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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 257 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 257

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  Expressing the sense of the Congress that the men and women of the 
     United States Postal Service have done an outstanding job of 
 collecting, processing, sorting, and delivering the mail during this 
                      time of national emergency.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 257

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, evil acts of terrorism were perpetrated against 
        the people of the United States and all humanity;
Whereas, in October 2001, reports of anthrax-tainted letters began to surface;
Whereas the United States Postal Service handles approximately 680,000,000 
        pieces of mail each day;
Whereas our Nation's postal and delivery sector accounts for approximately 8 
        percent of our gross national product;
Whereas, since September 11, 2001, the United States Postal Service has 
        delivered more than 20,000,000,000 pieces of mail;
Whereas 2 employees of the United States Postal Service have died as a result of 
        anthrax infection;
Whereas a number of employees of the United States Postal Service are being 
        treated for anthrax-like symptoms;
Whereas the more than 800,000 men and women who work for the United States 
        Postal Service have done an outstanding job of collecting, processing, 
        sorting, and delivering the mail during this time of national emergency; 
        and
Whereas the delivery of anthrax through the mail is an attempt to disrupt our 
        ability to communicate through the mail, and threatens the viability of 
        the postal system: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That--
            (1) it is the sense of the Congress that the men and women 
        of the United States Postal Service have done an outstanding 
        job of collecting, processing, sorting, and delivering the mail 
        during this time of national emergency; and
            (2) Congress will work with the United States Postal 
        Service to assure the safety and well-being of postal workers 
        as they carry out their duties and responsibilities, and of the 
        general public.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 14, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### STATE ex rel. Lonnie D. EASTERWOOD v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 86-KH-0871.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 6, 1987.

In re Easterwood, Lonnie D.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, and mandamus; Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 34595.

Denied.
341 SOUTH PATRICK STREET

- ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314

- PH:70 3.549.7600

- FAX:703.549 .7604

– WWW.OPEI.ORG June 20 , 2013

JoNell Iffland

EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality

Assessment and Standards Division

2000 Traverwood Drive

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

RE: Proposed rule “Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor

Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards” (Tier 3)

Dear JoNell,

The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) is the major international trade

association representing the manufacturers and their suppliers of consumer

and commercial outdoor power eq uipment such as lawnmowers, garden

tractors, utility vehicles, trimmers, edgers, chain saws, snow throwers, tillers,

leaf blowers and other related products. These include all of the major

suppliers and manufacturers of engines used by this industry.

OPE I appreciates the extension of comment date noticed on the Tier 3

proposed rule to July 1 . Our industry has begun review of this document

specifically with regard to the request for comments on Section IV.D.5

, Consideration of Nonroad, Motorcycle, and Hea vy

- Duty Engine Emissions and

Test Fuel. For our industry, this is a complex issue with all companies

affected.

In addition to Section IV.D.5, as our industry has reviewed the Tier 3 proposed

rule, we have noted other language and resulting changes that w ill impact the

Nonroad industry, in addition to Motor Vehicles where the intent is to reduce air

pollution from passenger cars and trucks. This includes a significant number

of changes to Part 1065, Engine Testing Procedures, which apply to our

industry.

As such, our industry is reviewing the complete document to identify and

prepare comments with regard to impact on the Nonroad industry and

products.Our member company representatives have begun this detailed review and now realize they

will need additional time to complete the review and develop appropriate comments to submit

to EPA

OPEI asks for an additional extension o f time to complete this process of review of this very

important Tier 3 proposed rule.

On behalf of its members, OPEI request s an extension of the time allowed to provide

comments to July 31 to provide sufficient time for our industry to give this the ful l attention it

deserves. Our industry views this as a very important activity.

OPEI appreciates EPA consideration of this request.

Please advise if this is acceptable to EPA.

Please contact me with any questions that you may have.

