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

Calendar No. 79

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 213

[Report No. 104–57]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel ENDEAVOUR.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 12 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation

APRIL 18, 1995

Reported, under authority of the order of the Senate of April 6 (legislative

day, April 5), 1995, by Mr. PRESSLER, without amendment

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

ENDEAVOUR.

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

3 That notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108
2

S 213 RS

1 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer2 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applica3 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

4 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

5 with appropriate endorsement for employment in the

6 coastwise trade for the vessel ENDEAVOUR (United

7 States official number 947869).

Calendar No. 79

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 213

[Report No. 104–57]

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

wise trade for the vessel ENDEAVOUR.priate endorsement for employment in the coastissue a certificate of documentation with approAPRIL 18, 1995

Reported without amendment
Exhibit 32.3



Statement



Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
§1350, the undersigned officer of Paperweight Development Corp. (the Company), hereby certifies that to his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 3, 2004 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                               |  |                                                
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                         |  |  |  | PAPERWEIGHT DEVELOPMENT CORP.
|Dated: November 12, 2004 |  |  |  |                              
|                         |  |  | 
|                         |  |  |  |                               |  | /s/ Douglas P. Buth                            
|                         |  |  |  | Name:                         |  | Douglas P. Buth                                
|                         |  |  |  | Title:                        |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer



This certification accompanies this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0389

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

GREGORY SCOTT GREEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 14, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 10 2021

05/10/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0389
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Annual Report of Flamel Technologies S.A. (the "Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Siân Crouzet, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|/s/ Siân Crouzet            | 
|--------------------------- | 
|Siân Crouzet                | 
|Principal Financial Officer | 
|April 30, 2014              |
MEMORANDUM 

To: File 

From: Sasha Gerhard 

Subject: Meeting with National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) 

Date: 7/31/09 

On July 8, 2009, EPA (Michael Galbraith, Tracy Atagi, Marc Thomas, Sasha Gerhard, Martha 

Smith, Amy Hambrick, Ketan Patel, and Susmita Dubey) participated in a conference call with 

Chris Hornback of NACWA and Bob Dominak of Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, 

NACWA member, to discuss various issues related to the Agency’s upcoming proposed 

rulemakings under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Clean Air Act. 

(CAA). 

EPA provided updates regarding the proposed rulemaking schedules for Identification of NonHazardous Materials That Are Solid Waste (RCRA) and Sewage Sludge Incinerators (CAA), as 

well as the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery’s position on RCRA’s Domestic 

Sewage Exclusion. Also, EPA requested sewage sludge incinerator information from NACWA 

for purposes of updating an older database previously provided by NACWA.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 213 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 213

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
               coastwise trade for the vessel ENDEAVOUR.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as 
applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with 
appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
vessel ENDEAVOUR (United States official number 947869).

            Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 213

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
               coastwise trade for the vessel ENDEAVOUR.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2050 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2050

     To provide an enhanced penalty for distribution of controlled 
                   substances to recovering addicts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 3, 1996

   Mr. Biden introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide an enhanced penalty for distribution of controlled 
                   substances to recovering addicts.

    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 ``Recovering Addict Protection Act of 
1996''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCED PENALTY FOR DISTRIBUTION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES TO 
              RECOVERING ADDICTS.

    (a) In General.--Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of 
title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission 
shall promulgate guidelines or amend existing guidelines to provide an 
appropriate enhancement of the punishment for a defendant convicted of 
violating section 401(a)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
841(a)(1)) if the defendant distributes, dispenses, or possesses with 
intent to distribute or dispense, a controlled substance to a person 
the defendant knows or should know is a recovering narcotics addict.
    (b) Recovering Narcotics Addict.--For purposes of subsection (a), 
the term ``recovering narcotics addict'' means any individual who--
            (1)(A) has previously habitually used any narcotic drug, as 
        defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
        U.S.C. 802(17)), so as to endanger the public morals, health, 
        safety, or welfare; or
            (B) who has been so far addicted to the use of such 
        narcotic drug as to have lost the power of self-control with 
        reference to such addiction; and
            (2) has stopped using such narcotic drug by engaging in 
        treatment as defined in section 2901(d) of title 28, United 
        States Code.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                                                                      

                              CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

The Board of Directors
Sabratek Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-3 (No.333-31891) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-13315, 333-31495 and 333-31503)of
Sabratek Corporation of our report dated March 12, 1999, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Sabratek Corporation as of December 31, 1998 and
1997, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive
income (loss), stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report appears in
the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Sabratek Corporation.




