alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 106–372—OCT. 27, 2000 114 STAT. 1425

Public Law 106–372

106th Congress

An Act

To provide for a study of the engineering feasibility of a water exchange in lieu

of electrification of the Chandler Pumping Plant at Prosser Diversion Dam, Washington.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section

1208 of Public Law 103–434 (108 Stat. 4562) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ‘‘OR WATER

EXCHANGE’’ after ‘‘ELECTRIFICATION’’;

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as

subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively, and indenting

appropriately;

(C) by striking ‘‘In order to’’ and inserting the following:

‘‘(1) ELECTRIFICATION.—In order to’’; and

(D) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(2) WATER EXCHANGE ALTERNATIVE.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—As an alternative to the measures

authorized under paragraph (1) for electrification, the Secretary is authorized to use not more than $4,000,000 of

sums appropriated under paragraph (1) to study the

engineering feasibility of exchanging water from the

Columbia River for water historically diverted from the

Yakima River.

‘‘(B) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out subparagraph

(A), the Secretary, in coordination with the Kennewick

Irrigation District and in consultation with the Bonneville

Power Administration, shall—

‘‘(i) prepare a report that describes project benefits

and contains feasibility level designs and cost estimates;

‘‘(ii) secure the critical right-of-way areas for the

pipeline alignment;

‘‘(iii) prepare an environmental assessment; and

‘‘(iv) conduct such other studies or investigations

as are necessary to develop a water exchange.’’;

(2) in subsection (b)—

(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘or water exchange’’

after ‘‘electrification’’; and

(B) in the second sentence of paragraph (2)(A), by

inserting ‘‘or the equivalent of the rate’’ before the period;

(3) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘electrification,’’ each place

it appears and inserting ‘‘electrification or water exchange’’;

and

Oct. 27, 2000

[H.R. 3986]

114 STAT. 1426 PUBLIC LAW 106–372—OCT. 27, 2000

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3986 (S. 2163):

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106–864 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 106–488 accompanying S. 2163 (Comm. on Energy and

Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Sept. 19, considered and rejected in House.

Sept. 20, considered and passed House.

Oct. 13, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

(4) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘of the two’’ and inserting

‘‘thereof ’’.

Approved October 27, 2000.
EPA Analysis of Veolia's June 7, 2012 Historical Data SubmissionAnalysis by Jennifer Williams & David OguleiAll years combined (12-hr rolling average, lb/hr)7/1/04-5/31/09HgMinimumMedianAverageMaximumNUnit 206.547E-060.0002750.0063616382586240Unit 306.474E-060.0002530.0059177752586240Unit 400.00339170.0086590.05985155225862401/2/05-12/31/08LVMMinimumMedianAverageMaximumNUnit 200.11628060.85877968.46872142102400Unit 300.13963050.9929177.816942872102400Unit 401.65655732.78927577.2880385521024001/2/05-12/31/08SVMMinimumMedianAverageMaximumNUnit 200.07817460.8319390.982479592102400Unit 300.05822510.82943681.594698672102400Unit 401.13264142.62672998.128117032102400Unit # Metal Date RangeNumber of DatapointsMinimum Median Average MaximumOPLsproposedby Veolia% of maximumhistoricalrate% abovemaximumhistoricalrateHg7/1/04-5/31/09 2586240 0 0.0000065 0.00027 0.00636 0.0057 90% -10%LVM1/2/05-12/31/08 2102400 0 0.1163 0.8587792 68.4687 140 204% 104%SVM1/2/05-12/31/08 2102400 0 0.0782 0.83192985 90.9825 189 208% 108%Hg7/1/04-5/31/09 2586240 0 0.0000065 0.00025276 0.00592 0.0057 96% -4%LVM1/2/05-12/31/08 2102400 0 0.1396 0.99290954 77.8169 143 184% 84%SVM1/2/05-12/31/08 2102400 0 0.0582 0.82943622 81.5947 193 237% 137%Hg7/1/04-5/31/09 2586240 0 0.0034 0.00865863 0.05985 0.078 130% 30%LVM1/2/05-12/31/08 2102400 0 1.6566 2.7892751 77.288 151 195% 95%SVM1/2/05-12/31/08 2102400 0 1.1326 2.62672949 98.1281 191 195% 95%234
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21009]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3525-000]


California Power Services, L.L.C.; Notice Of Issuance Of Order

August 5, 1997.
    California Power Services, L.L.C. (California Services) submitted 
for filing a rate schedule under which California Services will engage 
in wholesale electric power and energy transactions as a marketer. 
California Services also requested waiver of various Commission 
regulations. In particular, California Services requested that the 
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by California 
Services.
    On August 1, 1997, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Applications, Office of Electric Power Regulation, granted 
requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by California Services should file a motion 
to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with 
Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 
(18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, California 
Services is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or 
liabilities as a guarantor, endorser, surety, or otherwise in respect 
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or 
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of 
the applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is 
reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of California Services' issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is September 2, 1997. Copies 
of the full text of the order are available from the Commission's 
Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21009 Filed 8-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                         Independent Auditors' Consent
                         -----------------------------


