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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8049 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8049

  To require the Corps of Engineers to prohibit certain discharges of 
           water at Lake Okeechobee, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 14, 2020

   Mr. Mast introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Corps of Engineers to prohibit certain discharges of 
           water at Lake Okeechobee, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Stop Poisoning Florida Act''.

SEC. 2. LAKE OKEECHOBEE DISCHARGE PROHIBITION.

    The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
shall prohibit discharges of water through the S-308 and S-80 lock and 
dam structures at Lake Okeechobee when the water exceeds the maximum 
concentration of microcystins recommended for recreational waters by 
the Environmental Protection Agency, as described in the notice titled 
``Recommended Human Health Recreational Ambient Water Quality Criteria 
or Swimming Advisories for Microcystins and Cylindrospermopsin'' (84 
Fed. Reg. 26413) (or any successor water quality criteria), based on 
tests conducted by the Secretary, another Federal agency, or the State 
of Florida.
                                 <all>
```
WINTHROP
REALTY TRUSTFORM 10-Q JUNE 30, 2006

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906  
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of Winthrop  Realty Trust (the
Company) for the six months  ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  Report),  I, Thomas C.
Staples,  Chief Financial Officer,  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.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|By:   | /s/ Thomas C. Staples                      | 
|----- | ------------------------------------------ | 
|      |                                            | 
|Name: | Thomas C. Staples 
Chief Financial Officer | 

August 14, 2006

62
<PAGE>   1
                                 EXHIBIT 23 (B)

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Oxford Health Plans, Inc.:

    We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-49738, 33-70908, 333-988, 333-28109, 333-35693, 33-94242 and 333-79063)
on Form S-8 of Oxford Health Plans, Inc. of our reports dated February 23, 1998
relating to the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity
(deficit) and comprehensive earnings (loss), and cash flows of Oxford Health
Plans, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997, and the related consolidated
financial statement schedules, which reports appear in the December 31, 1999
annual report on Form 10-K of Oxford Health Plans, Inc.


                                                 KPMG LLP



Stamford, Connecticut
March 20, 2000


                                       91
<PAGE>



                                                              Exhibit 23.7

                          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                                           


The Board of Directors
U.S. Office Products Company:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements 
on Form S-8 3(33-01574), (333-12789) and (333-24581), on Form S-3 (333-10383) 
and (333-14025) and on Form S-4 (333-13133) of U.S. Office Products Company 
of our reports dated August 18, 1996 with respect to the balance sheets of 
SFI Corp. and Hano Document Printers, Inc. as of December 31, 1995, and the 
related statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each 
of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 1995, which reports 
appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of U.S. Office 
Products Company.

         
/s/KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Norfolk, Virginia
August 18, 1997
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40329 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALBERTO ESCAMILLA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:02-CR-175-1-RC-ESH

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alberto Escamilla appeals from his conviction of possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine and carrying a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense. He contends solely that the district court should have adjusted his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. The testimony of Investigator Tyree Beals, which was corroborated by other evidence, provided support for the district court’s determination that Escamilla was not entitled to an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Because there was a United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D December 16, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 04-40329 -2- foundation for the district court’s determination, we do not disturb that determination. United States v. Washington , 340 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 942 (2003).
AFFIRMED.
#### Jack W. TAYLOR, Jr., Appellant, v. Tina M. TAYLOR, Appellee.

No. 72-991.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 13, 1973.

Appealed dismissed.
#### Geraldine Evans WITLIN, a/k/a Jerry Evans Witlin, Appellant, v. Michael M. WITLIN, Appellee.

No. 70-247.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 29, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
1

Pesticide Application Workshop

Pudding River Watershed 

Pesticide Monitoring:

2005-2007 Findings

Kevin Masterson

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

(503) 229-5983, ext. 260

OCTOBER 2007

Pesticide Monitoring Overview

• What are we 

sampling for?

– Organophosphate 

(OP) insecticides and 

triazine herbicides

• Why sample for 

these?

