alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 1365 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To make technical corrections to the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition 

Act. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO GUAM WORLD WAR II LOYALTY RECOGNITION ACT. 

Title XVII of division A of Public Law 114–328 is amended— 

(1) in section 1703(e)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘equal to’’ and inserting ‘‘not to exceed’’; 

and 

(B) by striking ‘‘covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts’’ and inserting ‘‘used to reimburse the 

applicable appropriations’’; 

(2) in section 1704(a) by striking ‘‘, subject to the availability of appropriations,’’ and inserting ‘‘from the Claims 

Fund’’; and 

(3) by striking section 1707(a). 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### In the Matter of Edward J. Kreuter, Appellant, v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Scarsdale, Respondent.

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Scarsdale, dated March 8, 1989, denying the petitioner’s application for an area variance, after a hearing, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Carey, J.), entered November 21, 1989, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner purchased two adjoining parcels of land located in Scarsdale, New York, in 1985 for the price of $250,000. One parcel was improved with a house and the other was unimproved, and both were located in an R-4 zoning district. Thereafter, the petitioner sought to construct a house on the unimproved parcel but was required to apply for an area variance because the parcel failed to meet the general area and frontage requirements of the R-4 zone or of the limited exception provided by the Village of Scarsdale Zoning Code § 310-17 (A). The respondent denied the application, and its denial was confirmed by the Supreme Court, Westchester County.

The petitioner failed to show that strict compliance with the zoning laws would cause him "practical difficulties” *(Matter of Fuhst v Foley,*45 NY2d 441, 445; *Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*40 NY2d 309, 314; *Matter of Spandorf v Board of Appeals,*167 AD2d 546). The entire *570parcel, consisting of Lots 61 and 62, has been successfully utilized for years as a single unit containing one residence. Indeed, the petitioner himself had used the residence for some four years prior to applying for the variance. The record shows that the property as a whole constitutes a valuable and useful parcel containing a desirable home with plenty of free space.

Furthermore, the petitioner also failed to show that he would suffer any "significant economic injury” *(Matter of Cowan v Kern,*41 NY2d 591, 596) without the variance *(see, Matter of Hansen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*158 AD2d 689, 690). " '[T]he mere fact that a parcel could be used more profitably if the variance were granted is insufficient to warrant granting the petitioner’s application’ ” *(Matter of Vivest Bldg. Corp. v Auwarter,*152 AD2d 582, 584, quoting *Matter of Graziano v Scalafani,*143 AD2d 664, 666). The evidence submitted by the petitioner regarding the predominant value of the homes in the area revealed that homes similar to his were valued at about $350,000, some $100,000 more than the amount for which he purchased the combined Lots 61 and 62. Although the petitioner could improve Lot 62, sell it at a greater price, and turn a larger profit if granted the variance, this does not establish significant economic injury.

Accordingly, the respondent’s denial was premised on a rational basis, was supported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary, illegal, nor an abuse of discretion *(see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra; Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra).*Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1398 

To delay the reimposition of the annual fee on health insurance providers 

until after 2021. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2019 

Mr. BERA (for himself, Mrs. WALORSKI, Mr. GOTTHEIMER, Mr. MARCHANT, 

Mr. O’HALLERAN, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mr. 

DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee, Ms. BROWNLEY of California, Mr. KELLY

of Pennsylvania, Mr. SMITH of Missouri, and Mr. BUCSHON) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 

Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To delay the reimposition of the annual fee on health 

insurance providers until after 2021. 

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 ‘‘Health Insurance Tax 

5 Relief Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1398 IH

1 SEC. 2. DELAY OF REIMPOSITION OF ANNUAL FEE ON 

2 HEALTH INSURANCE PROVIDERS UNTIL 

3 AFTER 2021. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 9010(j)(3) of the Patient 

5 Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by strik6 ing ‘‘December 31, 2019’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

7 2021’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 this section shall apply to calendar years beginning after 

10 December 31, 2019. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2012326EN.01033701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

DECLARATIONS

DECLARATIONS

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON,

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON

signed on 13 December 2007

A.   DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

15.   Declaration on Article 27 of the Treaty on European Union

Declaration on Article 27 of the Treaty on European Union

The Conference declares that, as soon as the Treaty of Lisbon is signed, the Secretary-General of the Council, High Representative for the common foreign and security policy, the Commission and the Member States should begin preparatory work on the European External Action Service.

