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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 144

Calling for freedom and democracy for the people of Kashmir.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 30, 1993

Mr. BURTON of Indiana submitted the following resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

RESOLUTION

Calling for freedom and democracy for the people of

Kashmir.

Whereas the historically independent people of the State of

Jammu and Kashmir (commonly referred to as ‘‘Kashmir’’) have been denied the plebiscite that was promised

them by resolutions adopted in 1948 and 1949 by the

United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan;

Whereas those resolutions were agreed to by the Government

of India and the Government of Pakistan, with the firm

support of the United States;

Whereas the United States, as the world’s most powerful democracy, has supported the principle that the status of

the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be decided by

the democratic method of a plebiscite under impartial

control and supervision;
2

•HRES 144 IH

Whereas despite those resolutions, the people of the State of

Jammu and Kashmir have suffered through 2 wars and

continuous unrest for more than 40 years while being denied the right to self-determination by the Government of

India;

Whereas the inevitable frustrations of a people being governed without their consent have resulted in an upsurge

of conflict and violence in the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

Whereas the Government of India has responded to this situation by isolating the State of Jammu and Kashmir from

the outside world; and

Whereas there have been an increasing number of reports of

unwarranted use of deadly force, as well as torture, rape,

beatings, restriction of medical services, and other violations of basic human rights: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

3 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Freedom for

4 Kashmir Resolution’’.

5 SEC. 2. POLICY DECLARATIONS.

6 The House of Representatives—

7 (1) reaffirms that the question of the future

8 status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should

9 be decided through the democratic method of a free

10 and impartial plebiscite; and

11 (2) calls on the President, the United Nations,

12 and the international community to use all measures
3

•HRES 144 IH

1 at their disposal to establish the conditions nec2 essary for a free and impartial plebiscite in the State

3 of Jammu and Kashmir.

Æ
Exhibit 21

                                  Subsidiaries
                                of the Registrant


The  following  is a  list  of the  Company's  consolidated  subsidiaries  as of
December 31, 2004:

                                                                Percent of
                                             State or             Voting
                                            Country of          Securities
                     Subsidiary            Organization           Owned
                     ----------            ------------           -----

The Beard Company (1)                        Oklahoma           Registrant
Advanced Internet Technologies, L.L.C.       Oklahoma               71%
Beard Environmental Engineering, L.L.C.      Oklahoma              100%
Beard Oil Company                            Delaware              100%
Beard Sino-American Resources Co., Inc.      Oklahoma              100%
Beard Technologies, Inc.                     Oklahoma              100%
Beijing Beard Sino-American Bio-Tech
    Engineering Co., Ltd.                      China               100%
Incorporated Tank Systems (2)                Delaware               49%
Incorporated Tank Systems de Mexico,
    S.A. de C.V.                              Mexico               100%
ITS, Inc.                                    Oklahoma              100%
starpay, com, l.l.c.                         Oklahoma               71%
____________________

(1)  The  consolidated  financial  statements of the Company include accounts of
     Registrant and the subsidiaries controlled by the Registrant.

(2)  Owns 100% of ITS, Inc. which in turn owns 100% of Incorporated Tank Systems
     de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

(3)  Excludes 80%-owned Cibola  Corporation.  Registrant does not have operating
     or financial control of this subsidiary.

(4)  Also excludes 50%-owned ITS-TESTCO, L.L.C. and TESTCO, INC. de MEXICO, S.A.
     de C.V.  Registrant does not have operating and financial  control of these
     subsidiaries.

(5)  Excludes those subsidiaries treated as equity investments.

(6)  Excludes  subsidiaries  which,  considered  in the  aggregate  as a  single
     subsidiary,  would not constitute a significant subsidiary as of the end of
     the year covered by this report.
August 3, 2012

MEMORANDUM

FROM: Kenneth Davidson

 Assessment and Standards Division

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010–0799

SUBJECT: BenMAP Air Quality Modeling Data Files for Estimation of Health 

Impacts Associated with the Final Model Year 2017-2025 Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas 

Rule

The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit BenMAP air quality modeling data input

and configuration files used for the estimation of PM and ozone-related health impacts

associated with the final Model Year 2017-2025 Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule. 

When used as input files to the publicly-available Environmental Benefits Mapping and 

Analysis Program (BenMAP),1a user will be able to replicate the health impacts analysis 

results presented in the RIA for this rulemaking. The summary files are as follows:

File 1: BenMAP_AirQualityGrids.zip

 12km ambient PM and ozone air quality grid input data for BenMAP (baseline

and control for 2030)

File 2: BenMAP_Configurations.zip

 PM and ozone health effects configuration file for BenMAP (.cfg files)

 PM and ozone health effects aggregation, pooling, and valuation file for BenMAP

(.apv files)

File 3: BenMAPv4.0.43.zip

 BenMAP v. 4.0.43 executable file (.exe)

The health impacts analysis is discussed in Section III.H of the preamble and Chapter 6

of the Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

 

1 BenMAP v. 3.0 is compatible with these files and can be downloaded at 

http://www.epa.gov/air/benmap/download.html
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2012

- Directorate Identifier: 

### 2012

-NE

- 40

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and th en out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet



### TAY LP C bld inspect. 12

- 012 34 0 .0 $ 0.00 

### $ 0 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### ASE Estimate

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No ans wer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2104

ROBERT M. WYNE; NICOLAS W. LEWIS,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

MEDO INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA02-1812-RDB)

Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 1, 2005

Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert M. Wyne, Nicolas W. Lewis, Appellants Pro Se. Sharon A.

Israel, JENKENS & GILCHRIST, P.C., Houston, Texas, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert M. Wyne and Nicolas W. Lewis appeal the district

court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Medo

Industries, Inc., and denying their motion filed pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

grant of summary judgment on the reasoning of the district court,

see Wyne v. Medo Indus., Inc., No. CA-02-1812-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 25,

2004), and find no abuse of the district court’s discretion in its

denial of the motion for reconsideration. Collison v.

International Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir.

1994). We grant Appellants’ motion to place Appellants’ materials

under seal. We deny Appellants’ motion for 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 32.1 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Metromedia International Group,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  a)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andb)
    
    the Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. Dated this 7th day of December 2004. METROMEDIA INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC./s/ MARK S. HAUFMark S. HaufPresident, Chief Executive Officerand Chairman of the Board
**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**
**Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**
     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Friedman Industries,Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending December 31, 2007, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, William E. Crow,Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and
     (2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
Dated:  February 14, 2008
 By /s/ William E. Crow      Name: William E. Crow     Title:Chief Executive Officer and President
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 810

For the relief of Elizabeth M. Hill.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1993

Mr. STENHOLM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Elizabeth M. Hill

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

3 SECTION 1. SATISFACTION OF CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED

4 STATES.

5 The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any

6 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to

7 Elizabeth M. Hill—

8 (1) the sum of $6,780, and

9 (2) interest on such sum—

10 (A) calculated at the rate determined in

11 the manner provided in subsections (a) and (b)
2

•HR 810 IH

1 of section 1961 of title 28, United States Code,

2 and

3 (B) payable for the period beginning on

4 October 5, 1985, and ending on the date on

5 which such sum is paid.

6 Such sum represents the amount that was recovered by

7 the United States under Public Law 87–693 (76 Stat.

8 593; 42 U.S.C. 2651 et seq.) in satisfaction of its claim

9 against a tortiously liable third person for the value of

10 medical care and treatment the United States furnished

11 to Elizabeth M. Hill, but would have been recovered by

12 Elizabeth M. Hill if a timely request for a waiver of such

13 claim had been submitted on her behalf.

14 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEY’S AND AGENT’S FEES.

15 Not more than 10 percent of the sums appropriated

16 by section 1 shall be paid to or received by any agent or

17 attorney for services rendered in connection with the claim

18 described in such section. Any person who violates this

19 section shall be fined not more than $1,000.

Æ
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):

                                 March 3, 2009

                       Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

                                      Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)

             000-24498                              65-0190407
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Commission File Number)         (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

      325 John H. McConnell Blvd, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio         43215
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                    (Zip Code)

Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code:   (614) 255-3333

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

<PAGE>

Item 8.01.    Other Events
----------   --------------------------------------------

          As of February 28, 2009, preliminary assets under management totaled
$3.743 billion.  Following is a summary as of February 28, 2009 (in millions):

				         Equity    Fixed Income	    Total
Individually Managed Accounts 	        $   951	      $   53       $ 1,004
Mutual Funds 			          2,469	          91	     2,560
Private Investment Funds	   	    179            0           179
                                        -------       ------       -------
Total			       	        $ 3,599       $  144       $ 3,743

Investment Strategy
-------------------
Small and Small-Mid Cap         $    397
Large Cap and Select		   1,297
Long-Short		           1,905
Strategic and Fixed Income     	     144
				--------
Total			           3,743


                                    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.

                                        DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.


Date: March 3, 2009	                    By: /s/ James F. Laird
                                            -------------------------------
                                            James F. Laird, Chief Financial
                                            Officer and Secretary
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 919

For the relief of Larry Errol Pieterse.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 16, 1993

Mr. GINGRICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Larry Errol Pieterse.

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR DEPORTATION OR

4 EXCLUSION OF LARRY ERROL PIETERSE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections

6 212(a)(2)(A), 241(a)(1)(A), and 241(a)(2)(B) of the Im7 migration and Nationality Act, Larry Errol Pieterse may

8 not be deported from the United States or excluded from

9 admission into the United States by reason of any offense

10 for which he received a full pardon from the Governor of

11 Florida prior to January 1, 1992.
2

•HR 919 IH

1 (b) RESCISSION OF OUTSTANDING DEPORTATION

2 ORDER.—The Attorney General shall rescind any out3 standing order of deportation or finding of deportability

4 that has been entered against Larry Errol Pieterse by rea5 son of any offense for which he received a full pardon from

6 the Governor of Florida prior to January 1, 1992.

7 (c) PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS.—Notwith8 standing any order terminating the status of Larry Errol

9 Pieterse as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence, for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality

11 Act he shall be considered lawfully admitted for perma12 nent residence as of November 3, 1981, and such status

13 shall be considered not to have changed between such date

14 and the date of the enactment of this Act.

15 (d) ESTABLISHMENT OF GOOD MORAL CHAR16 ACTER.—Notwithstanding section 101(f) of the Immigra17 tion and Nationality Act, any offense for which Larry

18 Errol Pieterse received a full pardon from the Governor

19 of Florida prior to January 1, 1992, may not be consid20 ered in determining whether he is, or during any period

21 has been, a person of good moral character for purposes

22 of such Act.

Æ
#### Henry J. KIRKSEY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF JACKSON et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 77-1749.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 21, 1977.

Frank R. Parker, Michael A. Middleton, Thomas J. Ginger, Lawyers’ Comm, for Civil Rights Under Law, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiffs-appellants.

John E. Stone, City Atty., Davis H. Smith, Asst. City Atty., Ben Piazza, Edward L. Cates, Jackson, Miss., for defendarits-appellees.

Before AINSWORTH, MORGAN and GEE, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that appellants’ petition for injunction pending appeal is denied. The district court is directed to expedite hearing on the merits to the earliest feasible time.

GEE, Circuit Judge,

specially concurring:

I write briefly to give my reasons for joining in the above order. To say no more, I entertain grave doubts as to the constitutionality of the present at-large system of elections in the City of Jackson under the preliminary factual showing made by the plaintiffs herein and the principles laid down in *White v. Register,*412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973) and our consequent opinions in *Zimmer v. McKeithen,*485 F.2d 1297 (1973), and *Wallace v. House,*515 F.2d 619 (1975). If these stood alone, I would be persuaded that it is our duty to enjoin the election. They do not, however, and to my ear the trumpet has since given an uncertain sound. *Cf. Washington v. Davis,*426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976); *Austin Independent School District v. United States,*- U.S. -, 97 S.Ct. 517, 50 L.Ed.2d 603 (1977); *Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.,*- U.S. -, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); but *cf. United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey,*- U.S. -, 97 S.Ct. 996, 51 L.Ed.2d 229 (1977). When there is added to this circumstance the court’s decision to expedite hearing on the merits of this matter, however, the scale is tipped for me. For if the present plan is constitutional, no harm has been done by permitting the election to proceed and a deplorable disruption of valid election processes has been avoided. And if it is not, I see no irreparable injury to plaintiffs: those who would be holding over in office should we enjoin the election were returned under the very plan complained of. At least this election will produce officials with some sort of current mandate, to hold office pending the disposition of the merits. And clearly there can be no contention in the event that the plan is finally invalidated that plaintiffs have laid by or bypassed pre-election judicial relief. See *Toney v. White,*488 F.2d 310, 315 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc). I therefore concur in the court’s order.
#### Sadie Gertler, wife of/and David GERTLER v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Dept. of Safety and Permits of the City of New Orleans, Board of Zoning Adjustments and Miles J. Kehoe.

No. 60169.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 1977.

In re: Sadie Gertler, wife of/and David Gertler applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 346 So.2d 228.

Writ denied. Result is correct.
KFS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0666

THOMAS KOOP, III,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including June 3, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 21 2020

04/21/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0666
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,As adopted pursuant toSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of General Binding Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2003, (the "Report"), I, DonCivgin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By:

/s/ Don      Civgin                                 
 
Don Civgin
 
Senior Vice President and Chief      Financial Officer
 
August 13, 2003