– Current use products

– OP pesticides very 

toxic to aquatic life Fenvalerate + 

Esfenvalerate

Chlorpyrifos 

(Lorsban, Dursban)

Malathion Oxygen Pyriproxyfen

Analog

Malathion Imidan

Methylparathion Diazinon

Azinphos-methyl 

Oxygen Analog

Atrazine

Azinphos-methyl 

(Guthion)

Simazine

Phosmet Oxygen 

Analog

Dimethoate

Ethoprop (Mocap) Chlorpyrifos oxon

Spring 2005 & 2006 Pesticide 

Monitoring Activity

• Monitoring time frames and frequency

– Spring Æ March – June (weekly)

– Fall Æ September – November (3 x)

• 2005-2007 monitoring data comparison 

considerations

– “Grab” samples at times when application is 

likely to occur

– Results for 2007 include spring, but not fall 

samples

Pudding Watershed Pesticide Monitoring Locations

Pesticide Monitoring Locations

Pudding River

• At Hwy 99E 

(Aurora)

Little Pudding 

River

• At Rambler Road

South Fork 

Bochsler Creek

• At Hwy 214

Silver Creek

• At Brush Creek 

Road

Abiqua Creek

• At Gallon House 

Bridge

Zollner Creek 

• At Hwy 214

• At USGS Gauge 

Station

• Where were pesticide detections found?

- Zollner & Boschler Creek Sites: Very high number 

- Little Pudding: Moderately high number 

- Pudding River: Lower number

- Abiqua & Silver: No detections

Pudding Watershed: Pesticide Detection Frequency

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Atrazine

Chlorpyrifos

Diazinon

Dimethoate

Guthion

(Azinphosmethyl)

Ethoprop

(Prophos)

Simazine

Detection Frequency

2005

2006

2007
2

Pudding Watershed: Median Pesticide Concentrations

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

Atrazine

Chlorpyrifos

Diazinon

Dimethoate

Guthion

(Azinphosmethyl)

Ethoprop

(Prophos)

Simazine

Median (ug/L)

2005

2006

2007

Chloryprifos Acute WQS (0.083 ug/l)

Azinphos-methyl WQS (0.01 ug/l)

Chlorpyrifos Chronic WQS (0.041 ug/l)

Pudding Watershed: Maximum Pesticide Concentrations

4.5 3.5 13 1.8

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

Atrazine

Chlorpyrifos

Diazinon

Dimethoate

Guthion

(Azinphosmethyl)

Ethoprop

(Prophos)

Simazine

Maximum Concentration (ug/L)

2005

2006

2007

Azinphos-methyl WQS (0.01 ug/l)

Chloryprifos Acute WQS (0.083 ug/l)

Chlorpyrifos Chronic WQS (0.041)

Pudding Pesticide Monitoring:

Take Home Messages

• Multiple detections of chlorpyrifos over the 

chronic water quality standard, and median 

concentration of the detections has been very close 

to standard

• Guthion (azinphos-methyl) has not been detected 

since 2005 (!)

• No diazinon detections in 2005, but 10 or more 

detections in each of the subsequent years

• Moderate fluctuations in detection frequency and 

concentrations of most pesticides, but no 

discernable trends yet
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE TEMTEX INDUSTRIES,
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED FEBRUARY 28,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                           7,720
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,295
<ALLOWANCES>                                       329
<INVENTORY>                                      9,064
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,554
<PP&E>                                          21,186
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,060
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,129
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           720
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,750
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,606
<SALES>                                         13,985
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,985
<CGS>                                           11,720
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     8
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    73
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,844)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (599)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,245)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   5,434
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,189
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION of CEO

 

I, Walter J. Zable, certifythat:

 

1)              Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cubic Corporation;

 

2)              Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3)              Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this  report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this  report;

 

4)              Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrantand we have:

 

a)              Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this  reportis being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of December 31, 2004; and

 

c)              Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s quarter ended December 31, 2004that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5)              Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)              Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)             Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.

