alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

May 16, 1939 

Honorable G. M. Mann 

County Auditor, Hill County 

Hillsboro, Texas 

Dear Mr. Mann: 

expenses 

election 

We are in receipt of yo 

request our opinion on the a 

you set forth the following 

Hill County has ret ty-wide election for 

The election 

your desire to kn 

election expense 

operly chargeable the 

should be charg 

e sale of the bonds are to be 

lly to the entire county. 

1 Statutes, 1925, provides in 

fn providing voting booths, 

r rubber stamps, tallyon cards, ballot boxes, onveelection called in your county was a special 

comes within the purview of this statute. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GF2WU.L OF TEXAS 

CEC-a BY (signed) 

Clarence E. Crows 

APPROVED: Assistant 

Gerald C. Mann (signed) (Stamped:) Approved 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS Opinion Committee 

BY: 0. R. L 

no Sol""",5.1,0* IS 10 .s SO"aT~"ID .s I m.rh""s.rl% on"loa ""Law aPP9ov.D n I", .~~Omll~~ . . . . ..Cd nlCT mm".* Chairman
Fw: MTVL submerged fill commenters -- for OMB

Penny Lassiter to: Cortney_Higgins 03/24/2011 02:50 PM

Cc: Mary Kissell, Steve Shedd

History: This message has been forwarded.

Cortney,

Per our call yesterday, you requested the names of the commenters on the Marine Tank Vessel Loading 

Operations category within the RTR rulemaking package. Please see information below. Thanks.

Penny Lassiter

Group Leader

Refining and Chemicals Group (D205-01)

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. EPA

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541-5396

----- Forwarded by Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/24/2011 02:49 PM -----

From: Steve Shedd/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US

Cc: Mary Kissell/RTP/USEPA/US, ksschaffner@rti.org

Date: 03/24/2011 09:09 AM

Subject: MTVL submerged fill commenters -- for OMB

Penny, Here in "[ ]" are the identification of commenters in the preamble on submerged fill.

#280 -- Christopher Colman, HESS, representing HOVENSA LLC

#301 -- Jennifer Carpenter, The American Waterways Operators

#359 -- Matthew Todd, American Petroleum Institute

About page 71, or 3rd comment-response under "C. Marine Tank Vessel Loading

Operations"

Comment: Three commenters [280, 301,359] supported 

submerged fill requirements. One commenter[359] supported the 

requirement for submerged fill for previously-exempt 

subcategories and stated that submerged fill is cost effective. 

One commenter [301] agreed with EPA’s decision to establish 

submerged fill as the MACT floor. The commenters [301] noted 
that submerged fill, as defined by the Coast Guard, has been

standard industry practice for some time, reduces HAP emissions, 

and eliminates static electricity from free-falling cargo, 

thereby enhancing operational safety. One commenter [280]

suggested that if additional control is needed, a work practice 

standard (submerged fill) should be adopted for the offshore 

loading subcategory instead of 99 percent efficient vapor control 

systems. 

Response: The commenters agree with the proposal to require 

submerged fill as the floor level of control for the two 

subcategories not previously regulated (those facilities emitting 

less than 10/25 TPY of HAP from MTVLO, and those facilities 

located more than 0.5 miles from shore). We have included the 

submerged fill requirement in the final rule.

Stephen Shedd, Refining and Chemicals Group, (E143-01)

Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27707

Voice: 919 541-5397 Fax: 919 685-3195
#### Pedro NADAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1228.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 1, 1977.

Duran, Cantera, Kalish, Schere & Press and Robert M. Hoffman, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Linda Collins Hertz and Ronald A. Dion, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Floyd v. State,*90 So.2d 105 (Fla.1956); *Pearson v. State,*213 So.2d 616 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); *Williams v. State,*280 So.2d 516 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); *Wallace v. State,*319 So.2d 117 (Fla.3d DCA 1975) and *Cappetta v. Wainwright,*203 So.2d 609 (Fla.1967); *State v. Barber,*301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974); *Crespo v. State,*339 So.2d 697 (Fla.3d DCA 1976) and *Sowell v. State,*342 So.2d 969 (Fla.1977).
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2239 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2239

 To direct the head of each agency to treat relevant military training 
  as sufficient to satisfy training or certification requirements for 
                           Federal licenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 27, 2012

Mr. Nelson of Florida (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Blumenthal, and Ms. 
  Klobuchar) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the head of each agency to treat relevant military training 
  as sufficient to satisfy training or certification requirements for 
                           Federal licenses.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veteran Skills to Jobs Act of 
2012''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF RELEVANT MILITARY TRAINING AS SUFFICIENT TO 
              SATISFY TRAINING OR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 
              FEDERAL LICENSES.