Thank You,



# Gerry Coons

Ger ry Coons

VP Industry Affairs

Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI)

CC: Kris Kiser President and CEO, OPEI

Greg Knott Director Industry Affairs, OPEI
Exhibit 32.1  Section 1350 Certification  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lotus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Zhongyi Liu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  November 10, 2010/s/ Zhongyi LiuZhongyi Liu, CEO and President,
principal executive officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 20 2 2

- 1114

_____________________________

D ANIAN L AMAR B ROWN ,
Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA ,
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the C ircuit Court for Gadsden County

. Robert R. Wheeler

, Judge

.
May 15, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

.

O STERHAUS , C.J., and R AY and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Justin F. Karpf , Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Darcy Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0510

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ALAN EDWIN ERICKSON,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursu ant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Kathy Seeley , Distric t Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 28 2024

02/28/2024
Case Number: DA 22-0510
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -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 then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection and 

Repair 5.0 $ 425.00 $2100 $2,525.00 174 $439,350.00

$ 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 $ 0.00 $ 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

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $439,350

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Replacement 15.0 $1,275.00 10,000 $11,275.00

$ 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):
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? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

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:
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

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

The certification set forth below is being submittedin connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Mueller WaterProducts, Inc. (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) orRule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “ExchangeAct”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode.

I, Dale B. Smith,the Chief Operating Officer of Mueller Water Products, Inc., certify that,to the best of my knowledge:

1.                the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theExchange Act; and

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Mueller Water Products, Inc.

| Date: February 3, 2006 |   | By:    |   | /s/ DALE B.  SMITH                |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                        |   |   |   | Dale B. Smith  Chief Operating Officer |

 

 

----
#### Larry R. SMITH, Appellant, v. Betty UNKEFER, Doris Unkefer, Mary Morris, Jane Appel, and Ruth E. Maag, Appellees.

No. 86-2656.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 9, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 19, 1987.

Richard A. Josepher and Thomas Ruffin III of Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block & England, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Robert P. Henderson of Simpson, Henderson, Savage & Carta, Fort Myers, for appellees.

LEHAN, Judge.

We affirm the trial court’s order which provided that the portion of the federal estate taxes owed upon the estate of Russell D. Smith which is attributable to the property in question in this case is payable by the recipients of the property pursuant to section 733.817(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1985).

We do not agree with the argument of appellant, who is the recipient of the property, that that portion of those taxes should not be so payable because the property was exempt homestead property subject to the provisions of section 733.-817(l)(d). Section 733.817(l)(d) provides that “[pjersons taking an interest in the homesteads shall not be liable for apportionment of taxes on account of the homesteads.” But even if the property had homestead status during the life of Russell D. Smith, which we need not decide, appellant, in our view, was not a person so “taking an interest” because his interest in the property was pursuant to a deed. Pri- or to his death Russell D. Smith had deeded the property to appellant, retaining a life estate in himself. Upon his death appellant, as remainderman, succeeded to full title to the property under the deed.

That, as appellant also argues, the property became his homestead immediately upon the death of Russell D. Smith because he had lived on the property with him and continued to live there upon and after his death is, in our view, not determinative. We conclude that the homestead status to which section 733.817(l)(d) refers is that of property while in the possession of the decedent. This conclusion is supported by the foregoing language of that section. That is, by referring to “persons taking an interest in the homesteads,” the statute refers to homestead property from which *758an interest could be taken, which means the homestead of the decedent.

Affirmed.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00209-CR

__________________

DAVID SCOTT ROSE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 411th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 27535 (4 Counts)

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

In a single issue on appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in 

failing to suppress the video statement of his oral statement to law enforcement 

where he challenged the voluntariness of the statement, and in failing to give a jury 

instruction under Articles 38.22 and 38.23. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 

38.22, 38.23. 

In Appellant’s motion to suppress in the trial court, he argued that “[a]ny 

statement defendant might have made was involuntary, and in violation of the 5th 
2

and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, of article 

I § 10 of the Texas Constitution, and of articles 38.22 and 38.23 of the Texas Code 

of Criminal Procedure.” After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. The record 

does not reflect that either party requested written findings, and none were made.

