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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6408

MICHAEL ANTHONY HUNTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ROBERT E. WARD, Warden; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney General of the

State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. C. Weston Houck, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-279)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 19, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,

Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current

version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Hunter v. South Carolina, No. CA-96-279 (D.S.C. Mar. 3, 1997). See

Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997)

(No. 96-6298). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00645

- CV

K. M. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY NO. C200034CPS , THE HONORABLE GARY L. BANKS , JU DGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant K. M. filed her notice of appeal on December 7, 2021 . The appellate

record was complete on December 17, 2021 , making appellant’s brief due on January 6, 202 2

.

On December 27, 2021 , counsel for appellant fil ed a motion for extension of time to file

appellant’s brief.

The rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals

from suits for termination of par ental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days

for court’s fin al disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting

extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion in part and order Maria Pe ñ a to file

appellant’s brief no later than January 2 6 , 202 2 . If the brief is not fil ed by that date, counsel may

be required to show cause why she should not be he ld in contempt of court.

It is ordered on January 6, 202 2.2

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 566 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 566

  Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President of the United 
 States must immediately establish an interagency Office for Locating 
   and Reuniting Children with Parents in order to protect separated 
  children from suffering additional trauma resulting from the ``Zero 
                          Tolerance'' policy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 28, 2018

 Mr. Merkley (for himself, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Peters, Mr. Casey, Ms. 
 Hassan, and Mr. Carper) submitted the following resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President of the United 
 States must immediately establish an interagency Office for Locating 
   and Reuniting Children with Parents in order to protect separated 
  children from suffering additional trauma resulting from the ``Zero 
                          Tolerance'' policy.

