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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4890 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 597
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4890

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 17, 2018

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           September 28, 2018

               Reported by Mr. Johnson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 9801 Apollo Drive in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, as the ``Wayne K. 
                     Curry Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. WAYNE K. CURRY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 9801 Apollo Drive in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Wayne K. Curry Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Wayne K. 
Curry Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 597

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4890

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 9801 Apollo Drive in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, as the ``Wayne K. 
                     Curry Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 28, 2018

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Julia B. RADFORD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 11327.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Aug. 1, 1939.

Forest P. Tralles and Fred J. Hoffmeister, both of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Harry C. Blanton, U. S. Atty., of Sikeston, Mo., Herbert H. Freer, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo., James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Andrew D. Sharpe and Leon F. Cooper, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal, Brown v. United States, 21 F.Supp. 214, dismissed at cost of appellant, per stipulation of party.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION 
EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 28, 1996
AND FROM THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 28, 1996 CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FROM 10-Q FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000910721
<NAME> DM MANAGEMENT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             296
<SECURITIES>                                     3,862
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,148
<PP&E>                                           6,994    
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,627
<BONDS>                                          4,769
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,703
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,142
<SALES>                                         20,541
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,541
<CGS>                                           12,114
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  82
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    278
<INCOME-TAX>                                        28
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                250
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       250
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
**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 Landmark Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark A. Herpich,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operationsof the Company.
|  /s/ Mark A. Herpich |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Mark A. Herpich           |
| Chief Financial Officer   |
| August 10, 2007           |

 

1

----
### Average SO2 Emissions and Coal Sulfur for White Bluff Dayana Medina to: pettyjohn 09/06/2012 10:08 AM

Cc: "Brown, Derrick", mac, "Davis, Anthony", Spencer, Stuart, Stuart, rheaume, Jeremy Jewell ( j jewell@trinityconsultants.com), gjohns6

From: Dayana Medina/R6/USEPA/US

To: pettyjohn@adeq.state.ar.us

Cc: "Brown, Derrick" <brownd@adeq.state.ar.us>, mac@adeq.state.ar.us, "Davis, Anthony" <DavisA@adeq.state.ar.us>, Spencer, Stuart <SPENCER@adeq.state.ar.us>, Stuart <SPENCER@adeq.state.ar.us>, rheaume@adeq.state.ar.us, Jeremy Jewell

Hi Mary,

The monthly average SO2 emissions in lb/MMBtu are compared with monthly average sulfur data in weight percent for Units 1 and 2 in the attached graphs. We obtained sulfur content data (fuel receipts data) reported by Entergy to the Energy Information Agency (EIA ) for the period January 2001-June 2012 on forms EIA-923 Sch 2 and FERC- 423. We calculated average monthly sulfur content by multiplying each sample's percent sulfur content by its corresponding tonnage, adding up all of the sulfur tons and dividing by the total tons of coal from all loads for each month to obtain a monthly average sulfur content. We then compared the EIA data to SO2 emission data reported by the source to CAMD.

There does appear to be a decrease in the average monthly sulfur content beginning in Jan 2007, which is the year Entergy said their long term contract with a coal supplier ended, allowing them to get coal from other suppliers. In the email thread you forwarded it was also mentioned that in 2006, Entergy added a neural net system and did extensive boiler tuning, but the data shows that the average monthly SO2 emissions actually went up in 2006 compared to 2005 levels at both units. There is a decrease in the average monthly SO2 emissions beginning in Jan 2007, which appears to correspond to the decrease in the average monthly sulfur content of the coal rather than to any modifications made to the units.

Our other concern is that there's a clear upward trend in the average monthly SO2 emissions beginning around May 2010 at Unit 1. Although there was a slight increase in the average monthly sulfur content between May and Sept 2010, the average monthly sulfur content has remained pretty constant since around mid 2010. However, the average monthly SO2 emissions have continued an upward trend at Unit 1 even as recent as June 2012. It is not clear why there is this upward trend at Unit 1 when the average monthly sulfur content has remained constant. We are also concerned with the possibility of this upward trend continuing, which could potentially result in the new baseline no longer being appropriate in the future. We can discuss further during our call today.