The Board of Directors
Guest Supply, Inc.:


          We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (File Nos. 2-89233, 2-89234, 33-22872 and 33-63352) on Form S-8 of
Guest Supply, Inc. of our report dated November 18, 1996 relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Guest Supply, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
September 30, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, cash flows, and shareholders' equity and related schedule for each
of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 1996, which report
appears in the September 30, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of Guest Supply,
Inc.



KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Short Hills, New Jersey
December 27, 1996
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21197]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. FA94-1-001]


Minnesota Power & Light Company; Notice of Filing

August 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on April 7, 1997, Minnesota Power & Light Company 
tendered for filing its refund report in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before August 15, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21197 Filed 8-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Alphonso MIMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 75-2109.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 15, 1977.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Public Defender, and James K. Green, Legal Intern, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler, ■ Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAGER, C. J., and DOWNEY, J., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents, with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

dissenting:

The only defense offered to the charge of unlawful possession of narcotics was that the defendant was not aware of the contents of a package given to him by a co-defendant just prior to their arrest. At the trial, the co-defendant testified in Mims’ behalf. Mims’ counsel requested a jury instruction explaining that knowledge of the contraband was necessary for conviction. The trial court refused that request. By the jury’s subsequent questions it was obvious that the jury was concerned with the issue of knowledge. The standard jury instructions given did not cover knowledge. Under these circumstances I believe it was reversible error to refuse an instruction on knowledge. *Frank v. State,*199 So.2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967).
**Exhibit
      32.1**





Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)





I,
      Thomas
      A. Martin, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of ICON Capital
      Corp., the General Partner of the Registrant in connection with the Quarterly
      Report of ICON Income Fund Eight B L.P. (the "Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the
      period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report") certify, pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
      knowledge:





1.  The
      Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m); and





2.  The
      information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.








*Dated:*  *May
      15, 2007*





*/s/
      Thomas A. Martin*


Thomas
      A.
      Martin


Chairman,
      Chief Executive Officer and President of the General Partner


(Principal
      Executive Officer)


ICON
      Capital Corp.


General
      Partner of ICON Income Fund Eight B L.P.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1184 

To waive the passport fees for a relative of a deceased member of the 

Armed Forces proceeding abroad to visit the grave of such member 

or to attend a funeral or memorial service for such member. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 7, 2005 

Mr. BIDEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL

To waive the passport fees for a relative of a deceased 

member of the Armed Forces proceeding abroad to visit 

the grave of such member or to attend a funeral or 

memorial service for such member.

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

3 SECTION 1. PASSPORT FEES. 

4 Section 1 of the Act of June 4, 1920 (41 Stat. 750, 

5 chapter 223; 22 U.S.C. 214) is amended in the third sen6 tence by striking ‘‘or from a widow, child, parent, brother, 

7 or sister of a deceased member of the Armed Forces pro8 ceeding abroad to visit the grave of such member’’ and 
2

•S 1184 IS

1 inserting ‘‘or from a widow, widower, child, parent, grand2 parent, brother, or sister of a deceased member of the 

3 Armed Forces proceeding abroad to visit the grave of such 

4 member or to attend a funeral or memorial service for 

5 such member’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1 - SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


                        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 Absolute Glass Protection, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").
I, John Dean Harper, Chairman and 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

               (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/ John Dean Harper
----------------------------
    John Dean Harper
    Chairman and President


Date  May 24, 2004
      ------------



<PAGE>
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 T.H. Lehman & Co., Incorporated (the
        "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
        the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        Raffaele Attar, Chief Executive 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
                  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.






Date:
      June 22, 2007





By:
            /s/
                Raffaele AttarRaffaele
                AttarActing
                Chairman andChief
                Executive Officer
ex10_1.htm


     
      
        

      

    

    
      EXHIBIT
        10.1

      


      SUMMARY
        OF ZONES, INC EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT BONUS PROGRAM

      


      The
        bonus
        program of Zones, Inc. (the “Company”) rewards achievement for financial and
        individual performance.

      


      Under
        the
        executive vice president bonus program, P. Sean Hobday, the executive vice
        president sales, Thomas Ducatelli, the executive vice president business
        development, and Christina Corley, president and chief operating officer,
        have
        assigned target bonus levels expressed as a ratio of fiscal year end annual
        salary.  Messrs. Hobday and Ducatelli, and Ms. Corley may earn a bonus
        up to six and three quarters times, two times, and eleven and one third times
        their annual salary, respectively, if they exceed targeted gross profit and
        operating income, including the accrual for incentive programs.  Two
        components comprise the fundamental design of the bonus program:

      


      
        	
                 

              	
                ·

              	
                Financial
                  Performance of the Company:  Participating executive officers
                  are eligible to receive quarterly bonuses based on their divisional
                  and/or
                  Company quarterly gross profit and operating income
                  metrics.

