EE43, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-2945. Please provide 10 copies ofsupporting documentation not attached to the e-mail or delivered electronically.
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.5



SECOND AMENDMENT TO
ERIE INSURANCE GROUP
RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES
(As Amended and Restated Effective December 31, 2014)




WHEREAS, Erie Indemnity Company (the “Company”) maintains the Erie Insurance Group Retirement Plan for Employees (the “Plan”) under an amendment and restatement effective December 31, 2014;


WHEREAS, the Plan provides that the Company may amend the Plan; and


WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Plan effective September 1, 2016 to include an additional participating employer under the Plan, namely Erie Resource Management Corp., an Affiliate of the Company.  


NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the Plan by amending and restating Section 2.19 in its entirety to read as follows, effective September 1, 2016:


		
	2.19
	“Employer(s)” shall mean the Company, Erie Family Life Insurance Company, Erie Insurance Exchange, Erie Insurance Company, EI Holding Corp., EI Service Corp., Erie Insurance Company of New York, Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company, Flagship City Insurance Company, Erie Resource Management Corp. and any other Affiliate which may adopt this Plan.




 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Second Amendment to be executed this 12th day of September, 2016.


ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY


ATTEST:
/s/ Patrick Simpson                By: /s/ Sean McLaughlin            


Title: EVP & General Counsel
No. 64152.

protests 29768-K, etc. (Boston).

#### Price Bros. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-2496, No. 33-49380, No. 33-72606, No. 333-00933,
No. 333-21999, No. 333-37136, No. 333-88088, and No. 333-117992) of Keithley
Instruments, Inc. of our report dated December 13, 2005 relating to the
consolidated financial statements, management's assessment of the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Cleveland, Ohio
December 13, 2005
No. 53009.

#### D. Hauser et al. *v.*United States,

protests 132059-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICHARD L. ALLEY, No. CIV-S-04-1934 MCE/PAN P 

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

TOM L. CAREY, 

Respondent.

__________________________/

October 17, 2005, the court dismissed this action upon the

ground petitioner’s default of a state procedure bars federal

review of the petition and the clerk of the court duly entered

judgment. Petitioner seeks relief from judgment.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b): 

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court

may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative

from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,

or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence 

which by due diligence could not have been discovered in

time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 

///

Case 2:04-cv-01934-MCE -PAN Document 22 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an

adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment

has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior

judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or

otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the

judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any

other reason justifying relief from the operation of the

judgment.

Petitioner does not demonstrate he is entitled to relief

from judgment.

Accordingly, petitioner’s October 25, 2005, motion is

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: November 2, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01934-MCE -PAN Document 22 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2


Date:   August 19, 2003

                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 FrontLine Capital Group (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
D. Burnham, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 June 30, 2003 (the last date of the period covered by
         the Report).


                    By:  \s\ James D. Burnham
                         -------------------------
                         James D. Burnham, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
                         (Chief Accounting Officer)


                                       53
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



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation (the Company) does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 1) for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report)
that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: December 23, 2005 |  | /s/ Michael D. Stern   
|                        |  | Michael D. Stern       
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                        | 
|Date: December 23, 2005 |  | /s/ Edward A. Stern    
|                        |  | Edward A. Stern        
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.



31
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4653 

To repeal portions of a regulation issued by the State Superintendent of 

Education of the District of Columbia that require child care workers 

to have a degree, a certificate, or a minimum number of credit hours 

from an institution of higher education. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 10, 2024 

Mr. LEE (for himself and Mrs. BRITT) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To repeal portions of a regulation issued by the State Superintendent of Education of the District of Columbia that 

require child care workers to have a degree, a certificate, 

or a minimum number of credit hours from an institution 

of higher education. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Childcare Worker Op5 portunity Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4653 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DC REGULATIONS REGARDING HIGHER 

2 EDUCATION QUALIFICATIONS OF CHILD 

3 CARE WORKERS. 

4 Any provision of Chapter 1 of Subtitle A of Title 5 

5 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, as 

6 added by the final rulemaking of the State Superintendent 

7 of Education of the District of Columbia issued on Decem8 ber 7, 2016, that requires a staff member of a child devel9 opment facility to have a degree, a certificate, or a min10 imum number of credit hours from an institution of higher 

11 education, including sections 164.1, 165.1, 166.1(a), 

12 170.2(a), 173.3, 174.2(a), and 174.2(b), shall have no 

13 force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0407. STEVEN EUGENE SMITH v. MARTHA C. CHRISTIAN et al.

On August 31, 2016, the trial court entered an order dismissing Steven Eugene

Smith’s petition for mandamus relief. On February 28, 2017, Smith filed a

“Certificate of Probable Cause” in the Supreme Court, which construed the filing as

an application for discretionary review and transferred the case to us. We lack

jurisdiction because the application is untimely.

