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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 45

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding housing affordability and

ensuring a competitive North American market for softwood lumber.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 28, 2001

Mr. KOLBE (for himself, Mr. HOYER, Mr. GANSKE, Mrs. BONO, Mr. LEWIS

of Kentucky, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr. BONILLA, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr.

NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. PITTS, Mr. EHRLICH, Mr. KNOLLENBERG,

Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. DOOLEY of California, Mr.

DAVIS of Florida, Mrs. NORTHUP, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr. WEXLER, Mr.

MICA, Mr. WELLER, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr.

BLUNT, Mr. NUSSLE, Mr. WYNN, Mr. HILL, Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky,

Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MASCARA, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr.

LAHOOD, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. GARY MILLER of California, Mrs. JOHNSON

of Connecticut, Mr. LEACH, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. GONZALES, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. PHELPS, Mr. GREENWOOD, Ms.

PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. FLETCHER, Mr. SUNUNU, and Mr. BARCIA) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding housing affordability and ensuring a competitive North American

market for softwood lumber.

Whereas the United States and Canada have, since 1989,

worked to reduce tariff and nontariff barriers to trade;

Whereas free and fair trade has greatly benefited the United

States and Canadian economies;
2

•HCON 45 IH

Whereas the United States and Canada have been engaged

in an ongoing dispute over trade in softwood lumber for

19 years;

Whereas on May 29, 1996, the United States and Canada entered into an agreement to temporarily resolve the dispute;

Whereas the United States-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement of 1996 does not promote open trade;

Whereas the scope of the United States-Canada Softwood

Lumber Agreement of 1996 has been expanded, leading

to uncertainty for importers, distributors, retailers, and

purchasers of softwood lumber products;

Whereas the availability of affordable housing is important to

the American home buyer;

Whereas lumber price volatility jeopardizes housing affordability; and

Whereas the United States-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement of 1996 will expire on April 1, 2001: 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) the United States-Canada Softwood Lumber

4 Agreement of 1996 should terminate on April 1,

5 2001, with no extension or further quota agreement,

6 nor any renegotiation of trade restrictions on lumber

7 after the agreement expires;

8 (2) the President should continue discussions

9 with the Government of Canada to promote open
3

•HCON 45 IH

1 and competitive trade between the United States

2 and Canada on softwood lumber; and

3 (3) the President should consult with all stake4 holders, including consumers of lumber products, in

5 future discussions regarding the open trade of

6 softwood lumber between the United States and

7 Canada.

Æ
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 13709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05011]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; 
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Domestic and 
International Flight Plans

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved 
information collection. Flight plan information is used to govern the 
flight of aircraft for the protection and identification of aircraft 
and property and persons on the ground.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 15, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda 
Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of 
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the 
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the 
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) 
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of 
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include 
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information 
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson by email at: 
Ronda.Thompson@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0026.
    Title: Domestic and International Flight Plans.
    Form Numbers: FAA Forms 7233-1 & 7233-4.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Title 49 U.S.C., paragraph 40103(b) authorizes 
regulations governing the flight of aircraft. 14 CFR 91 prescribes 
requirements for filing domestic and international flight plans. 
Information is collected to provide services to aircraft inflight and 
protection of persons/property on the ground.
    Respondents: Approximately 300,000 air carriers, operators and 
pilots.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1-3 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 225,966 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 1, 2017.
Ronda L. Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and 
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2017-05011 Filed 3-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 06616

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 06616\06616_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

06616\06616_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

06616\06616_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 06616\06616_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06616\06616_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06616\06616_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06616\06616_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06616\06616_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

06616\Certification Statement Plant ID 06616.PDF Plant certification statement

x 06616\Supporting Documents\06616_Faulkner Site Plan.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06616\Supporting Documents\06616_Morgantown wwts waterbalance for Part D.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06616\Supporting Documents\06616_MT Site Plan.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06616\Supporting Documents\06616_MT Water and Wastewater Flow Line Diagram.pdfPlant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### Carvin JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lawrence MORRIS, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 17687.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 22, 1982.

*52Carvin Johnson, pro se.

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

PER CURIAM:

On February 14, 1980, the appellant appeared before the trial court, accompanied by counsel who had represented him at the jury trial wherein appellant was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual assault.1 Appellant was asked by the court if he had “anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced,” and the court, finding “no sufficient cause to the contrary being shown or appearing to the court,” sentenced appellant to prison.

Appellant’s counsel was a member of the Bar in good standing, duly licensed, whose expertise and ability was unquestioned until two months after appellant had appealed to this Court and his conviction had been affirmed. On no occasion prior thereto did appellant express any dissatisfaction with or object to any representation by or competence of his counsel.

Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which was amended to include a claim of incompetence of counsel. At a hearing on the petition, several witnesses testified, including trial counsel. The court specifically found that appellant had been effectively and competently represented.2 Inasmuch as appellant has failed to supply this Court with a transcript of the habeas corpus proceeding, it is presumed that the evidence supported the findings.3

Because of the dispositive nature of the factual findings of the trial court, we need not address its alternative basis for the denial of the petition, to wit, the doctrine of waiver.

Affirmed.

DURHAM, J., does not participate herein.

1

. In violation of U.C.A., 1953, 76-5^405.

2

. The court also specifically found that there was no merit to the claim of error that counsel “failed” to ask for separate trials. U.C.A., 1953, 77-35-9 provides for joinder of causes, and a decision on that matter is one of strategy by the defense, within the sound discretion of the trial court.

3

*.Goodman v. Wilkinson,*Utah, 629 P.2d 447 (1981). See also *Silva v. Turner,*27 Utah 2d 429, 497 P.2d 35 (1972).
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

KEVIN A. RIVERA-RIVERA, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3481

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

 )

Opinion filed September 16, 2020. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Mark D. Kiser, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Mark J. O'Brien, Special Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Chelsea N. Simms, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, C.J., and BLACK, J., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR 

JUDGE, Concur.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 21145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8506]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending March 24, 2012

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2012-0042.
    Date Filed: March 19, 2012.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: April 9, 2012.
    Description: Application of People Express Airlines, Inc. (``People 
Express'') requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity 
authorizing People Express to engage in interstate scheduled air 
transportation of persons, property, and mail.

 Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2012-8506 Filed 4-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
H. Con. Res. 413 Agreed to July 19, 2002

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Concurrent Resolution

Whereas on July 17, 1902, Dr. Willis H. Carrier submitted designs

to a printing plant in Brooklyn, New York, for equipment to

control temperature, humidity, ventilation, and air quality,

marking the birth of modern air conditioning;

Whereas air-conditioning has become an integral technology

enabling the advancement of society through improvements to

the Nation’s health and well-being, manufacturing processes,

building capacities, research, medical capabilities, food preservation, art and historical conservation, and general productivity

and indoor comfort;

Whereas Dr. Carrier debuted air-conditioning technology for legislative activity in the House of Representatives Chamber in 1928,

and the Senate Chamber in 1929;

Whereas the air-conditioning industry now totals $36 billion on

a global basis and employs more than 700,000 people in the

United States; and

Whereas the year 2002 marks the 100th anniversary of modern

air-conditioning: Now, therefore, be it
H. Con. Res. 413—2

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress honors the invention of modern air-conditioning by Dr. Willis H. Carrier on the occasion of its 100th anniversary.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
Order entered May 22, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00363-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.G., ET. AL, CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-17435-Z

ORDER

Because this is an accelerated appeal from a decree terminating appellant’s parental 

rights, we GRANT appellant’s May 19, 2015 motion for additional time to file brief to the extent 

we ORDER the brief be filed no later than June 11, 2015. We caution appellant that no further 

extensions will be granted absent exigent circumstances. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE GUADALUPE SALAZAR-ROJAS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH,** Attorney

General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-73678

Agency No. A092-023-080

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 8, 2015*** 

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Jose Salazar-Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an

FILED

MAY 13 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** Loretta E. Lynch is substituted for Eric H. Holder, Jr. as Attorney

General. Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). 

 *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal

and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review

de novo legal determinations regarding an alien’s eligibility for cancellation of

removal.” Camacho-Cruz v. Holder, 621 F.3d 941, 942 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010). We

grant the petition for review and remand for consideration of Salazar-Rojas’s

application for cancellation of removal. 

The BIA erred when it held that Salazar-Rojas’s conviction alone for making

a false claim to U.S. citizenship, under 18 U.S.C. § 911, made him statutorily

ineligible for cancellation of removal as an alien who had falsely represented

“himself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under [the

INA] . . . or any Federal or State law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(D)(I) (emphasis

added). While conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 911 requires that a defendant

represent himself or herself to a be U.S. citizen “to someone with good reason to

inquire,” United States v. Karouni, 379 F.3d 1139, 1142 (9th Cir. 2004), acting for

a “purpose or benefit” under federal or state law is not an element of § 911. 

Therefore, based on his conviction under § 911 alone, the BIA could not determine

that Salazar-Rojas was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.

In light of our disposition, we need not address Salazar-Rojas’s arguments

concerning voluntary departure. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
**Exhibit 31.2**
 
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO RULES 13A-14( a) AND 15 d -14( a ) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 AND SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I, R. Darrell Brewer, Chief Financial Officer of SNB Bancshares, Inc. certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SNB Bancshares, Inc. (the "Registrant");
 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and 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 report is being prepared; 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this 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 functions): 
 a)
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control 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 fnancial reporting.  **SNB BANCSHARES, INC.**Date:   November 15, 2004
By:
/s/ R. Darrell BrewerChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 2.3JOINDER AGREEMENT     This Joinder Agreement is executed this 16th day of September, 2005, by **Macquarie Gas HoldingsLLC**(“Assignee”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have themeanings ascribed thereto in the Purchase Agreement (defined below).Recitals     k1 Ventures Limited (“Seller”), K-1 HGC Investment, L.L.C. (“Investment”) and MacquarieInvestment Holdings Inc. (“MIHI”) are parties to a Purchase Agreement dated August 2, 2005, asamended by a First Amendment to Purchase Agreement dated as of August 17, 2005 (the “PurchaseAgreement”).     Section 11.4 of the Purchase Agreement allows Buyer to assign its interests in the PurchaseAgreement to one or more assignees provided that such assignee or assignees execute a JoinderAgreement to become a party to the Purchase Agreement.     MIHI assigned its rights and obligations under the Purchase Agreement to MacquarieInfrastructure Company Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Assignor”) pursuant to that certainAssignment Agreement dated as of August 17, 2005, and Assignor became a party to the PurchaseAgreement by executing that certain Joinder Agreement executed August 17, 2005.     Assignor has assigned its rights and obligations under the Purchase Agreement to Assignee andAssignee desires to become a party to the Purchase Agreement by executing this Joinder Agreement.     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration,the receipt and sufficiency of which Assignee hereby acknowledges, Assignee agrees as follows: 1. Effective as of the date of this Joinder Agreement, Assignee shall become aparty to the Purchase Agreement with a proportionate interest in the rights andobligations of Buyer under the Purchase Agreement.  2. By executing this Joinder Agreement, Assignee confirms that therepresentations and warranties of Buyer set out in Article 5 of the Purchase Agreementwould be true and correct as of the date of this Joinder Agreement if made withrespect to Assignee, and agrees that from and after the date of this JoinderAgreement: (i) Assignee makes with respect to itself all representations andwarranties of Buyer under the Purchase Agreement, (ii) is bound by and agrees toperform all covenants of Buyer under the Purchase Agreement, and (iii) is thebeneficiary of all representations, warranties and covenants of Seller and Investmentunder the Purchase Agreement, including, without limitation, is entitled to receiveall notices to Buyer under the Purchase Agreement.
 

 
 3. Assignee’s address for notices is as follows:125 West 55th Street
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 PSB Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Thomas A. Borner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 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 results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 13, 2006  /s/ Thomas A. BornerThomas A. BornerChief Executive Officer