---
CITRUS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTE

Marketing Order No. 905

Term Ends July 31

MANAGER: CHAIRPERSON:

Peter Chaires George Hamner

Citrus Administrative Committee Vero Beach, FL

800 Trafalgar Ct

P. O. BOX 941058

Maitland, FL

(321) 214-5252 Business

(321) 214-0223 Fax

Members Alternates Term 

Ending

District 1 Cooperatives Growers W. Lindsay Raley Ellis Hunt, Jr. 2022

Winter Haven, FL Lake Wales, FL

Larry Black Jeff Hancock 2022

Fort Meade, FL Fort Meade, FL

District 2 Growers Ron Mahan John R. Paul 2022

Fort Myers, FL Wauchula, FL

Eduardo Pines Anthony Pascher 2022

Indian River Shores, FL Lake Placid, FL

Lee C. Jones Sam Jones 2022

Okeechobee, FL Belle Glade, FL

District 3 Growers Thomas S. Hammond Gregory P. Nelson 2022

Vero Beach, FL Fort Pierce, FL

Scott W Lambeth Griffin Greene 2022

Vero Beach, FL Vero Beach, FL

Jon F. Marone Walter T. Jerkins, Jr. 2022

Vero Beach, FL Vero Beach, FL

W. Cody Estes, Sr. Rusty Banack 2022

Vero Beach, FL Vero Beach, FL

Independent Handlers Melanie Ressler Jon Arost 2022

Vero Beach, FL Orlando, FL

Alex Heller Gee Roe 2022

Winter Garden, FL Winter Haven, FL

Russell Gravlee Ed Sheubrooks 2022
Fort Pierce, FL Fort Pierce, FL

Douglas L. Feek Jodan Feek 2022

Fort Pierce, FL Fort Pierce, FL

Daniel R. Richey Tom Mitchell 2022

Vero Beach, FL Vero Beach, FL

Donald M. “Rusty” Varn George Hamner 2022

Vero Beach, FL Vero Beach, FL

Cooperative Handlers Steven B. Callaham Gene “Al” Finch, Jr. 2022

Dundee, FL Dundee, FL

Daniel N. Hunt Frank M. Hunt, III 2022

Lake Wales, FL Lake Wales, FL

Public Arthur “Duke” Chadwell Lisa Gaskalla 2021

Lakeland, FL Palm Coast, FL
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 7 (Thursday, January 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 2295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00326]



[[Page 2295]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446; NRC-2012-0310]


Consideration of Approval of Application Containing Sensitive 
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information Regarding Proposed Energy 
Future Holdings Corporation Internal Restructuring

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Request for indirect license transfer; opportunity for hearing, 
to petition for leave to intervene, and to comment; order; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects a notice appearing in the Federal 
Register on January 2, 2013 (78 FR 119). This action is necessary to 
correct an incorrect Docket ID.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-492-
3667; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f9ba90979d80d7bb95989d9c80b9978b9ad79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="05466c6b617c2b47696461607c456b77662b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page 119 of Federal Register document 
2012-31527, published January 2, 2013 (78 FR 119-123), the heading is 
corrected to read ``NRC-2012-0310.'' Also on the same page, second 
column, in the first paragraph under the ADDRESSES section and in the 
first bullet under the ADDRESSES section, ``NRC-2012-0301'' is 
corrected to read ``NRC-2012-0310.'' Also on the same page, third 
column, in the first paragraph under the ``Accessing Information'' 
section and in the first bullet under the ``Accessing Information'' 
section, ``NRC-2012-0301'' is corrected to read ``NRC-2012-0310.'' On 
the same page, third column, in the first paragraph under the 
``Submitting Comments'' section, ``NRC-2012-0301'' is corrected to read 
``NRC-2012-0310.''

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of January 2013.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Helen Chang,
Acting Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of 
Administrative Services, Office of Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-00326 Filed 1-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Formal Recommendation by the 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

to the National Organic Program (NOP)

 

Date: October 28, 2010 

Subject: Sunset Review of Sodium Hydroxide as listed on §205.605 (b), 

Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients 

in or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with 

organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).” 

Chair: Daniel G. Giacomini 

 

 

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action X 

Guidance Statement 

Other 

 

Statement of the Recommendation (Including Recount of Vote): 

 

Sodium hydroxide is listed on 205.605(b) with the annotation “prohibited for 

use in lye peeling of fruits and vegetables.” This substance was scheduled to 

sunset off the National List in 2012, was reviewed by the NOSB, and a motion 

was made for the re-listing of this substance at the October 2010 meeting. 

 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with 

OFPA and NOP): 

 

The Handling Committee’s recommendation covering this material is attached. 

There were no public written or verbal comments opposing the committee’s 

recommendation, and the material was recommended for relisting by the full 

NOSB as shown below. 

 

NOSB Vote: 

Moved: Joe Dickson Second: Steve DeMuri 

Yes: 14 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recusal: 0 

 
National Organic Standards Board 

Handling Committee 

Sunset Recommendation – 2012 

Sodium Hydroxide 

September 7, 2010 

List: 205.605 Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in 

or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with organic (specified 

ingredients or food group(s)).” 