Whereas families belong together, and innocent children must be quickly and 
        safely reunited with their parents who are seeking asylum;
Whereas children and parents are separated between 3 different Federal agencies 
        and remain in an indefinite logistical chaos partly due to inadequate 
        interagency communication; and
Whereas the Department of Health and Human Services has currently identified 
        2,047 children in the Department's custody as a result of being taken 
        away from their parents: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney 
        General, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services must 
        immediately establish an interagency Office for Locating and 
        Reuniting Children with Parents;
            (2) the Secretary of Health and Human Services must appoint 
        a Director for the Office to ensure the successful and safe 
        reunification of children with their parents; and
            (3) the Office must move with extraordinary speed and 
        urgency to safely reunify children with their parents.
                                 <all>
```
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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Shengtai Pharmaceutical, Inc., the
“Company,” on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the “Report,” I,
Yongqiang Wang, Principal Financial 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:





(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.





Date:
      February 14, 2011
                /s/
      Yongqiang
      WangYongqiang
      WangTitle:
      Financial Controller(Principal
      Financial Officer)
General Counsel 1200 New Jersey Ave . S.E. Wa shington, D.C. 20590 **Office of the Secretary** February 19, 2013 **DOCKET: DOT**  **- OST**  **- 2007**  **- 0114**  **NOTICE OF DISCONTINUATION** The purpose of this document is to give official notice that posting of the Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Report on Significant Rulemakings to Docket: DOT - OST - 2007 - 0114 at www.Regulations.Gov has been discontinued. All past and future Reports on Significant Rulemakings can be located at http://www.Dot.Gov/Regulations/Report - on- Significant- Rulemakings . If you h ave any questions, please contact Jennifer Abdul - Wali, Office of the General Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement at (202) 366 - 6322 or b y email at Jennifer.AbdulWali@Dot.Gov .

#
391 A.2d 703

#### Commonwealth v. Villano, Appellant.

Argued April 17, 1978.

Ralph J. Cappy, Public Defender, for appellant; Robert E. Colville, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
1

Tax, Wienke

From: Harvey Eder <harveyederpspc@yahoo.com>

Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 9:43 PM

To: Tax, Wienke; harveyederpspc@yahoo.com

Subject: Fw: Happy 4th!

Attachments: B251627_CT1of3.pdf

 

Torti, DianaThis is in response to your letter requesting an emailed 

copy of the Clerk’s Transcript in Eder v. South Coast Air Quality 

Mgmt. Dist., et al. (B251627). The Clerk’s Transcript is 3 volumes 

with a 

To Me 

Jun 16 

This is in response to your letter requesting an emailed copy of the Clerk’s Transcript inEder v. South 

Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., et al. (B251627). 

The Clerk’s Transcript is 3 volumes with a total of 510 pages. Due to limitations, the documents were 

too large to send in one email. There will be two emails to follow this one.

Diana Torti,Executive Secretary to the Clerk/Executive Officer

COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

300 South Spring Street, Second Floor North Tower, Los Angeles, CA 90013

General: 213-830-7000 -Direct: 213-830-7111

diana.torti@jud.ca.gov courts.ca.gov/2dca facebook.com/2dcoa

 

 

Sign in to Yahoo

Yahoo makes it easy to enjoy what matters most in your world. 

Best in class Yahoo Mail, breaking local, national and global news, 

finance, sports, music, movies and more. 

View on us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com Preview by Yahoo

 

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 2:31 PM, "Tax, Wienke" <Tax.Wienke@epa.gov> wrote:

Hi Harvey –

I have not received anything from you since 21 June, the 5 emails all arrived 20/21 June but only 1 part (part 3) 

of the Court documents. You do have the correct email address, or you did for the 5 emails that you sent. I am 

checking on the status of including links.
2

Hope you have a nice holiday weekend.

Wienke
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 106 (Monday, June 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13045]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 38

RIN 3038-AD09

Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract 
Markets; Correction

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the Federal Register release of the 
final rule regarding Core Principles and Other Requirements for 
Designated Contract Markets by inserting a missing instruction to add 
Appendix C to 17 CFR part 38. This is a correction to the Federal 
Register only, which does not affect the text of Appendix C as 
published in the final rule.

DATES: This correction is effective May 29, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Deputy 
Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 
Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; 202-418-5964; 
CKirkpatrick@cftc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is 
correcting amendatory language for the previously published Federal 
Register release of the final rule regarding Core Principles and Other 
Requirements for Designated Contract Markets (77 FR 36612, June 19, 
2012). The final rule, as published in the Federal Register, included 
an Appendix C to 17 CFR part 38, ``Demonstration of Compliance That a 
Contract Is Not Readily Susceptible to Manipulation.'' However, the 
instruction to add that appendix to the Code of Federal Regulations was 
inadvertently omitted from the Federal Register publication of the 
final rule. Therefore, on page 36722, at the top of the first column, 
immediately before the heading, ``Appendix C--Demonstration of 
Compliance That a Contract Is Not Readily Susceptible to 
Manipulation,'' insert the following amendatory instruction:
* * * * *

0
20. Add appendix C to part 38 to read as follows:
* * * * *

    Dated: May 29, 2013.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-13045 Filed 5-29-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 11, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135738 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135738 

 COA: 272354 

Barry CC: 06-000048-FC 

CHARLES ANDREW HEACOCK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 11, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0604 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 11, 2008 

 Clerk
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APRIL 25, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-10772

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-00655-CV-UWC-S

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

TIM RUSSELL, Commissioner of

the Alabama Department of Revenue,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(April 25, 2011)

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Before BARKETT, HILL and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSXT”) appealed the dismissal of its suit against

the Alabama Department of Revenue seeking to enjoin Alabama from assessing,

levying and/or collecting taxes on diesel fuel purchases and use by CSXT. The

district court dismissed CSXT’s case based on Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Ala. Dep’t of

Revenue, 550 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2008), in which this Court considered an

identical challenge to Alabama’s sales and use tax on railroad diesel fuel, and ruled

in favor of the Alabama Department of Revenue. We affirmed, finding that we

were bound by our prior precedent in Norfolk. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Ala. Dep’t of

Revenue, 350 F. App’x 318 (11th Cir. 2009).

The Supreme Court then granted CSXT’s petition for writ of certiorari and

reversed the judgment. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Ala. Dep’t of Revenue, 562 U.S. __,

131 S. Ct. 1101 (2011). The Court overruled our prior decision in Norfolk, and

held that CSXT “may challenge Alabama’s sales and use taxes as ‘taxes that

discriminate against rail carriers’ under [49 U.S.C. § 11501(b)(4)].” Id. at 1114

(alterations omitted). The Court declined to address whether CSXT should prevail

on its challenge, and remanded CSXT’s appeal for further proceedings consistent

with its opinion. Id.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, we vacate our prior opinion in this

case, CSX Transp., Inc. v. Ala. Dep’t of Revenue, 350 F. App’x 318 (11th Cir.

2
2009), vacate the district court’s December 18, 2008 order dissolving the

preliminary injunction and dismissing CSXT’s case, and remand to the district

court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

PRIOR DECISION VACATED; DISTRICT COURT ORDER

VACATED, and REMANDED.

3
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

PRESTIGE HOMES OF TAMARAC, INC., a Florida Corporation

, Appellant,

v.

CITY OF TAMARAC, a Municipal Corporation

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3281

[ October 23, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Mily Rodriguez Powell , Judge; L.T. Case No. 10

- 0 45101 CACE (03)

.

Robert M. Pasin, Coral Springs, for appellant.

Michael T. Burke and Duchant Johnson of Johnson Anselmo,

M urdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See City of Pembroke Pines v. Corr. Corp. of Am., Inc. , 274 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Paedae v. Escambia County , 709 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 19 9 8); City of Cape Coral v. Landahl, Brown & Weed Assocs.,

Inc. , 470 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985 ); City of Live Oak v. Arnold , 468 So. 2d 410, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

C ONNER

, K LINGENSMITH and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRESIDENT**




**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**




In
      connection with the amendment
      to the Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-Q of Blackhawk Capital Group BDC, Inc. (the "Company") for
      the
      quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Craig A. Zabala, as President
      of
      the Company, hereto certifies, 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
      his knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities 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.




Date: May
              8, 2006/s/ Craig
              A.
              ZabalaCraig
              A.
              ZabalaPresident(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 required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Blackhawk Capital Group BDC and furnished
      to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


24
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.K.L.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: P.L.R.

:

:

:

:

:

No. 357 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: L.M.J.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: P.L.R.

:

:

:

:

:

No. 358 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of February, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
AMS Boneless Beef Supplier Indicator Organism Performance - Fiscal Year: 20191/,2/

Standard Plate Count3/ Total Coliforms4/ 

# Lots Produced # Exceeding % Exceeding # Exceeding % Exceeding # Exce

Supplier (% of Total) Critical Limit Critical Limit Critical Limit Critical Limit Critical 

S1 10,081 (16.3) 1 0.01 1 0.01 3 

S2 1,225 (2.0) 0 0 0 0 0 S3 63 (0.1) 0 0 0 0 0 S4 8,137 (13.2) 2 0.02 10 0.12 4 

S5 11,064 (17.9) 0 0 1 0.01 0 

S6 40 (0.1) 0 0 0 0 0 

S10 6,780 (11.0) 12 0.18 43 0.63 22 

S11 1,375 (2.2) 13 0.95 26 1.89 12 

S12 1,241 (2.0) 0 0 8 0.64 0 

S14 7,789 (12.6) 10 0.13 3 0.04 2 S21 7,161 (11.6) 1 0.01 5 0.07 4 

S29 1,529 (2.5) 0 0 0 0 1 

S43 5,072 (8.2) 0 0 0 0 0 

S44 184 (0.3) 1 0.54 1 0.54 0 

Total 61,741 (100.0) 40 0.06 98 0.16 48 

1/A full description of the boneless beef purchase program specification is available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/product-specs#Beef.2/Production Dates: October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019.3/Standard Plate Count Critical Limit: 100,000 CFU/g.4/Total Coliforms Critical Limit: 1,000 CFU/g.5/Generic E. coli Critical Limit: 500 CFU/g.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-229-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

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 ( ) explain NO (X)
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO N IN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-21-0000691

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
MARIA ABELLO and TEACUM, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KYLE K. KOPITKE, Defendant-Appellant; NATIONAL KOREAN WAR MUSEUM,

Defendant-Appellee, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10,

Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 1CC101002183)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and McCullen, JJ.)Upon consideration of self-represented DefendantAppellant Kyle K. Kopitke's (Kopitke) January 28, 2022 Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Appeal, the papers in support and in response, and the record, it appears that (1) Kopitke seeks to dismiss this docketed appeal; and (2) dismissal is authorized by Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(b). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, March 31, 2022. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Associate Judge /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-21-0000691 31-MAR-2022 08:06 AM Dkt. 19 OGMD
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 729 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 729

  Amending rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide for 
            consideration of a minimum number of amendments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 13, 2018

 Mr. Merkley submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
               the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide for 
            consideration of a minimum number of amendments.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. GUARANTEED AMENDMENTS.

    Rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
    ``6.(a) During the consideration of any bill, resolution, or other 
amendable matter, it shall be in order for the Senate to consider not 
less than 5 amendments offered by members of the majority and not less 
than 5 amendments offered by members of the minority. If a motion to 
invoke cloture under the provisions of rule XXII is presented to the 
Senate, and fewer than the 5 amendments guaranteed to each of the 
minority and the majority under this paragraph have been considered, 
then, notwithstanding the status of any pending amendments, it shall be 
in order for as many members of the majority as appropriate, and as 
many members of the minority as appropriate, to offer 1 amendment each, 
in alternating order, until in total 5 amendments offered by members of 
the majority and 5 amendments offered by members of the minority have 
been considered.
    ``(b) Amendments offered under this paragraph may only pertain to 
matter encompassed by the title of the bill, resolution, or other 
matter, except that 1 amendment offered by a member of the majority and 
1 amendment offered by a member of the minority may be exempted from 
this requirement. An amendment exempted from this requirement shall 
only be agreed to upon an affirmative vote of three-fifths of Senators 
duly chosen and sworn.
    ``(c) The majority leader and minority leader may, by mutual 
agreement, call up additional amendments under the provisions of this 
paragraph. Such additional amendments shall be offered in equal number 
by members of the majority and members of the minority, and may only 
pertain to subject matter encompassed by the title of the bill, 
resolution, or other matter.
    ``(d) Consideration by the Senate of an amendment offered under the 
provisions of this paragraph shall be limited to not more than 2 hours, 
divided equally between the majority and the minority.''.
                                 <all>
```