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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2180 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2180

 To renew the temporary suspension of duty on macroporous ion-exchange 
       resin comprising a copolymer of styrene crosslinked with 
                 divinylbenzene, thiol functionalized.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To renew the temporary suspension of duty on macroporous ion-exchange 
       resin comprising a copolymer of styrene crosslinked with 
                 divinylbenzene, thiol functionalized.

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

SECTION 1. MACROPOROUS ION-EXCHANGE RESIN COMPRISING A COPOLYMER OF 
              STYRENE CROSSLINKED WITH DIVINYLBENZENE, THIOL 
              FUNCTIONALIZED.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.30 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to macroporous ion-exchange 
resin comprising a copolymer of styrene crosslinked with 
divinylbenzene, thiol functionalized) is amended by striking ``12/31/
2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rae Anne MORGAN.

No. 89-KK-0267.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1989.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 88KW-2049; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “2”, No. 326-209.

Granted. The cases, 89-KK-0266, 89-KK-0267 and 89-KK-0274 are consolidated. The judgments of the Court of Appeal are vacated and reversed; the cases are remanded to the district court and the rulings of the trial court denying defendants’ motions are reinstated.
From: Tracy Walters [twalters@mdaqmd.ca.gov]

Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:29 PM

To: Au, Patrick@ARB

Cc: Steckel.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov; Alan De Salvio

Subject: Amendment of MDAQMD Rule 1165 - Glass Melting Furnaces

Attachments: Clean MDAQMD Rule 1165.doc; Clean MDAQMD Rule 1165.pdf; 1165 Staff Report final.pdf; 1165_minute001.PDF; 1165_reso-001.PDF; CARB Rule Eval.doc; SIP Checklist.doc

Good afternoon,

The Governing Board of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) amended Rule 1165 – Glass Melting 

Furnaces on August 25, 2008. Attached for your review are the following documents pertaining to the adoption:

 * Rule 1165 (PDF and Word version)

 * Final Staff Report

 * Proof of Publication (included in Final Staff Report, appendix B)

 * Signed Notice of Exemption, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties (included in Final Staff Report, appendix D)

 * Minute item, Official Copy

 * Resolution 08-08, Official Copy

 * CARB Rule Evaluation Form

 * SIP Completeness Checklist

 

Rule 1165 is to be included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and therefore requires submission to USEPA. The 

MDAQMD received non-substantive comments from both CARB and USEPA that were addressed in this rule amendment. 

The District expects that this will be the version included in the SIP. Please feel free to contact me if you need any further 

information. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Tracy Walters

Air Quality Specialist

(760) 245-1661 x 6122

twalters@mdaqmd.ca.gov

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Program Files\Documentum\CTS\docbases\ProDocbase\config\temp_sessions\6374527059990816441\EP... 1/9/2012
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James QUINNEY.

No. K89-426.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

April 21, 1989.

Writ Denied May 30, 1989.

*1051Charles A. Riddle, III, Marksville, for applicant.

J. Edward Knoll, Dist. Atty., Marksville, for respondent.

Before GUIDRY, STOKER and YELVERTON, JJ.

*WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY:*The trial court erred in refusing to quash and dismiss the prosecution due to the unreasonable delay between entry of a plea of guilty and sentence, i.e., thirteen (13) years. The delay, in and of itself, was unreasonable and the record does not reflect any factors which would justify such a delay. See, *State v. Milson,*458 So.2d 1037 (La.App. 3 Cir.1984). The ruling of the trial court is reversed and it is divested of jurisdiction to sentence relator for the offense. La.C.Cr.P. art. 874; *State v. McQueen,*308 So.2d 752 (La.1975).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF JPS TEXTILE GROUP, INC. CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE
ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,549
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,514
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,565
<INVENTORY>                                     51,542
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               134,793
<PP&E>                                         107,148
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,692
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 272,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,964
<BONDS>                                         99,089
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                     109,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   272,922
<SALES>                                        389,218
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               389,218
<CGS>                                          331,473
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  331,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (19,245)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,592
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,298)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,366
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,664)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,664)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.07)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ERIC J. JOHNSON, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D23-504

LT Case No. 2018-CF-8507

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

 Appellee. 

_______________________________/ 

Decision filed February 28, 2023

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Duval County, 

R. Anthony Salem, Judge.

Eric J. Johnson, Okeechobee, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, HARRIS and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
#### Jack A. STEPHENS v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 89-CC-2115.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 12, 1989.

In re Stephens, Jack A.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 89CW-1644; Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 59035.

*1317Granted. The Court of Appeal judgment is reversed and the trial court order is reinstated.
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 28, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40047 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PABLO DE LEON-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-570

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Pablo De Leon-Gonzalez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 78-month sentence for illegally reentering the United States after having been deported subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. De Leon-Gonzalez challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). De Leon-Gonzalez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although De Leon-Gonzalez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light ofNo. 06-40047 -2- Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000) , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). De LeonGonzalez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. De Leon-Gonzalez argues that the district court erred by ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of his supervised release. Such a claim is not ripe for review on direct appeal. See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu , 428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. See id. at 1102.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.
#### STATE ex rel. Joseph JOHNSTON v. Paul R. WIMBISH, Judge, 32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne.

