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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 25

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 5, 2001

Received and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding tuberous

sclerosis.

Whereas at least two children born each day will be affected

with tuberous sclerosis;

Whereas nearly one million people worldwide are known to

have tuberous sclerosis;

Whereas tuberous sclerosis affects all races and ethnic groups

equally;
2

HCON 25 RFS

Whereas tuberous sclerosis is caused by either an inherited

autosomal disorder or by a spontaneous genetic mutation;

Whereas when tuberous sclerosis is genetically transmitted as

an autosomal dominant disorder, a child with a parent

with the gene will have a 50-percent chance of inheriting

the disease;

Whereas two-thirds of the cases of tuberous sclerosis are believed to be a result of spontaneous mutation, although

the cause of such mutations is a mystery;

Whereas diagnosis takes an average of 90 days with consultation of at least three specialists;

Whereas tuberous sclerosis frequently goes undiagnosed because of the obscurity of the disease and the mild form

the symptoms may take; and

Whereas the Congress as an institution, and Members of

Congress as individuals, are in unique positions to help

raise public awareness about the need for increased funding for research, detection, and treatment of tuberous

sclerosis and to support the fight against tuberous sclerosis: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) all Americans should take an active role in

4 the fight against tuberous sclerosis by all means

5 available to them, including early and complete clin6 ical testing and investigating family histories;

7 (2) the role played by national and community

8 organizations and health care providers in promoting

9 awareness of the importance of early diagnosis, test-
3

HCON 25 RFS

1 ing, and ongoing screening should be recognized and

2 applauded;

3 (3) the Federal Government has a responsibility

4 to—

5 (A) endeavor to raise awareness about the

6 importance of the early detection of, and proper

7 treatment for, tuberous sclerosis;

8 (B) increase funding for research so that

9 the causes of, and improved treatment for, tu10 berous sclerosis may be discovered; and

11 (C) continue to consider ways to improve

12 access to, and the quality of, health care serv13 ices for detecting and treating tuberous scle14 rosis; and

15 (4) the Director of the National Institutes of

16 Health should take a leadership role in the fight

17 against tuberous sclerosis by acting with appropriate

18 offices within the National Institutes of Health to

19 provide to the Congress a five-year research plan for

20 tuberous sclerosis.

Passed the House of Representatives December 4,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of American Patriot Financial Group, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, T. Don Waddell, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |   | /s/ T. Don Waddell              |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------|
|   |   | T. Don Waddell                  |
|   |   | Interim Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   | May 15, 2008                    |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 149 Agreed to House (ATH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 149

  Permitting the use of the Rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to 
 present posthumously a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Charles M. 
                                Schulz.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2001

     Mr. Thompson of California submitted the following concurrent 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