(b) Synthetics allowed 

Sodium hydroxide—prohibited for use in lye peeling of fruits and vegetables. 

Committee Summary 

Sodium hydroxide is a strong base used as a pH adjuster. The use of a sodium 

hydroxide dip is the only method of producing a traditional pretzel. Other possible uses 

include as part of traditional olive production to remove a bitter component of the olive, 

and as a processing aid in cocoa manufacture. The original technical review notes that 

sodium hydroxide is also used in the lye peeling of fruits and vegetables; this practice 

presents an adverse environmental impact due to the combination of spent lye and high 

BOD (biological oxygen demand) from the waste vegetable matter. Accordingly, this use 

is not allowed in organic production. 

Review of the original recommendation, historical documents, and public comments 

does not reveal unacceptable risks to the environment, human, or animal health as a 

result of the use or manufacture of this material. There is no new information 

contradicting the original recommendation which was the basis for the previous NOSB 

decision to list this material. 

Committee Recommendation(s)

The handling committee recommends the renewal of the following substances in this 

use category as published in the final rule: 

Sodium hydroxide—prohibited for use in lye peeling of fruits and vegetables. 

Committee Vote 

Motion: Joe Dickson Second: Steve DeMuri 

Yes: 6 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 IBX  Group,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, T. Joseph Coleman,
chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


Dated:  November 19, 2003

                                        /s/ T. Joseph Coleman
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        T. Joseph Coleman
                                        Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350



(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nick J. Caruso, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the
date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  | 
|Date: August 14, 2003 |  |  | 
|                      |  |  | 



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Dynegy Inc. and will be retained by Dynegy Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
GEORGE E. McCREA 

District Attorney – 119th Judicial District 

124 W. Beauregard 

San Angelo, Texas 76903 

325/659-6583 325/655-6116 

325/658-6831 (Fax) 

 

April 20, 2015 

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk 

Third Court of Appeals 

P.O. Box 12547 

Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Style: George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas—Case # 03-14-00789-CR, 

Trial Court # B-13-0883-SB; Case # 03-14-00790-CR, Trial Court # B-14-0650-

SA; Case # 03-14-00791-CR, Trial Court # B-14-0994-SB, 119th District Court 

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

The State believes that the trial court ruled correctly in this case. With 

regard to the Anders brief filed by Appellant, the State hereby notifies the Court 

that it will not respond on the merits to the points raised and conceded by 

Appellant’s brief. Please file this letter response with the papers in the cause and 

bring it to the attention of the appropriate members of the Court or its staff. 

Sincerely, 

____________________________ 

J. Bryan Clayton 

Asst. District Attorney 

 119th Judicial District 

 124 W Beauregard, Ste. B 

 San Angelo, TX 76903 

 (325) 659-6583 

 (325) 658-6831 FAX 

 State Bar No. 04338625 

cc: Erica Copeland 

P. O. Box 399 

Cedar Park, TX 78613 

ecopeland63@yahoo.com via https://efile.txcourts.gov/

ACCEPTED

03-14-00790-CR

4952611

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/20/2015 1:30:44 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/20/2015 1:30:44 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ivan Moreau, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered on April 28, 1989, convicting defendant upon a plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 5 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
# C_2016202EN.01027401.xml

| | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/274 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/274

---

PROTOCOL (No 9)

ON THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 16(4) OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION AND ARTICLE 238(2) OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION BETWEEN 1 NOVEMBER 2014 AND 31 MARCH 2017 ON THE ONE HAND, AND AS FROM 1 APRIL 2017 ON THE OTHER

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the fundamental importance that agreeing on the Decision of the Council relating to the implementation of Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 238(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union between 1 November 2014 and 31 March 2017 on the one hand, and as from 1 April 2017 on the other (hereinafter "the Decision"), had when approving the Treaty of Lisbon,

HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Sole Article

Before the examination by the Council of any draft which would aim either at amending or abrogating the Decision or any of its provisions, or at modifying indirectly its scope or its meaning through the modification of another legal act of the Union, the European Council shall hold a preliminary deliberation on the said draft, acting by consensus in accordance with Article 15(4) of the Treaty on European Union.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6230

CLYDE WALTER MEADOWS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD LANHAM, Commissioner; WILLIAM SMITH;

LIEUTENANT ROULING; OFFICER EVANS; OFFICER

HARSH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95-

1779-AMD)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clyde Walter Meadows, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Meadows v. Lanham, No. CA-95-1779-AMD (D. Md. Jan. 30,

1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
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 Annual Report of Lubys, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 25, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, K. Scott
Gray, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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: November 8, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    K. SCOTT
GRAY                                                               
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | K. Scott Gray                                                                      
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
and Principal Accounting Officer