Section 6 of Article 38.22 requires written findings when the voluntariness of 

a confession is litigated and the trial court finds the confession to be voluntary and 

admissible. See Sandoval v. State, No. AP-77,081, 2022 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 

844, at *33 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 7, 2022). The statute requires written findings 

even if they were not requested by the parties because “‘written findings are required

in all cases concerning voluntariness’” and “‘[t]he statute has no exceptions.’” See 

id. (quoting Vasquez v. State, 411 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)). On 

appeal, Appellant does not challenge the failure of the trial court to make written 

findings. That said, we note the wording of the statute requires such findings. 

Therefore, we abate the appeal and remand this case for the trial court to make 

written findings in compliance with Article 38.22. See Sandoval v. State, No. AP77,081, 2022 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 114, at *3 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 2, 

2022); see also Sandoval, 2022 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 844, at **33-34. The trial 

court shall forward its findings within 30 days from the date of this order. The appeal

will be reinstated upon our receipt of the trial court’s findings.

ORDER ENTERED December 15, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, J.J.
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS

I, Richard M. Cohen, Chief Financial Officer of Baseline Oil & Gas Corp.,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2006 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and

(2) information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Baseline
Oil & Gas Corp.

Dated: August 14, 2006


                                           /s/ Richard M. Cohen
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Richard M. Cohen
                                           Chief Financial Officer

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.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8063]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, April 
5, 2012 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
April 5, 2012 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
An adjudicatory matter; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: March 29, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8063 Filed 3-30-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### MONROE INDUSTRIAL BANK, a Colorado banking corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harry BLOOM, State Banking Commissioner, Norman P. Dubois, Joel H. Wiens, Thomas J. Wiens, and Colorado Industrial Bancorporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 81CA0775.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

June 24, 1982.

*687Jerald J. Devitt, William B. Lucas, Golden, for plaintiff-appellant.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Richard H. Goldberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant-ap-pellee Harry Bloom.

Eason, Sprague & Wilson, Eugene M. Sprague, Robert G. Wilson, Jr., Denver, for defendants-appellees Norman P. Dubois, Joel H. Wiens, Thomas J. Wiens, and Colorado Indus. Bancorporation.

STERNBERG, Judge.

Monroe Industrial Bank protested the issuance of an industrial bank charter to defendants Norman P. DuBois, Joel H. Wiens, and Thomas J. Wiens. The district court upheld the action of the defendant bank commissioner in issuing the charter, and Monroe appeals. Section 11-2-105, C.R.S. 1973. We affirm.

The principal contention of error is that the individual applicants did not disclose in their application that it was likely that after issuance of the charter a transfer of the stock would be made to a holding company, the defendant, Colorado Industrial Bank Corporation. The statute in question, § ll-22-102(3)(a)(II), C.R.S. 1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.), requires only that the application list the subscribers to the stock. We read no requirement into the statute that the application also disclose what may or may not be a firm future intention to transfer ownership of some or all of the stock to another entity. *See Academy Boulevard Bank v. Banking Board,*30 Colo.App. 331, 492 P.2d 76 (1971). We note, in this regard, that § ll-22-102(3)(a)(II), C.R.S. 1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.) requires approval of the banking commissioner should there actually be a future transfer of ownership of the shares of stock prior or subsequent to issuance of the charter. Section 11-22-109(2)(b), C.R.S. 1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.) (amended in 1982 by Senate Bill 91).

Plaintiff also asserts as error the lack of an evidentiary foundation for the commissioner’s conclusions concerning the volume of business and profitability of this industrial bank. We conclude there was sufficient evidence in the record to serve as basis for the commissioner’s conclusions in this regard; thus, they must be sustained on review. *Goldy v. Henry,*166 Colo. 401, 443 P.2d 994 (1968); *Walton v. Banking Board,*36 Colo.App. 311, 541 P.2d 1254 (1975).

The other contentions of error are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

PIERCE and BERMAN, JJ., concur.