No. 88-KH-0450.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Johnston, Joseph; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Terre-bonne, 32nd Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 156109; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KW88 0086.

Denied.
#### Alvin Martin FEW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-681.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 16, 1988.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals his convictions for two counts of armed burglary, three counts of armed kidnapping, two counts of armed robbery, two counts of sexual battery, and one count of aggravated assault. We affirm.

We.do not agree with defendant’s first contention that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to sever the trials of different offenses. *See Livingston v. State,*No. 68,323 (Fla. Mar. 10,1988) [13 FLW 187].

We do not agree with defendant’s second contention that a double jeopardy violation occurred from defendant having been convicted and sentenced for two armed robberies of the same victim during one automobile journey. The robberies, while committed, in a sense, during one “transac*915tion,” were two discrete acts which involved different money at different locations from different banks. *See Andrews v. State,*533 So.2d 841, 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (double jeopardy does not prohibit multiple convictions for “discrete acts committed during one transaction.”).

We find no merit in defendant’s third contention.

AFFIRMED.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
AAM-11-374-E July 11, 2011 Exemption No. 10308 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0698

Ms. Ann-Marie Skubitz Human Resource Manager Scott’s Helicopter Services, Inc. 780 S. Elmwood Avenue, P.O. Box 92 Le Sueur, MN 56058

Dear Ms. Skubitz:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated June 15, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Scott’s Helicopter Services, Inc. (Scott’s) for an exemption to allow Scott’s, which is operating under separate parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. The FAA finds that you require exemption from part 120 of 14 CFR.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Scott’s.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—2

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Scott’s Helicopter Services, Inc. an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Scott’s, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the

conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Scott’s are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Scott’s part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    Home





    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos

    Coronavirus Disease 2019





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    CSAF Reading List    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    2015 CSAF Reading List

    2014 CSAF Reading List

    2013 CSAF Reading List

    2012 CSAF Reading List

    2011 CSAF Reading List

    2010 CSAF Reading List

    2009 CSAF Reading List

    2008 CSAF Reading List

    2007 CSAF Reading List

    2006 CSAF Reading List

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Desert Storm 25th Anniversary

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2020





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (0.39 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR Act
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
#### Loretta SUMLIN v. CITY OF BAKER.

No. 89-C-1217.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Baker, City of; — Defendant^); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; *1217to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA88 0678; Baker Civil Service Commission.

Prior report: La.App., 542 So.2d 218.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS




This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the
requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes
and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by
any person for any other purpose.




The undersigned, who are (i) the Chief Executive Officer
of UMTH Land Development, L.P., the general partner of United Development
Funding III, L.P. (the “Partnership”) and (ii) the Chief Financial Officer of
UMTH Land Development, L.P., the general partner of the Partnership, each hereby
certify as follows:




The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership
(the “Report”), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.









Dated this 15thday of May, 2009.











/s/ Hollis M.
Greenlaw


Hollis M. Greenlaw


Chief Executive Officer of UMTH Land Development, L.P.,
sole general partner of the


Registrant, and President and Chief Executive
Officer of UMT Services, Inc., sole general partner of UMTH Land Development,
L.P.








/s/ Cara D.
Obert


Cara D. Obert


Chief Financial Officer of UMTH Land Development, L.P.,
sole general partner of the Registrant








A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. CP12-72-000; PF11-9-000]

      ( print page 15747)    
                    On February 24, 2012, the Commission issued a                     *Notice of Application*                     in the above referenced proceeding. This Notice clarifies that any party wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceeding should file a motion to intervene prior to the close of the comment date. Only parties to the proceeding can seek rehearing of the Commission's order and then further ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.                

Additionally, persons only wishing to comment on the proceeding should file their comments on any aspect of the application with the Secretary of the Commission and the Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding.

In light of this clarification, comments will be due by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 30, 2012.

Dated: March 9, 2012.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-6366 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Technical Comments Regarding the "White Papers on Methane 

and VOC Emissions"

To Whom It May Concern,

The attached comments are respectfully submitted to the attention of Administrator McCarthy. 

Many thanks,

D. Marc Jacobs, Jr.

Senior Vice President

6608 Route 22 • Delmont, PA 15626­2408

Ph: (724) 468­8232 • Fax: (724) 468­8230

Web: www.penneco.com

Marc Jacobs <dmarcj@penneco.com>

Fri 6/13/2014 4:24 PM

To:OilandGas.Whitepapers <OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov>; 

 1 attachment

Technical Comments - EPA Emissions White Papers.doc;

Technical Comments Regarding the "White Papers on M... - OilandGas.Whitepapers Page 1 of 1

https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/ 8/27/2014
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 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 BigString Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Robert S.
DeMeulemeester, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
 
 (1)
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of §13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78m or 78o(d),
      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:  November
      13, 2009
              /s/ Robert S.
  DeMeulemeesterRobert
      S. DeMeulemeesterChief
      Financial Officer