Best Regards,

Dayana Medina U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Air Planning Section (6PD-L) 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75202 214-665-7241 medina.dayana@epa.gov
# C_2010113EN.01004202.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Mundipharma v OHIM — ALK-Abelló (AVANZALENE)

(Case T-477/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark AVANZALENE - Earlier Community word mark AVANZ - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 113/67

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mundipharma AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: ALK-Abelló A/S (Hørsholm, Denmark) (represented by: S. Palomäki Arnesen, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 1694/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between ALK-Abelló A/S and Mundipharma AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Mundipharma AG to pay the costs, except those incurred by ALK-Abelló A/S. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mundipharma AG to pay the costs, except those incurred by ALK-Abelló A/S.

| 3. | Orders ALK-Abelló to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders ALK-Abelló to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subscription
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Vialta, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         (1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the financial
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

         (2)      the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

Dated: May 15, 2003                        By: /s/Didier Pietri
                                           Didier Pietri
                                           President & Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Vilata, Inc. and will be retained by Vialta, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-5073

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SHANON ARELL TYLER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-04-387-NCT) Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 1, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kearns Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Shanon Arell Tyler pled guilty to dealing in firearms without a license and making a false statement to a federally licensed firearms dealer, in violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A), (a)(6) (2000), and was sentenced to twenty-seven months imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issue of whether the sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable. Although Tyler was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so. After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. SeeUnited States v. Hughes , 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). However, in determining a sentence post-Booker , sentencing courts are still required to calculate and consider the applicable guideline range as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). Id. If the sentence imposed is within the properly calculated guideline range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Green , 436 F.3d 449, 2006 WL 267217, at *5 (4th Cir. Feb. 6, 2006) (No. 05-4270). Tyler’s sentence was both within the guideline range of twenty-four to thirty months, and well within the statutory maximum- 3 - of ten years. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2000). Because the district court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, and properly calculated and considered the guideline range and the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we find the sentence reasonable. In accordance with Anders we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 31.1**

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Michael A. Schneider, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of Affinity Group, Inc., certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 10-K of Affinity Group, Inc.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this annual report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures, (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant, and we have:

 

(a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

(a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: March 3, 2006 | /s/ Michael  A. Schneider              |   |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                | Michael A. Schneider                   |
|                | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

93

----
### Re cord of Discussion Docket No. FAA- Direct orate Identifier: -AD



### With whom outside the FAA has this action b een discussed (i.e ., D es ign Appr ova l Holder, manufacturer, ATA,

**~AA,** 

### :&AA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE T OPICS DISCUSSED Airlines 4 America Bob Ireland



### .t./Jt.l~ 

# 14 Boeing Doug May s

**P./~~** 

### !UJJtf O ther / Addi tional Inform at i o n:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. OP 20
- 0171 VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT D/B/A VOLKSWAGEN GROUP AND/OR VOLKSWAGEN AG, AUDI AG, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AM ERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA CHATTANOOGA OPERATIONS, LLC, AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, DR. ING. H.C. F. PORSCHE D/B/A PORSCHE AG, AND PORSCHE CARS NORTH AM ERICA, INC., Petitioners , v. MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, THE HONORABLE JAMES P. REYNOLDS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondent. **[PROPOSED] ORDER** Petitioners have filed a motion for leave to file a reply memorandum to their petition for writ of supervisory control. The reply me morandum was attached to the motion, and has been lodged with the Clerk. Good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to file the reply
me morandum.

DATED this ______ day of May, 2020. For the Court, By Chief Justice

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

May 12 2020

05/12/2020

Case Number: OP 20-0171
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4960 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4960

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  511 East Walnut Street in Columbia, Missouri, as the ``Spc. Sterling 
                  William Wyatt Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SPC. STERLING WILLIAM WYATT POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 511 East Walnut Street in Columbia, Missouri, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Spc. Sterling William Wyatt Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Spc. 
Sterling William Wyatt Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6000]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. BARBER:
       H.R. 6393.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Clause 18 section 8 of article I of the Constitution.
```