                              June 5, 2001

 Committee on House Administration discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Permitting the use of the Rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to 
 present posthumously a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Charles M. 
                                Schulz.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on June 7, 
2001, for a ceremony to present posthumously a gold medal on behalf of 
Congress to Charles M. Schulz. Physical preparations for the ceremony 
shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the 
Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.
                                 <all>
```
### ZUCKER T SCOUT T & RASENBERGER , L.L.E

ATTORNEY S A T LA W' [••J \j"».J T QT , 88 8 Seventeent hStreet , N WWashington , D C 2iXV6-?>5Q 9 ''''''•''0\ i lA t

!0- N Telephon e |202 | 298-866 0 Fa x 1202)^2-068 3 ' , , i''^P^RA l k}i;!i ^

wwwzsrlawco m

. : ..;•: : :^ ; ^ s; : n 3 RICHARD D . MATHIA S DIREC T DIA L(202 ) 973-791 7 rdinjlhia5@zsrlaw.co m Apri l 19,201 1

B Y HAN D Georg e Wellington , Chie f Foreig n Ai r

Carrie r Licensin g Divisio n U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0

Re : Pollin g Results , Applicatio n o f Avianca , S.A . fo r a n Exemptio n (Docke t OST-2011-0077 ) Dea r Mr . WeUington : Thi s i s t o advis e that

Avianc aS.A . ha s complete dpollin g o f carrie r representative s a s t o thei r positio n o n th e above-reference dapplication , filedo n Apri l 15 , 2011 . A cop y o f this letter i s today bein g filedwithth e Department' s Docke t Sectio n an dserve dupo n al l parties . N o objection s wer e received . Accordingly , Avianc aurge s that th e requeste dauthority b e grante da s soo n a s possible . Sincerely ,

Richar dD . Mathia s Davi dM . Endersbe e Counse l t o Avianc aS.A . cc : servic e lis t
New Heights Aerial Media

David L. Farley

2400 Amara Dr

Toledo, OH 43617

(419)754-7236

dfarley@newheightsaerialmedia.com

Date: April 20, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave.,

SE Washington, DC 20590

Addendum Request to Exemption No. 11358

To Whom It May Concern:

New Heights Aerial Media requests that the 3d Robotics Iris+ UAS be added to Exemption No. 

11358 and COA No. FAA-2014-1110-333E.

The Iris+ gross weight is approximately 5.5lbs. with battery and payload. The payload will be a 

camera gimble and an HD Camera. 

The Iris+ has a preset GeoFence that will not allow the aircraft to fly out of. The Presets are 

200ft AGL altitude and a distance horizontally of 400ft.

In the event of signal loss from the ground controller, the aircraft will return to its takeoff point if 

the aircraft has a good GPS Lock. If there is no GPS lock, the aircraft will land at its present 

position.

Attached is the Owner's Manual and Checklist.

The Iris+ will be operated within the parameters set forth by Exemption No: 11358 and COA 

No. FAA-2014-1110-333E unless an additional COA is issued for the Iris+

Thank You for your Consideration

David Farley

New Heights Aerial Media
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0500 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2010-SW-014-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Walter J. WOOD, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 16486.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Sept. 21, 1981.

Richard G. MacDougall, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Earl F. Dorius, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

A jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder. The jury having been waived for the penalty phase, the court heard evidence from the prosecution and defense, and then sentenced the defendant to death. This appeal followed.

A majority of the court holds:

1) That the conviction for first degree murder should be áffirmed; and

2) That the sentence of death should be vacated and the case remanded to the district court for resentencing.

Opinions on the guilt and penalty phases will be filed hereafter.

Speaking of the legal standard governing when the death sentence should be imposed and when the life sentence should be imposed, the trial judge stated:

> I firmly believe it ought to be beyond a reasonable doubt but the Supreme Court has told me. It is by a preponderance, greater weight of the evidence.

After further deliberation, the judge stated:

> ... I will make the specific finding. I do not find that beyond a reasonable doubt, but I find that the aggravating preponderates. The jury having found the defendant guilty of a capital murder in the first degree and the facts preponderating in favor of aggravating over the mitigating circumstances I have no alternative according to the legislature. The legislature set the penalty, the Court doesn’t set the penalty.

> Under the law I am required and mandated that I impose the sentence of death

> 

The trial court’s conclusion that the death S'éntence is mandated once the aggravating circumstances are found to preponderate over the mitigating circumstances is in error and requires that the sentence be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

It is our conclusion that the appropriate standard to be followed by the sentencing authority — judge or jury — in a capital case is the following:

> After considering the totality of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, you must be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that total aggravation outweighs total mitigation, and you must further be persuaded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the imposition of the death penalty is justified and appropriate in the circumstances.

The defendant’s conviction of first degree murder is affirmed, but his sentence of death is vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to resen-tence the defendant in accordance vpith U.C.A., 1953, § 76-3-207(3).

*So ordered.*
#### Carla L. DAWSON, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF the STATE OF COLORADO (Ex Officio Unemployment Compensation Commission of Colorado) and Albertson’s, Inc., Respondents.

No. 82CA1057.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

Feb. 10, 1983.

Mark T. Angelos, Denver, for petitioner.

J.D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Christa Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents.

VAN CISE, Judge.

Petitioner, Carla L. Dawson (claimant), seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Commission denying her unemployment benefits. We affirm.

Claimant was employed as a part-time bakery clerk in one of the grocery stores of respondent Albertson’s, Inc. Her employment was terminated in March 1981.

She filed a claim for unemployment benefits. The Commission found that claimant was at fault in not performing according to job standards and that the incident which precipitated the discharge was only the last in a series of similar failures after warnings. It determined that § 8-73-108(9)(a)(XX), C.R.S.1973 (now 1982 Cum. *925Supp.) applied and, pursuant thereto, denied claimant all benefits attributable to Albertson’s, Inc., or 25 times the weekly benefit amount, whichever is the lesser.

Contrary to claimant’s contention, the Commission’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The evidence showed she was fully capable of performing her assigned tasks. Therefore, the findings are conclusive on review. *Pierce v. Industrial Commission,*195 Colo. 10, 576 P.2d 1012 (1978); § 8-73-108, C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.).

The section of the statute determined by the Commission to apply to the facts of this case, § 8-73-108(9)(a)(XX), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.), allows the Commission to deny unemployment benefits attributable to this employment if the separation occurred for reasons “including, but not limited to ... failure to meet established job performance or other defined standards.” Claimant contends that this statute is void for vagueness. We disagree.

There is no unconstitutional vagueness here. “Failure to meet established job performance or other defined standards” as applicable here means that claimant did not do the job for which she was hired and in which she knew what was expected of her.

The other contention of claimant is without merit.

Order affirmed.

KELLY and KIRSHBAUM, JJ., concur.
### DOE Finance Subgroup **Interest Rate Loan Term** **DownPayment**

**Chattel/Personal Property** 6.3 - 9.5% 12-20 years 12-18% **Real Property/Mortgage** 3.957-4.320% 15-30 years 10-20% (Conv.) 3.5% FHA 2013 78% of homes financed with Chattel/personal property Source: US Census

### Points & Fees **Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI) Property Tax** 

1-2% n/a n/a
1-2% .5-1% (Convential) See chart 120-125 basis points for >90LTV FHA

### Sales Tax **Chart Link**

See chart http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates-2014
See chart
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 66667; March 28, 2012]

                    Pursuant to Rule 431 of the Rules of Practice,[1]                                          it is                    *ordered*                     that the petition of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC for review of the order disapproving by delegated authority File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-010 [2]                                          is granted.                

*It is ordered,*                     pursuant to Rule 431 that any party or other person may file a statement in support of or in opposition to the action made by delegated authority on or before April 18, 2012.                

By the Commission.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             17 CFR 201.431.                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                                                     *See*                         Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65362 (September 20, 2011), 76 FR 59466 (September 26, 2011).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2012-7901 Filed 4-2-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-4124

___________ Troy Roddy, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Corbitt Nesbitt, CO-II, Maximum * Security Unit, Arkansas Department of * Correction, originally sued as J. * Nesbitt; Tonya Forrest, CO-I, * Maximum Security Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction, originally * sued as T. Forest; Nicholas Green, * CO-I, Maximum Security Unit, * Arkansas Department of Correction, * Appeal from the United States originally sued as N. Green; Greg * District Court for the Harmon, Warden, Maximum Security * Eastern District of Arkansas. Unit, Arkansas Department of * Correction, originally sued as G. * [UNPUBLISHED] Hermin; Kenneth Frazier, Sgt. * Maximum Security Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction, originally * sued as Sgt. Frazier; Steve Outlaw, * Assistant Warden, Maximum Security * Unit, Arkansas Department of * Correction, originally sued as S * Outlaw; Richard Wimberly, Major, * Chief of Security, Maximum Security * Unit, Arkansas Department of * Correction, originally sued as R * Wimberly, *1 The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the findings and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2- * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 2, 2000 Filed: November 14, 2000

___________ Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Troy Roddy, an Arkansas inmate, appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §1983 action following an evidentiary hearing. After a careful review of the record, and viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we conclude Roddy’s allegations--that defendant prison officials denied him meals on three occasions over the course of a year--do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. See Williams v. Harness , No. 99-1326, 2000 WL 573448, at *1 (8th Cir. May 10, 2000) (unpublished per curiam) (denial of one meal does not give rise to constitutional violation); Berry v. Brady , 192 F.3d 504, 506-08 (5th Cir. 1999) (deprivationof food constitutes cruel and unusual punishment only if it denies prisoner minimalcivilized measure of life’s necessities, and whether deprivation falls below this thresholddepends on amount and duration of deprivation; denying inmate eight meals
over seven months because of inmate’s failure to shave did not deny inmate “anything close to a minimal measure of life’s necessities” (internal quotations and citation omitted)).-3-

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8thCir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10248

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICHARD GREY KIRBY,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas

(3:92-CR-341-P)

 

February 17, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We affirm the denial of Kirby’s petition filed under 28

U.S.C., Section 2255. We agree with United States v. Hare, 49 F.3d

447 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 211 (1995).
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




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Peter Stokes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief:




(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Peter
      StokesPeter
      Stokes
                Chief
      Executive Officer
                May
      7, 2009




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of American Patriot Financial Group, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, T. Don Waddell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ T. Don Waddell      |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | T. Don Waddell          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | August 14, 2008    |

 

----