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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 81 

To prohibit funding to the Special Representative for Racial Equity and 

Justice of the Department of State, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit funding to the Special Representative for Racial 

Equity and Justice of the Department of State, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Stop Imposing Woke 

5 Ideology Abroad Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION. 

7 Beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act 

8 and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Fed9 eral funds may be obligated or expended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 81 IH

1 (1) for the salary or expenses of the Special 

2 Representative for Racial Equity and Justice of the 

3 Department of State; or 

4 (2) to otherwise implement or carry out the Eq5 uity Action Plan of the Department of State. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE STEVE KOPROWSKI, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 01C

01-9711-CR-00530 Appellant, ) ) PUTNAM COUNTY VS. ) (No. 86-3 77-F Belo w) ) STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) The Hon. Leon C. Bu rns, Jr. ) Appellee. ) (Denial of Post-Conviction Relief) O R D E R This matter is before the Court upon the state's motion to affirm the judgment of the tri al cour

t pursuant to Rul e 20, Rul es of the Cou rt of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner

is appealingthe trial court's denial of his petition for post-conv iction relief as

timebarred by the statute of limitations.

As conceded by the petitioner , he is not entitled to rel ief based on our Supreme Court’s opinion in Carter v. State , 952 S.W.2d 417 (Te nn. 1997).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 2 0, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules. Costs are taxed to the appellant.

ENTER, this the ____ day of Febr uary, 1998.

_____________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, JUDG E CONCUR:

_____________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUD GE

_____________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of 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 operations of The Frontier Fund.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                            
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund
Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                              
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                               
|Brent Bales                                                                                                   
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC,
the Managing Owner of The Frontier Fund              
|                                                                                                              
|Date: August 12, 2008
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 18, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00862-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF W.Y.G.M. A/K/A W.G.G. AND J.N.G.-A. A/K/A J.A,

CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-79963

AND

NO. 14-22-00885-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.G.G. A/K/A J.D.G. AND M.E.G.G. A/K/A 

M.E.G., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-18930
2

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, M.Y.G.M., appeals a final order of termination signed November 

10, 2022, terminating her parental rights to the four children who are the subject of 

these suits. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable 

grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1978). The Anders procedures apply to an appeal from the termination of 

parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes there are no non-frivolous 

issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). 

On January 4, 2023, appellant was notified of the right to file a pro se 

response to the Anders brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329-30. More than thirty days have 

elapsed and, as of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error 

in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of 

the state.

Accordingly, the trial court’s final order is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain.
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Approved Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice publishes an approval of the Tribal-State Gaming Compact for regulation of Class III gaming between the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians and the State of Oregon. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         March 19, 2007.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the                     **Federal Register**                     notice of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. This compact establishes regulatory, oversight and monitoring roles between the parties. The division of regulatory, oversight and monitoring roles in this compact reserves for the tribe the primary responsibility for regulating Class III gaming on tribal land; however, this compact provides the State of Oregon, acting through the Oregon State Police, with important monitoring and oversight responsibilities to assure the fairness, integrity, security and honesty of the Class III gaming.                 

Dated: March 7, 2007. 

Michael D. Olsen, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. E7-4903 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
ex10-92.htm


Exhibit 10.74

 

 

EXTENSION OF MATURITY DATE OF WARRANTS

 

This Extension of Maturity Date of Warrants (“Extension”) is by and between the individual or entity named on the executed counterpart of the signature page hereto (such signatory is referred to as “Holder”) and OmniComm Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Maker”) and is entered into as of the day the Holder executes a copy of this Extension.

 

WHEREAS, Maker has delivered to Holder that certain 12% Promissory Note of the Maker (“Promissory Note”) dated December 31, 2011 in the aggregate to the Holder in the principal of $1,600,000. 

 

WHEREAS, the Maturity Date of the Promissory Note, as that term is defined in the Promissory Note, was January 01, 2015, and all principal due thereunder remains unpaid as of the date hereof.

 

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to extend the Maturity Date of the Promissory Note to April 1, 2017.

 

WHEREAS, Holder has all requisite power, authority, and capacity to enter into this Extension and to extend the Maturity Date of the Warrants.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Holder and the Maker hereby agree as follows:

 

	 	
1.
	
Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.



 

	 	
2.
	
No Other Changes. Except as specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Promissory Note remain in full force and effect.



 

	 	
3.
	
Warrants Extension. Maker hereby agrees to extend the expiration date on the Warrants issued in connection with the Promissory Note on December 31, 2011, which were originally scheduled to expire on December 31, 2015. The new expiration date is April 01, 2017.



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Extension of Maturity Date of the Warrants associated with the Promissory Note is executed as of the day and date the Holder executes a copy of this Extension. 

 

	
 
	
OmniComm Systems, Inc. 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ Thomas E. Vickers
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Thomas E. Vickers 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Chief Financial Officer 
	
 



 

[HOLDERS SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

 


 

 




 


  

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned represents that it has caused this extension of Maturity Date of Warrants to be duly executed on its behalf (if an entity, by one of its officers thereunto duly authorized) as of the date written below.