 

February 7,2005

 
| /S/ W. J. Zable         |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| W. J. Zable                            |
| President and Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>   1



Exhibit 15.     Letter regarding unaudited interim financial information from 
                KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Independent Auditors' Review Report



The Board of Directors and Shareholders
First American Corporation:

We have reviewed the consolidated balance sheets of First American Corporation
and subsidiaries as of June 30, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated
income statements, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for the
three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 1998 and 1997. These
consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Corporation's
management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is
the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a
whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to
be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the supplemental consolidated balance sheet of First American
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997; and the related
supplemental consolidated income statements, changes in shareholders' equity and
cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report
dated July 10, 1998, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those supplemental
consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in
the accompanying supplemental consolidated balance sheet as of December 31,
1997, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the
supplemental consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


/s/  KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
------------------------------------



July 16, 1998
Nashville, Tennessee
Exhibit 99.1








January 10, 2013Analyst Contact:T.D. Eureste918-588-7167Media Contact:Brad Borror918-588-7582








ONEOK Partners to Participate in


UBS MLP One-on-One Conference





TULSA, Okla. –  Jan. 10, 2013 -- ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) will participate in the UBS MLP One-on-One Conference on Jan. 15-16, 2013, in Park City, Utah.





Pierce H. Norton II, ONEOK Partners executive vice president, commercial, will conduct a series of one-on-one meetings with investment-community representatives at the conference.





The materials utilized at the conference will be accessible on the ONEOK Partners website, www.oneokpartners.com , on Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2013, beginning at 8 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (7 a.m. Central Standard Time).








ONEOK Partners, L.P. (pronounced ONE-OAK) (NYSE: OKS) is one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, and is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation’s premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers.  Its general partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE), a diversified energy company, which owns 43.4 percent of the overall partnership interest.  ONEOK is one of the largest natural gas distributors in the United States, and its energy services operation focuses primarily on marketing natural gas and related services throughout the U.S.





For more information, visit the website at www.oneokpartners.com .





For the latest news about ONEOK Partners, follow us on Twitter @ONEOKPartners .





###
Office of Commissioner

Rohit Chopra

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Federal Trade Commission

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER ROHIT CHOPRA

In re Truly Organic

Commission File No. 1923077

September 19, 2019 

I commend Commission staff for investigating fraudulent greenwashing by Truly Organic and its 

CEO, Maxx Harley Appelman. This conduct distorted competition for organic products, inflicting 

harm on honest producers. Truly Organic and Appelman also harmed consumers, some of whom 

may have purchased their products for health reasons. The Commission has reversed this fraud 

through a judgment ordering redress covering all of the tainted transactions. Today’s order also holds 

the responsible individual accountable. 

I am pleased to see the Commission supporting this commonsense resolution, as it reflects a 

difference in approach compared to other matters inherited over the last year. In particular, this 

resolution contrasts with those in similar cases involving blatant deception that harmed both 

consumers and honest competitors. 

For example, in the Aromaflage matter, Melissa Fensterstock and her company committed online 

review fraud and even tricked consumers into thinking that her perfume protected them from Zika 

and other deadly diseases.1

 It didn’t, but these lies helped her line her own pockets – even if it meant 

putting people’s lives at risk. 

In a series of Made in USA fraud cases, Commission staff uncovered companies parading their 

patriotism and promoting their products as American-made, when in reality, they were imported from 

China, harming honest American companies that make their products here at home and cheating 

customers.2

 

Despite these fraudsters’ blatant dishonesty, these matters were resolved for no money, no notice to 

victims or competitors, and no findings or admissions of liability. The Truly Organic resolution is a 

much better approach. The settlement makes it clear that the Commission is committed to 

consequences for dishonesty and fraud. 

I believe it would be helpful for the Commission to codify this approach in a Policy Statement 

addressing unlawful conduct that is dishonest or fraudulent. In cases involving such conduct, nomoney settlements are inadequate, and the Commission should commit itself to exercising its full 

authority to protect consumers and honest businesses. 

1 Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Halts Deceptive Mosquito-Repellent Claims for Aromaflage Perfume and 

Candles (May 3, 2018), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/05/ftc-halts-deceptive-mosquito-repellentclaims-aromaflage-perfume. 2 Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, Hockey Puck Seller, Companies Selling Recreational and Outdoor Equipment Agree 

To Stop Making False ‘Made in USA’ Claims in Separate Actions (Sept. 12, 2018), https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/press-releases/2018/09/hockey-puck-seller-companies-selling-recreational-outdoor.
July 9, 2015

Mr. Drew Townsend

501 Goodlette Suite B306

Naples, FL 34102

Dear Mr. Townsend:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your July 1st 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

2675), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure