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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 194 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 194

Expressing the sense of Congress to encourage full participation in the 
            Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 24, 2001

   Mr. Ackerman (for himself and Mr. Chabot) submitted the following 
     concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             International 
                               Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress to encourage full participation in the 
            Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum.

Whereas the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation forum meets annually to afford 
        leaders of APEC's twenty-one members the opportunity to discuss mutual 
        interests in economic security and expanded commerce;
Whereas this year's APEC forum is scheduled to be held October 19-21, 2001, in 
        Shanghai, China, and will be attended by President George W. Bush and 
        President Jiang Zemin;
Whereas Taiwan enjoys a robust trading relationship with the United States, 
        importing significantly more goods from the United States than does the 
        People's Republic of China;
Whereas Taiwan possesses the seventh largest trading economy and ninth largest 
        gross domestic product in the APEC consortium, contributing 
        significantly to economic stability and commercial expansion across the 
        region;
Whereas bilateral trade and direct investment across the Taiwan Strait has 
        dramatically increased in recent years;
Whereas Taiwan's democratically elected leaders have offered to meet for 
        dialogue with leaders of the People's Republic of China at ``any time, 
        any place on any topics'';
Whereas it is demonstrably in the national security interests of the United 
        States for the leaders across both sides of the Taiwan Strait to engage 
        without precondition in a peaceful dialogue on the basis of mutual 
        respect; and
Whereas the United States Trade Representative stated publicly on June 5, 2001, 
        in Shanghai that the personal participation in this year's APEC forum of 
        Taiwan's democratically elected president, Chen Shui-bian, ``would be a 
        constructive step'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress supports the initiatives proposed for direct dialogue 
without precondition between leaders on both sides of the Taiwan Strait 
and specifically endorses the proposal for full participation in the 
October 2001 Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum by 
President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan.
                                 <all>
```
## EVIDENCE OF LEGAL AUTHORITY 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, 2.1(c) Laws of New

Hampshire, RSA 125-C:4 Rulemaking Authority; Subpoena Power# 10 The full text ofthe RSA passage granting rulernaking authority. 

# TITLE X PUBLIC HEALTH CHAPTER 125-C AIRPOLLUTION CONTROL

Section 125-C:4 125-C:4 Rulemaking Authority; Subpoena Power . - I . The commissioner shall adopt rules under RSA 541-A, relative to: (a) The prevention, control, abatement, and limitation of air pollution, including, but not limited to, open air source pollution, mobile source pollution, and stationary source pollution. (b) Primary and secondary ambient air quality standards . (c) Procedures to meet air pollution emergencies, as authorized by RSA 125-C:9. (d) The establishment and operation of a statewide permit system, as authorized by RSA 125-C

:6, XIV, RSA 125-C

:11, I and RSA 125-C:l 1, I-a. (e) Devices, in addition to those devices defined under RSA 125-C :2, subject to the permit requirements of RSA 125-C :11, as authorized by RSA 125-C:11, II . (f) The exemption of certain devices and non-Title Vsources fromthe pennit requirements of RSA 125-C:11, I and the conformance of exempted devices to established standards, as authorized by RSA 125-C :11, I . (g) The forms and information required on applications for temporary and pennanent pernzits required under RSA 125-C:11, as authorized by RSA 125-C :12,1 . (h) Notification of and public hearing on permit applications, including exemptions fromthose requirements, as authorized by RSA 125-C:12, 11 . (i) Fees for permit application and review, as authorized by RSA125-C:12, IV. (j) Procedures for permit application review, as authorized by RSA 125-C :11, IV, and criteria for permit denial, suspension or revocation, as authorized by RSA 125-C:13. (k) Procedures for air testing and monitoring and recordkeeping, as authorized by RSA 125-C

:6, XI . (1) Procedures for receiving violation complaints and for rules enforcement, as authorized by RSA 125-C:15, I . (in) Procedures for granting variances, as authorized by RSA 125-C:16 . (n) The manufacture, use, or sale of consumer products for purposes of implementing RSA485:16-c. I-a. In adopting rules under paragraph I, the department may incorporate by reference standards issued by the California air resources board relative to certification and testing ofvapor recovery equipment. I-b. In adopting rules under subparagraph I(n), the department may incorporate by reference other state test methods and procedures that are referenced in the model rules of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) concerning consumer products, as defined in RSA 125-C:2, V-c.
[No. 34894-9-I.

Division One.

July 22, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Kevin Braa, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Sno-homish County, No. 93-1-01395-1, Larry E. McKeeman, J., entered June 17, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kennedy, A.C.J., concurred in by Cox and Grosse, JJ.
SAT ReportPMN Number:P-12-0558SAT Date:12/21/2012Print Date:8/30/2013Related cases:Health related cases:Ecotox related cases:Concern levels:Type of Concern:HealthEcoCommentsLevel of Concern:1-22PersistenceBioaccumToxicityComments1-31-31Exposure Based Review:Health:NoEcotox:YesRoutes of exposure:Health:Dermal InhalationEcotox:All releases to waterFate:;Keywords:Keywords:LUNG;NEURO; IRR; AQUATOXSummary of Assessment:Fate:Fate Summary:P-12-0557-58FATE: Estimations forLiquid with MP = -153.7 C (M for low weight)log Kow = 3.21 (E)S = <0.001 to 1.8 mg/L at 25 C (E for component range), 14 mg/L at 25°C (M for low weight)VP = <1.0E-6 to 168 torr at 25 C (NOMO5 for component range), 211 torr (M for low weight)BP = 66-510 C (M for mixture), 60 °C (M for low weight)H = 1.71 (E)log Koc = 2.04 (E)log Fish BCF = 1.79 (E)log Fish BAF = 2.03 (E)POTW removal (%) = 0-99 via sorption and strippingTime for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = da->moSorption to soils/sediments = moderate - v.strongVolatilization half-life from a standard river = 1 hrsVolatilization half-life from a standard lake = 4 daAtmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 24 hr via OH radicalPBT Potential: P1-3B1-3*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl - moderateHealth:Health Summary:Absorption of the lower molecular weight components is expected to be good all routes.Concern for solvent neurotoxicity and irritation and for chemical pneumonia.Ecotox:Test OrganismTest TypeTest End PointPredictedMeasuredCommentsfish96-hLC5025daphnid48-hLC5015green algal96-hEC5014fish_chronic value2.6daphnid_chronic value1.7algal_chronic value4.0Sewage Sludge3-hEC50_Sewage Sludge_Chronic Value_Ecotox Values Comments:Predictions are based on SARs for neutral organic chemicals; SAR chemical class = hydrocarbon;(representative structure); log Kow = 2.54 (EPI); liquid with mp unknown (P); S≤0.53 g/L at 25 C (P);pH7; effectiveconcentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <180.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC<2.0 mg/L;FactorsValuesCommentsAssessment Factor10Concentration of Concern (ppb)170SARsneutral organic chemicalsSAR ClasshydrocarbonEcotox CategoryNeutral OrganicsEcotox Factors Comments:SAT Chair:L Keifer 564-8916
#### Kay J. LARSEN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Judy LARSEN (Thomas), Defendant and Appellant.

No. 18198.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Jan. 21, 1983.

Phillip A. Harding, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

D. Kendall Perkins, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a district court judgment awarding appellant child support arrearages. Appellant alleges error in the computation giving respondent credit for *1351payments previously made, based upon application of the statute of limitations.

The parties were divorced in 1967. Appellant was given custody of their two children and respondent was ordered to pay child support of $50 per child per month.1 On May 26, 1981, appellant filed two separate orders to show cause: (1) “In re Contempt,” whereby appellant sought to recover for child support arrearages; and (2) “In re Modification of Divorce Decree,” whereby appellant sought an increase in the amount of support and an extension thereof until completion of the children’s high school education.2

On July 9, 1981, by minute entry, the court ruled on the order to show cause brought to recover support arrearages. Appellant objected to the computations and, subsequently, memoranda were filed. On October 12,1981, the court signed a formal judgment prepared by appellant; however, the judgment was not immediately filed. Appellant sent a copy of the judgment to respondent, asking if there were any objections as to form. Apparently, respondent did object to the inclusion of prejudgment interest and, hence, prepared an identical judgment, except that all reference to prejudgment interest was omitted. This judgment was signed by the court on November 17, 1981, and filed on November 18, 1981. Subsequently, on December 1, 1981, the judgment prepared by appellant and signed by the court on October 12, 1981, was filed. Appellant filed her notice of appeal on January 4, 1982.

This appeal was not timely filed in accordance with our rules. Rule 78(a), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, requires the filing of a notice of appeal within one month from the entry of the judgment. A signed judgment was filed on November 18, 1981, which started the running of the time for appeal. The subsequent filing of the judgment on December 1, 1981, was ineffective to extend the time for filing an appeal.

Both parties had only until December 18, 1981, to appeal the judgment entered in the district court. Since appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed until January 4, 1982, we do not have jurisdiction to hear this case.3 The appeal is therefore dismissed.

*So ordered.*No costs awarded.

1

. Respondent was also ordered to pay alimony of $150 per month, which obligation was removed when appellant remarried in 1971.

2

. By minute entry on October 7, 1981, the court ruled on this latter order to show cause by increasing support to $75 per child per month. A formal order was signed by the court and filed on December 1, 1981. This order is not appealed.

3

. *Anderson v. Anderson,*3 Utah 2d 277, 282 P.2d 845 (1955).
* 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. 

### REVISED May 13, 2009 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50444 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. AUGUSTIN CRUZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:07-CR-342-4
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Augustin Cruz appeals his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent todistribute, and possession with such intent, 100kilogramsor more of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the district court erred in excludi ng from evidence the United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 12, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-50444

2 Government’s 30April 2007 motion to dismiss the initial complaint against Cruz without prejudice. The motion declared that, in the light of the relevant evidence then known, the case against Cruz was not “readily provable”. Additional evidence implicating Cruz in the conspiracy, however, was provided shortly thereafter by Cruz’ codefendants. This evidence formed the basis of the superseding indictment against Cruz. Cruz contends the Government’s motion
was admissible as a statement of a party-opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discreti on, subject to harmless-error analysis. U nited States v. Cantu, 167 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 1999). For an evidentiary ruling to constitute reversible error, it must have substantially prejudiced the defendant’s rights. See United States v. Sanders, 343 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2003); F ED

. R. E VID

. 103(a). We need not address whether the Government’s motion constitutes an admissible statement of a party-opponent under Rule 8 01(d)(2), because Cruz has failed to maintain, much less demonstrate, that the claimed error affected the outcome of the proceedings. Moreover, any such contention would not be supported by the record. At trial, the jury heard testimony that the Government did not have enough evidence in April 2007 to pursue a case against Cruz, which is precisely what the motion evinces. The motion does not indicate the Government believed Cruz was innocent but that the casewas not “readily provable” as ofthe date the motion was filed. Further, the jury heard testimony that the Government subsequently received additional evidence from codefendants detailing Cruz’ involvement in the case; and, the codefendants testified at trial. As such, even if the evidentiary ruling was erroneous, Cruz has failed to demonstrate it affected his substantial rights. Accordingly, any error was harmless. See Sanders, 343 F.3d at 519. AFFIRMED.
#### Amelia Katz, Respondent, *v.*Sigmund Katz et al., Defendants, and William Klein et al., Appellants.

*Katz*v. Katz, 159 App. Div. 921, affirmed.

(Argued January 31, 1916;

decided February 22, 1916.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 26, 1913, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property. The only question arising on this appeal is whether or not the defendants, appellants, William Klein and Maria M. Klein, or either of them, are personally liable for a deficiency judgment by reason of a bond executed by said defendants, appellants, at the same time that the above-mentioned mortgage was executed and delivered. The bond is contained in the same instrument as the mortgage, the entire instrument being designated as a mortgage bond.

*John T. Van Derveer*for appellants.

*Jacob A. Bernstein*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, "with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo and Seabury, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Don Early, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of QC Holdings, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of QC Holdings, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterlyreport is being prepared; and 

 

b) reserved;and 

 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on suchevaluation; and 

 

d) disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 12, 2004
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00421

- CV

AZLE MANOR, INC. D/B /A AZLE

MANOR HEALTH CARE AN D

REHABILITATION APPELLANT

V.

SERRA HOLT APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 48TH DISTRI CT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellant 's “ Agreed Motion To Dismiss .” It is the

court ’ s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: April 24 , 2014
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

         I, David I. Brunson, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of North Atlantic
Holding Company, Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

         a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

         b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

         5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

         a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

         b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

<PAGE>
Date: November 15, 2004


/s/ David I. Brunson
----------------------------------
Name: David I. Brunson
Title: Chief Financial Officer
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-25,761-10

IN RE ALBERT H ERNANDEZCONTRERAS, Relator

ON AP P LICATION FOR AWRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 93-04-05639CR R IN THE 143RD DISTRICT COURT F ROM REEVES COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Relator has f

iled a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. Relator contends that he filed applications for writs of habea s corpus in the 143rd District Court of Reeve s County , and the District Clerk failed to comply with Rule of Appellate Procedur e 73.4(b)( 2) and immediately send him a ny pleading s, objections, motions, affidavits, exhibi ts, proposed or e ntere d finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, or othe r order s that were filed or made part of the rec ord. Respondent, t h e Di s trict Clerk of Reeve s County , is order ed to file a response and state whether she has complied with Rule 73.4(b)( 2). Her response shall be submitt ed within 30 day s of the date of

this order. Filed: Oc tober 25, 2017 Do not publish
1 

### Ogulei, David

From: **Reed, Michael <Michael.Reed@Illinois.gov>** Sent: **Thursday, October 02, 2014 1:58 PM** To: **Damico, Genevieve; Ogulei, David; Marcus, Danny** Cc: **Pilapil, Ray; Armitage, Julie** Subject: **Veolia Renewal Permit (aka Onyx)**

All,

I did a cursory review of the Preliminary draft pro vided to IEPA and do not have any comments at this time. Provided there are no revisions of interest to the State between now and the start of Public Notice, w e would not expect to have any future comments.

If you have any questions feel free to give me a ca ll.

Ray and Julie, I will write up a Weekly Report entry before I leav e today for next week.