    The head of each agency (as defined under section 551 of title 5, 
United States Code) shall deem an applicant for a license issued by the 
agency who has received relevant training while serving as a member of 
the Armed Forces, as determined by the head of the agency, to have 
satisfied any training or certification requirements for the license, 
unless the head of the agency determines that the training received by 
the applicant is substantially different from the training or 
certification required for the license.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Jagged
Peak, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 25, 2009, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                          
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Date: November 5, 2009
|                       | 
|By:                    |  | /s/    Paul B. Demirdjian
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549



                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

       Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): January 18, 2008

                             Oneida Financial Corp.
             ------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

          Federal                       000-25101                 16-1561678
----------------------------       -------------------       -------------------
(State or other jurisdiction        (SEC File Number)          (I.R.S. Employer
     of incorporation)                                       Identification No.)

                  182 Main Street, Oneida, New York 13421-1676
                  --------------------------------------------
                    (Address of principal executive offices)
                    ----------------------------------------

       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (315) 363-2000


                                 Not Applicable
        ----------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)



<PAGE>

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to
simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the
following provision:

[_]   Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17
      CFR 230.425)

[_]   Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.14a-12)

[_]   Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the
      Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

[_]   Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(C) under the
      Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(C))


Item 8   Other Events
         ------------

         Oneida Financial Corp. declared a cash dividend of $0.24 per share on
the Company's common stock for the six month period ended December 31, 2007. The
dividend is payable to shareholders of record as of January 29, 2008 and will be
paid on February 12, 2008.





<PAGE>

                                    SIGNATURE
                                    ---------

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, hereunto duly authorized.

                                           Oneida Financial Corp.


DATE:  January 21, 2008              By:   /s/ Michael R. Kallet
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Michael R. Kallet
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer






<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT INDEX
                                  -------------

99.1    News release dated January 18, 2008 announcing the semi-annual dividend.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1179 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1179

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure that benefits 
   under part D of such title have no impact on benefits under other 
                           Federal programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 2005

  Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure that benefits 
   under part D of such title have no impact on benefits under other 
                           Federal programs.

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

SECTION 1. BENEFITS UNDER THE MEDICARE DRUG PROGRAM HAVE NO IMPACT 
              UNDER OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860D-42 of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395w-152) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(c) Benefits Have No Impact on Benefits Under Other Federal 
Programs.--Benefits under this part, including the availability of 
negotiated prices under this part and premium and cost-sharing 
subsidies under section 1860D-14, shall not be treated as benefits or 
otherwise taken into account in determining an individual's eligibility 
for, or the amount of benefits under, any other Federal program.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of section 101(a) of the 
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 
(Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 2071).
                                 <all>
```
Form of amendment to Change of Control Agreement



 Exhibit 10.27a 
  

			
	 Constar International Inc.
 One Crown Way
 Philadelphia, PA 19154-4599
 Main Phone: (215) 552-3700
	 	


	 
	 
	 

 November     , 2007 
 [name] 
 One Crown Way 
 Philadelphia, PA 19154 
 Re: Amendment Number 1 to the Change in Control Agreement 
 Dear                     : 
 Please refer to that certain Change in Control Agreement between Constar International Inc. (the “Company”) and you (the “Agreement”). In order to
comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) and to avoid the additional taxes that you would be subject to under Code Section 409A, the Company has agreed to amend the Agreement as set forth below.
Accordingly, this letter agreement (“Amendment Number 1”) will amend the Agreement, effective as of January 1, 2008, as follows (any capitalized terms which are not defined herein shall have the meaning provided in the Agreement):

  

	1.	The first sentence of Section 4.1 shall be amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows: 

  

	 	“4.1	Severance. Except as otherwise provided with respect to a ‘specified employee’ in Section 4.1.5, the Company shall pay the Executive the payments and benefits
described in Section 4.1.1 through 4.1.4 (the ‘Severance Payments’) within 30 days of the termination of the Executive’s employment with the Company following a Change in Control and during the Term, and upon execution of a
general release in favor of and if form and substance satisfactory to the Company, unless such termination is (i) by the Company for Cause, (ii) by reason of Retirement, (iii) by the Executive without Good Reason, (iv) due to
death, or (v) due to Disability.” 

  

	2.	Section 4.1.5 shall be added to the Agreement, which shall read in its entirety as follows: 

  

	 	“4.1.5	Notwithstanding the time of payment provided in Section 4.1, if the Executive is a ‘specified employee’ within the meaning of Code Section 409A and the
regulations issued thereunder for the period in which the payment or benefits would otherwise be paid (or commence), and such payment or benefit would be subject to tax under Code Section 409A(a)(1)(B) if the payment or benefit is paid within
six months of the Executive’s ‘separation from service’ (within the meaning of Code Section 409A) then such payment or benefit required under this Agreement shall not be paid until the first day which is six months after the
Executive’s separation from service.” 









	3.	Except as expressly modified hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 Please indicate your agreement with the terms and conditions of this Amendment Number 1 by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to my attention. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
		
	By:	 	  

	
	Agreed and Accepted
		
	By:
**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 China Shandong Zhouyuan Seed and Nursery
      Co., Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Zhang Chunman, 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) or 15(d) of the
      Securities and 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.




By:
            /s/
                Zhang ChunmanZhang
                ChunmanChief
                Financial Officer


Date:
      May
      20, 2008
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 Quarterly Report of Big Sky Industries III, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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) 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.



Dated: January 30, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President

Big Sky Industries III, Inc.
#### Malachy Lyons, Jr., Appellant, v Paul J. Donnelly, Jr., Respondent.

[612 NYS2d 246]

—In an action to recover, damages for legal malpractice and breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), entered October 9, 1992, which grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations, and thereupon dismisses the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied and, the complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiff retained the defendant to commence an action against the Long Island Railroad under the Federal Employers Liability Act for injuries he received in the course of his employment. The defendant commenced an action and thereafter a tentative settlement was reached with the Long Island Railroad. The court entered an order discontinuing the action with the right to reopen it within 10 days if the settlement was not concluded. The plaintiff commenced this legal malpractice action alleging that the defendant failed to timely reopen the action against the Long Island Railroad after the settlement could not be consummated. It was specifically alleged that the defendant’s failure to timely reopen the action breached the parties’ retainer agreement and a related escrow agreement.

The plaintiff commenced this action on September 19, 1991, more than three years after the cause of action accrued *(see,*CPLR 214 [6]) but before the expiration of the six-year Statute of Limitations for breach of contract *(see,*CPLR 213 [2]). Since the plaintiff sought recovery against the defendant for damages "to property or pecuniary interests recoverable in a contract action”, he was entitled to "the six-year contract Statute of Limitations” *(Sinopoli v Cocozza,*105 AD2d 743; *see also, Video Corp. v Flatto Assocs.,*58 NY2d 1026; *Santulli v Englert, Reilly & McHugh, 78*NY2d 700). Thus, the action *697was timely commenced and the complaint is reinstated with damages limited to "property or pecuniary interests arising from breach of contract” *(Sinopoli v Cocozza, supra,*at 743). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01


              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

Our audits included the financial statement schedule of Rational Software 
Corporation listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the 
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our 
audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, 
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-77382, No. 33-85906, No. 33-97044, No. 333-15015,
No. 333-15007, No. 333-21563, No. 333-22687 and No. 333-25815) pertaining to
the Rational 1983 Incentive Stock Option Plan, Verdix Corporation 1983
Incentive Stock Option Plan, Verdix Corporation 1986 Stock Option Plan,
Rational 1993 Stock Option Plan, the Rational Software Corporation 1994 Stock
Option Plan, Rational Software 1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Requisite,
Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan, SQA 1995 Stock Plan, SQA 1995 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, SQA 1995 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, SQA 1990
Incentive and Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, Rational Software Corporation 1997
Stock Plan and Performance Awareness Corporation 1997 Stock Plan, of our report
dated April 22, 1997 with respect to the consolidated financial statements
included herein, and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect
to the financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Rational Software Corporation.


                                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

San Jose, California
June 20, 1997
#### Willie George REESE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1622.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 1, 1977.

Willie George Reese, in pro per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, ÍUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Reese v. State,*276 So.2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. den. 283 So.2d 108 (Fla.1973).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6958

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTONIO MAURICE CHAPMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-98-10, CA-99-970-7) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Maurice Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Antonio Maurice Chapman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Chapman , Nos. CR-98-10; CA-99-970-7 (W.D. Va. May 10, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED