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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1103 

To amend the market name of genetically altered salmon in the United 

States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2019 

Mr. YOUNG (for himself, Mr. DEFAZIO, and Ms. BONAMICI) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the market name of genetically altered salmon 

in the United States, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Genetically Engineered 

5 Salmon Labeling Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PURPOSES. 

7 It is the purpose of this Act to— 

8 (1) ensure that consumers in the United States 

9 can make informed decisions when purchasing salm10 on; and 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1103 IH

1 (2) authorize an independent scientific review 

2 of— 

3 (A) the possible effects of genetically engi4 neered salmon on wild salmon stocks; and 

5 (B) the Food and Drug Administration’s 

6 approval of genetically engineered salmon for 

7 human consumption. 

8 SEC. 3. MARKET NAME FOR GENETICALLY ENGINEERED 

9 SALMON. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi11 sion of law, for purposes of applying the Federal Food, 

12 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), the ac13 ceptable market name of any salmon that is genetically 

14 engineered shall include the words ‘‘Genetically Engi15 neered’’ or ‘‘GE’’ prior to the existing acceptable market 

16 name. 

17 (b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, salm18 on is genetically engineered if it has been modified by re19 combinant DNA (rDNA) techniques, including the entire 

20 lineage of salmon that contain the rDNA modification. 

21 SEC. 4. THIRD-PARTY REVIEW OF CERTAIN SALMON AP22 PROVAL. 

23 The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 

24 ensure that an independent scientific organization con25 ducts a review of the environmental assessment that was 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1103 IH

1 carried out by the Food and Drug Administration in sup2 port of an approval of a new animal drug application re3 lated to AquAdvantage Salmon, dated November 12, 

4 2015. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13A-14**

**PROMULGATED UNDER**

**SECTION 302 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003**

I, Jack A. Cuneo, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CB Richard Ellis Realty Trust; 

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

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

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

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure 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, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; and 

(b) [Omitted in reliance on SEC Release No. 33-8238;34-47986, Section III E.] 

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost 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 overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 14, 2007
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 105 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That in recognition of the long and distin3 guished service rendered to the Nation by the Honorable 

4 John Lewis, late a Representative from the State of Geor5 gia, his remains shall be permitted to lie in state in the 

6 Rotunda of the Capitol from July 27, 2020, through July 

7 29, 2020, and the Architect of the Capitol, 
2 

•HCON 105 EH 

1 under the direction of the President pro tempore of the 

2 Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

3 shall take all necessary steps for the accomplishment of 

4 that purpose. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 105 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Permitting the remains of the Honorable John 

itol. Georgia, to lie in state in the rotunda of the CapLewis, late a Representative from the State of
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15

- 2187 Filed January 11, 2017

KING P. FLOWERS , Applicant

- Appellant,

vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart P. Werling , Judge.

The a pplicant appeals the district court ’s denial of his application for postconviction relief from his con viction for possession of a firearm as a felon.
AFFIRMED.

Jack E. Dusthimer , Davenport , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.2

BOWER, Judge. King Flowers was found guilty of possession of a firearm as a convicted felon on May 6, 2013, in violation of Iowa Code section 724.26 (2013)

. Flowers filed an application for postconviction relief on August 28, 2014, and amended the application on December 3, 2014, and July 6, 2015. In a separate motion, Flowers sought to have counsel removed. The district court denied Flowers’s motion to remove counsel. A hearing was held on the application for postconviction relief , which application was denied on November 23. During the hearing, the district court again refused to allow Flowers to proceed pro se. Flowers appeals the district court’s denial of his ability to act pro se during the postconviction hearing. He also claims th e ruling resulted in a denial of his S ixth A mendment right of self

- representation and his postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue his motion to remove counsel. “We ordinarily review postconviction relief proceedings for errors at law.” Love v. State , 543 N.W.2d 621, 623 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (citations omitted). C laims of ineffective assistance of counsel are reviewed de novo. Ledezma v. State , 626 N.W.2d 134, 141 (Iowa 2001). “To prevail on a claim of ineffective

ass istance of counsel, the [defendant] must demonstrate both ineffective assistance and prejudice

. ” Id . at 142. Our supreme court has held the district court has “ discretion to deny a postconviction relief applicant ’ s request to dispense with counsel. ” L eonard v. State , 461 N.W.2d 465, 468 (Iowa 1990) . Additionally, “ the sixth amendment applies only to criminal prosecutions and so has no application to postconviction relief proceedings. ” Id

. ( citing State v. Wright , 456 N.W.2d 661, 664

- 65 (Iowa3

1990) )

. Therefore, Flowers’s claim his constitutional right to represent himself was violated fail s as that right did not apply to the current case. Similarly, Flowers’s counsel at his postconviction hearing could not have been ineffective

as “ [c] ounsel cannot fail to perform an essential duty by merely failing to make a meritless objection.” See State v. Bearse , 748 N.W.2d 211, 215 (Iowa 2008). Pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (c), and (e), we affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 15.3**

 

IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm’s Consent

 

We consent to the inclusion in this Shell CompanyReport of Bitfufu Inc. on Form 20-F of our report dated December 18, 2023, which includes an explanatory paragraph as to Arisz AcquisitionCorp.’s ability to continue as a going concern and an explanatory paragraph as to the restatement of previously issued financialstatements, with respect to our audits of the financial statements of Arisz Acquisition Corp. as of September 30, 2023 and 2022 and forthe years then ended, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arisz Acquisition Corp. for the year ended September 30, 2023. Wealso consent to the reference to our firm under the heading “Statements by Experts” in the Shell Company Report on Form 20-F.

 

/s/ Marcum llp

 

Marcum llp

East Hanover, NJ

March 6, 2024
Exhibit (21)


                         2004 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
                         -------------------------------

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                           ---------------------------

All of the Registrant's subsidiaries as of September 30, 2004, are listed below.
Subsidiaries of a subsidiary are indented. All subsidiaries are included in the
consolidated financial statements of the Registrant.

                                                                  Percentage of
                                                  State Or           Voting
                                              Jurisdiction of      Securities
                                                Organization          Owned
                                              -----------------  ---------------

Dixon Ticonderoga, Inc.                            Canada             100%

   Grupo Dixon, S.A. de C.V.  (50.1%
   Subsidiary of Dixon Ticonderoga, Inc.)          Mexico              98%

      Dixon Ticonderoga de Mexico, S.A. de
      C.V. (Subsidiary of Grupo Dixon, S.A.
      de C.V.)                                     Mexico             100%

      Dixon Comercializadora Dixon, S.A. de
      C.V. (Subsidiary of Grupo Dixon, S.A.
      de C.V.)                                     Mexico             100%

      Servidix, S.A. de C.V.  (Subsidiary of
      Grupo Dixon, S.A. de C.V.)                   Mexico             100%

Beijing Dixon Ticonderoga Stationery
  Company, Ltd.                                    China              100%

Ticonderoga Graphite, Inc. (a)                    New York            100%

Dixon Europe, Limited                          United Kingdom         100%



(a)  Inactive
H. R. 1123 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen 

An Act 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to modify the composition of the eastern 

judicial district of Arkansas, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Divisional Realignment for the 

Eastern District of Arkansas Act of 2019’’. 

SEC. 2. REALIGNMENT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS. 

Section 83(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended to 

read as follows: 

‘‘Eastern District 

‘‘(a) The Eastern District comprises three divisions. 

‘‘(1) The Central Division comprises the counties of 

Cleburne, Cleveland, Conway, Dallas, Drew, Faulkner, Grant, 

Jefferson, Lincoln, Lonoke, Perry, Pope, Prairie, Pulaski, Saline, 

Stone, Van Buren, White, and Yell. 

Court for the Central Division shall be held at Little Rock. 

‘‘(2) The Delta Division comprises the counties of Arkansas, 

Chicot, Crittenden, Desha, Lee, Monroe, Phillips, and St. 

Francis. 

Court for the Delta Division shall be held at Helena. 

‘‘(3) The Northern Division comprises the counties of Clay, 

Craighead, Cross, Fulton, Greene, Independence, Izard, Jackson, Lawrence, Mississippi, Poinsett, Randolph, Sharp, and 

Woodruff. 

Court for the Northern Division shall be held at Jonesboro.’’. 

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

This Act and the amendment made by this Act shall take 

effect on the date of enactment of this Act. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 35068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14822]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7502]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations; ``Monet/Lichtenstein: Rouen Cathedrals''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Monet/Lichtenstein: Rouen Cathedrals,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a 
loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine 
that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of 
Fine Arts, Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, from on or about July 3, 
2011, until on or about September 18, 2011, the Los Angeles County 
Museum of Art, Los Angeles, California, from on or about October 2, 
2011, until on or about January 2, 2012, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: June 8, 2011.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-14822 Filed 6-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### Karen Lillis et al., Appellants, v Marcelino F. D’Souza et al., Respondents.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject plaintiffs’ contention that the trial court should have precluded defendants’ expert from testifying at trial because defendants did not respond until the second day of trial to the demand for disclosure of the report of the expert. CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) does not require a party to retain an expert at any specific time nor does it mandate that a party be precluded from proffering expert testimony merely because of noncompliance with the statute. The record reveals that the expert was retained only a week prior to trial and there is no evidence of intentional or willful nondisclosure by defendants. The expert testimony offered no surprises, and plaintiffs have not demonstrated any prejudice. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the expert to testify for defendants *(see, Saar v Brown & Odabashian,*139 Misc 2d 328, 333-335; *Dunn v Medina Mem. Hosp.,*131 Misc 2d 971, 974; *see also,*Siegel, NY Prac § 348A [2d ed]).

*977In addition, the trial court properly rejected plaintiffs’ request to charge the jury on the inferences that may be drawn from the destruction of evidence because, in fact, there was no showing that any evidence had been destroyed *(see generally,*PJI 1:77; Richardson, Evidence § 91 [Prince 10th ed]).

Finally, there is no merit to plaintiffs’ contention that the jury’s verdict for defendants was against the weight of the evidence. A jury’s verdict is not against the weight of the evidence unless utterly irrational and unsupported by a fair interpretation of the evidence *(see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493; *Monahan v Comenale,*124 AD2d 1031; *see also, Petrovski v Fornes,*125 AD2d 972, *lv denied*69 NY2d 608). This trial was a prototypical battle of the experts, and the jury’s acceptance of defendants’ case was a rational and fair interpretation of the evidence. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fallon, J.—Medical Malpractice.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
National Organic Standards Board

Handling Subcommittee Proposal

Re-classification of Carnauba Wax to §205.606

August 4, 2015

Introduction

In the course of the Sunset 2017 Review of Carnauba Wax, information from the Technical Report (TR) 

from 2014 indicates that this is an agricultural substance.

Background

During the creation of the National List, Carnauba was included in the review of "Fruit Waxes" under the 

Crops Committee because it was considered a post-harvest handling substance. It was never classified as 

either agricultural or non-agricultural at that time. When the rule came out it was on the Handling 

section of the National List at 205.601(a).

Carnauba wax is an exudate from the leaves and buds of the palm tree Copernicia cerifera, also known 

as Copernicia prunifera, which grows almost exclusively in northeastern Brazil. It is used to coat fruit and 

vegetables, candies and as a base for chewing gum.

Relevant areas in the Rule

§205.605(a) and §205.606.

Discussion

Evaluation Question #2 of the 2014 TR goes into detail on how the Carnauba wax is extracted from the 

palm trees. The subcommittee compared this process with the Draft Guidance on Classification of 

Materials (NOP Guidance 5033) and determined that carnauba wax could be considered agricultural 

based on the definition of "agricultural product" at §205.2 of the Federal rule. Furthermore, there is 

some organically grown carnauba on the market.

When the question of re-classification was posed in the first round of public comments, no comments 

were received that posed concerns about this change.

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to classify Carnauba Wax as agricultural and move its listing to section §205.606

Motion by: Zea Sonnabend

Second: Tracy Favre

Yes: 6 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0 

Approved by Tom Chapman, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB August 25, 2015
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 SendTec, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald Gould, 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, to 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Donald Gould             
|Donald Gould                 
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
|November 16, 2006
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer ofNew Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1,2022 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC andCNH Equipment Trust 2022-A, does hereby certify that:

 

1.              NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.              The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate tothe Indenture Trustee.

 

3.              This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.             A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month periodending (and including) December 31, 2023 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.              To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending(and including) December 31, 2023.

 

6.              IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificatethis 27th day of March, 2024.

 

 

 

 

March 27, 2024
PROCESSED PEAR COMMITTEE

ROSTER

Marketing Order 927 105 South 18th Street

Two-Year Term Ends June 30 Suite 205

Yakima, WA 98901

MANAGER: CHAIRPERSON:

B.J. Thurlby Andrew Sundquist

Phone: (509) 453-4837 Phone: (509) 945-1505

Members Alternates Term Ending

District 1 - Washington

Growers Andrew Sundquist Greg Harnden 2022

Yakima, WA Cashmere, WA

Shawn Phelps Ron Ball 2023

Zillah, WA Yakima, WA

Handlers Peter Verbrugge Rod Matson 2022

Wapato, WA Selah, WA

Mark L. Blore Gene R. Woodin, Jr. 2023

Yakima, WA Yakima, WA

District 2 - Oregon

Grower Kevin W. Zielinski Stephen Hunt 2022

Salem, OR Hood River, OR

Handler Jason Moore Benjamin Y. Roy 2023

Hood River, OR Hood River, OR

(Districts 1, 2 & 3)

Processors Ryan Herrington Steve Carlson 2022

Yakima, WA Yakima, WA

Dustyn Edler Jon K. Holt 2023

Yakima, WA Vancouver, WA

Rich Baldoz Vacancy 2022

Yakima, WA

Public Kenneth Severn Steve Castagnoli 2023

Yakima, WA Hood River, OR