              


      

      
        	
                 

              	
                ·

              	
                Individual
                  Performance:  Participating executive officers may receive
                  bonuses at the discretion of the Board based on individual
                  performance.

              


      

      


      The
        Board
        retained the right to change its bonus programs at any time.  The
        Board’s approval of the terms of the bonus program is not deemed to create an
        enforceable agreement between the Company and any executive
        officer.  No rights to any awards exist unless and until the Board
        authorizes payment of such award under the bonus program.
109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1181 

To ensure an open and deliberate process in Congress by providing that 

any future legislation to establish a new exemption to section 552 of 

title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of 

Information Act) be stated explicitly within the text of the bill. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 7, 2005 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. FEINGOLD, and Mr. ALEXANDER) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To ensure an open and deliberate process in Congress by 

providing that any future legislation to establish a new 

exemption to section 552 of title 5, United States Code 

(commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information 

Act) be stated explicitly within the text of the bill. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SPECIFIC CITATIONS IN EXEMPTIONS. 

4 Section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code, is 

5 amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the fol6 lowing: 
2 

1 ‘‘(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by 

2 statute (other than section 552b of this title), pro3 vided that such statute— 

4 ‘‘(A) if enacted after July 1, 2005, specifi5 cally cites to this section; and 

6 ‘‘(B)(i) requires that the matters be with7 held from the public in such a manner as to 

8 leave no discretion on the issue; or 

9 ‘‘(ii) establishes particular criteria for 

10 withholding or refers to particular types of mat11 ters to be withheld;’’. 

Æ
#### Alexander ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. Ruth ROBERTSON, Appellee.

No. 76-916.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 17, 1977.

James A. Grady, Pompano Beach, for appellant.

Nathan Ross, Fort Lauderdale, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

*84MAGER, C. J., and LETTS, J., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

concurring specially:

In this marriage of short duration, the wife was awarded an interest in certain bank accounts of the husband on the basis that the husband had previously made a gift to her of 50% of these accounts by adding her name thereto for a short period of time. I believe that the decision in *Ball v. Ball,*335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976), if applicable, would have mandated a different result. However, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that *Ball*was not to have retroactive application and was limited to real property. Accordingly, I concur in affirming the judgment of the trial court.
#### Nigro *v.*The State of Ohio.

*Supreme court*— Revivor *of action*— Death *of plaintiff in error.*

(No. 17478

Decided December 29, 1922.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Tuscarawas county.

*Messrs. Nicola & Horn; Messrs. Mitchell & Mitchell,*and *Mr. Oscar W. Newman,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Russell C. Bowers,*prosecuting attorney; *Mr. Henry Bowers*and *Mr. Frank Green,*for defendant in error.

This cause coining on for consideration upon the suggestion of counsel of the death of plaintiff in error, Vincent Chauncey Nigro, and upon the application of counsel for plaintiff in error for a continuance until an administrator of the estate of the plaintiff in error shall be appointed and make application for a revivor of this error proceedings in the name of such administrator, and the court being of the opinion that no revivor of such proceedings may be had, it is ordered that this cause be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.

*Cause dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Hough, Jones, Matthias and Clark, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Richard S. PIKE.

No. 59361.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 1977.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition

Writ Granted. The ruling of the trial court is reversed. The attorney-client privilege does not extend to the fact of representation, including the identity of the client. *State v. Hayes,*324 So.2d 421 (La.1975). This ruling is not to be construed as suggesting that the state may elicit from the attorney witness over further objection any further information, particularly as relates to the outcome of the previous trial. The case is remanded to the trial court.

DIXON, J.,

dissents from the grant. The majority apparently misunderstands the ruling of the trial court, because the majority states that defendant’s former attorney is prohibited from testifying as to defendant’s prior conviction. Further, this court should strongly discourage the interruption of prosecutions for the state to challenge in this court evidentiary rulings of the trial judge, particularly when not critical to the prosecution.

DENNIS, J.,

is of the view that the writ should be denied or granted for a full hearing. The court should not rule on this issue precipitously and without careful consideration after entertaining briefs and oral arguments from both parties.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                            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 Atlas America Public #9
Ltd.. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Nancy J. McGurk, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership,
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 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.



                        /s/ Nancy J. McGurk
                        -------------------------------------------------------
                        Nancy J. McGurk
                        Chief Financial Officer of the Managing General Partner
                        11/14/03














                                       19