An application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of the

entry of the order or judgment sought to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The

requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an

application for appeal made beyond 30 days. See Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734,

734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Here, Smith filed his application 181 days after the trial

court’s order was entered. Accordingly, the application is untimely and is hereby

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

May 17, 2017

05/17/2017
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

DAVID A. CARRASCO

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

MEGAN R. O’CARROLL, State Bar No. 215479

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 324-5288

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendants Avery, Cantu, Orr, Stetina

and Whisler

SA2006300595

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY HORSTMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. CANTU, et al. ,

Defendants.

2:04-CV-1644 GEB DAD P

ORDER

The court finds there is good cause to grant Defendants’ second request for an

extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Accordingly, Defendants’ June 5, 2006 request is granted and Defendants are granted

two weeks, to and including June 19, 2006, to file and serve a responsive pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 7, 2006.

/hors1644.eotresp2

Case 2:04-cv-01644-GEB-DAD Document 28 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS F. WEDDLE, No. CIV-S-04-1369 MCE/PAN P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

TRINITY COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT, ET AL., 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General

Order No. 262.

On April 27, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on petitioner and which

contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-01369-MCE -PAN Document 8 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 27, 2005,

are adopted in full; and 

2. The petition is dismissed for failure to exhaust state

judicial remedies.

DATE: June 15, 2005 

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01369-MCE -PAN Document 8 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 2
F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 5, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PATRICIA WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 07-6042

(D.C. Nos. CR-88-081-F and 

01-CV-1012-A)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-Appellant Patricia Williams, a federal inmate appearing pro se,

seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying her “Motion for Relief

from Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.,” and its subsequent

denial of her motion for reconsideration. In the motion, Ms. Williams challenged

the district court’s October 2001 disposition of her successful § 2255 motion to

modify and amend her sentence. She argued that: (1) she was not notified of her

right to assistance of counsel, (2) she was not allowed to reply to the

government’s response, (3) she was not allowed to be present when the sentence

was modified, (4) she was not notified of her right to appeal the sentence, and (5)

the government committed fraud on the court by failing to identify pre-Guidelines
- 2 -

conduct contained in two counts. Notably, Ms. Williams did not appeal from the

district court’s order and resulting judgment on her § 2255 motion. The district

court construed Ms. Williams’s current motion as a true Rule 60(b) motion, see

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), but it denied the motion as untimely,

given that Ms. Williams filed it in October 2006, some five years after the district

court entered its order on her § 2255 motion. In the alternative, the district court

determined that the Rule 60(b) motion was meritless. A district court’s decision

to grant or deny a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See

Yapp v. Excel Corp., 186 F.3d 1222, 1230 (10th Cir. 1999). 

To secure a COA, Ms. Williams must make “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires

that she demonstrate that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition

should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Given that the substantive

standard of review is abuse of discretion, we do not think it reasonably debatable

that the district court erred by concluding that Ms. Williams’s motion was

untimely after considering her failure to appeal the initial § 2255 judgment, her

five year delay in filing the instant motion, and the Supreme Court’s issuance of

Gonzalez in 2005. 
- 3 -

We DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH ALLEN NEIGHBORS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2238 GEB KJM P

vs.

R. AGATHA, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER FOR PAYMENT

 / OF INMATE FILING FEE

To: The Director of the California Department of Corrections, 1515 S Street, Sacramento,

California 95814:

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is obligated to

pay the statutory filing fee in effect at the time of filing of his action, $150.00. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments in the amount of twenty percent

of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. The California Department

of Corrections is required to send to the Clerk of the Court payments from plaintiff’s account

each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00, until the statutory filing fee is paid in full. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

 In accordance with the above and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

Case 2:04-cv-02238-GEB -KJM Document 7 Filed 05/16/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The Director of the California Department of Corrections or a designee shall

collect monthly payments from plaintiff’s prison trust account in an amount equal to twenty

percent (20%) of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's trust account and shall

forward those payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) until a total of $150.00 has been collected and

forwarded to the Clerk of the Court. The payments shall be clearly identified by the name and

number assigned to this action. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and a copy of

plaintiff's in forma pauperis affidavit on Director, California Department of Corrections, 1515 S

Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Financial

Department of the court.

DATED: May 13, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

neig2238.cdc.a

Case 2:04-cv-02238-GEB -KJM Document 7 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 2
**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 CHAAS Acquisitions, LLC (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
      J. Gardhouse, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(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 result of operations of the Company.














/s/
      RONALD J. GARDHOUSE


Ronald
      J.
      Gardhouse


Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)


May
      12,
      2006
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by 
reference in Registration Statements on Form S-3, File Nos. 333-04385,
333-40869 and 333-44421, of our report dated January 23, 1998 on MidCon Corp.'s
consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1997, included
in the K N Energy, Inc. Form 8-K/A dated February 12, 1998, and to all
references to our Firm included in these Registration Statements.


                                                  /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


Chicago, Illinois
March 5, 1998