 

 

	
 
	
HOLDER: 
	
 

	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Cornelis F. Wit                                  	 
	 	Printed Name of Holder	 
	 	 	 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ Cornelis F. Wit
	
 

	
 
	
(Signature of Holder or Authorized Person)
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Printed Name and Title if Authorized Person	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	January 31, 2015	 
	 	Date
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 10, 2007
    
    /s/ Heath B. Clarke

Heath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Douglas S. Norman

Douglas S. NormanChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-4187

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TRAVIS ANTONE WADEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-01-284)

Submitted: December 6, 2002 Decided: December 24, 2002

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States

Attorney, Robert A.J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney,

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Travis Antone Waden appeals his conviction of one count of

possession with intent to distribute 212.2 grams of cocaine base in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2000). Waden pled

guilty under a conditional plea agreement and was sentenced to 144

months in prison and five years of supervised release. On appeal,

Waden argues the district court erred when it denied his motion to

suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. We affirm.

We review the district court’s factual findings underlying a

motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court’s legal

determinations de novo. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690,

699 (1996); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.

1992). When a suppression motion has been denied, we review the

evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. See United

States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). We have

reviewed the district court’s denial of Waden’s motion to suppress

the evidence seized from the search of his residence and find no

error. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
the Berkeley/Graham/Tiverton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, to the best of 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 operations of the Berkeley/Graham/Tiverton
Series.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                                            
|Robert J. Enck President
and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Berkeley/Graham/Tiverton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                                              
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                                               
|Brent Bales Chief Financial
Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Berkeley/Graham/Tiverton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund                 

Date: May 12, 2011
16

20

24

28

32

36

C

E

N

T

S

P

E

R

G

A

L

L

O

N

FIGURE 6

USGC VALUES FOR ISOOCTANE FROM DEHYDRO PLANTS

REQUIRED FOR 25% BTROI ON NEW ALKY INVESTMENT

REQUIRED FOR CASH COST BREAK EVEN)

DELTA VERSUS PREMIUM GASOLINE

0

4

8

12

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

C

E

N

T

S

P

E

R

G

A

L

L

O

N

ACTUAL BLEND VALUE PERFOMRANCE (OCTANE & RVP)
TABLE 4

USGC DEHYDROGENATION-BASED C4 ALKYLATION ECONOMICS

ISOOCTANE PRICE/VALUE SENSITIVITY

CENTS PER GALLON

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

CAPACITY: 10,368 BPSD (152,410 MGAL/YR) ISOOCTANE

FEEDSTOCKS

Mixed Butanes (48.88) (53.30) (66.18) (61.33) (42.72) (56.94) (94.76)

N-Butane 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Feedstock Costs (48.88) (53.30) (66.18) (61.33) (42.72) (56.94) (94.76)

VARIABLE OPERATING COSTS

Fuel (5.75) (5.05) (7.20) (7.58) (6.45) (6.91) (12.55)

Electricity (2.88) (2.95) (3.03) (3.08) (3.02) (3.18) (3.33)

Steam (2.96) (2.60) (3.70) (3.90) (3.31) (3.55) (6.45)

Catalysts & Chemicals (3.76) (3.76) (3.76) (3.76) (3.85) (3.77) (3.86)

Treated Water (0.46) (0.48) (0.49) (0.50) (0.51) (0.52) (0.53)

Total Variable Costs (15.81) (14.84) (18.18) (18.82) (17.14) (17.93) (26.71)

FIXED OPERATING COSTS (1) (9.77) (10.02) (10.22) (10.47) (10.57) (10.68) (10.68)

TOTAL CASH COSTS (74.46) (78.17) (94.58) (90.62) (70.44) (85.55) (132.14)

PRODUCTS

Fuel 3.99 3.51 5.00 5.26 4.47 4.80 8.71

Isooctane (2) 61.63 62.85 70.35 69.49 52.33 62.94 99.56

Total Products 65.62 66.35 75.34 74.75 56.81 67.74 108.27

CASH MARGIN (8.84) (11.81) (19.24) (15.87) (13.63) (17.81) (23.88)

ISOOCTANE PRICE NEEDED FOR CASH BREAKEVEN 70.48 74.67 89.59 85.37 65.96 80.75 123.44

CASH BREAKEVEN "GREEN PREMIUM" (3) 8.85 11.82 19.24 15.88 13.63 17.81 23.88

ADD POLYMERIZATION/HYDROTREATING INVESTMENT

Needed Margin @ 25% ROI (4) 4.34 4.45 4.56 4.68 4.80 4.81 4.92

ISOOCTANE PRICE NEEDED FOR ROI 74.81 79.11 94.15 90.04 70.76 85.56 128.36

"ROI GREEN PREMIUM" (5) 13.18 16.26 23.80 20.55 18.42 22.62 28.80

(1) Includes direct labor, supervisory & administative staff, maintenance, supplies, property taxes and insurance.

(2) Isooctane value derived from vapor pressure and octane blending calculations versus gasoline at 8 RVP and 93 R+M/2.

(3) Isooctane price premium above (below) calculated blending value required to produce cash breakeven economics (zero net cash flow).

(4) Simple before-tax return on polymerization/hydrogtreating investment only; no further return on pre-existing dehydro and isomerization facilities assumed.

(5)Isooctane price premium above (below) calculated blending value required to produce 25% BTROI on new polymerization/hydyrotreating equipment investment.
No. 60920.

#### Scanlan Wool Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 289439-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, effective July 1, 1955, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
**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 Annual report of Zann Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB
      for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George E. Betts, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





1. The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.





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





/s/
                George E. BettsGeorge
                E. Betts, Chief Financial OfficerApril
                7, 2006