/s/ KPMG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
March 12, 1999
#### A. B. SCHLATTER, INC., Appellant, v. LOUISVILLE & JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 24, 1964.

*862Daniel B. Boone; Boone & Triplett, Louisville, for appellant.

James L. Taylor; Sal Pinto; Louisville, for appellees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

Appellant sought to have the zoning classifications of a tract of land owned by it in Jefferson County changed from “E-3” Industrial to “E-4” Industrial. The Zoning Commission denied appellant’s application, and on appeal to the circuit court under KRS 100.057, after a trial de novo, the circuit court confirmed the action of the .Commission by denying the zoning change.

The only question before us is whether there was substantial evidence1 to support the findings of the circuit court. Louisville & Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission v. Cope, Ky., 318 S.W.2d 842; Jenkins v. Louisville & Jefferson Co. Plan. & Zon. Com’n, Ky., 357 S.W.2d 846. There was testimony by home owners in the vicinity concerning the probable adverse effect of heavy industrial uses of the property, testimony of the Chief Planner for the Louisville & Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to the reasons for the “E-3” zoning classification and why it should not be changed, and testimony by real estate men about the adverse effect of a reclassification. There was also evidence that there was ample unused property in the general area with an “E-4” classification.

The only reason shown by appellant for the requested reclassification was its own convenience. Without deciding the extent of the burden on appellant to establish a substantial basis for the change, and without examining the question of spot zoning in the light of Hodge v. Luckett, Ky., 357 S.W.2d 303, we are of the opinion the findings and conclusions of the circuit court were amply supported by the evidence and were in conformity with law.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. The language generally used is “substantial evidence of probative value”. The phrase “of probative value” is surplusage. The evidence could not be substantial unless it possessed this persuasive quality.
#### Hardy Luednure BROWN v. STATE.

No. 27942.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. *11,*1956.

E. Colley Sullivan, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., and Charles S. Potts, Asst. Criminal Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Procuring is the offense; the punishment, seven months in jail and a fine of $250.

Appellant has now filed his personal affidavit requesting the dismissal of the appeal. The request is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Special Emphasis Panel; Interventions to Address HIV-Related Comorbidities among                               ( print page 7403)                            Highly Affected Populations Experiencing Health Disparities.                    

*Date:*                         March 21, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         11:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, NIMHD DEM II, Suite 800, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ivan K. Navarro, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Research Administration, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-2061,                         *ivan.navarro@nih.gov.*

Dated: January 30, 2024.

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-02087 Filed 2-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                 SUBSIDIARIES OF DONNA KARAN INTERNATIONAL INC.


DK Footwear Partners, a New York general partnership (d/b/a Donna Karan Shoe)
DK Shoe Corporation, a New York corporation
Donna Karan (H.K.) Limited, a Hong Kong corporation
Donna Karan (Italy) S.R.L., an Italian corporation
Donna Karan (Italy) Shoe Company S.R.L., an Italian corporation
Donna Karan Studio, a New York general partnership
DSTF Japan Company, a New York general partnership
First Run Management, Inc., a New York corporation
FM DK Japan, Inc., a New York corporation
Formal Reserve Management, Inc., a New York corporation
Full Requirements Merchandising, Inc., a New York corporation
Gabby Apparel, Inc., a New York corporation
Gabrielle Japan, Inc., a New York corporation
Tangents Two, Inc., a New York corporation
The Donna Karan Company, a New York general partnership
The Donna Karan Company Store, G.P., a New York general partnership
The Donna Karan Store Corporation, a New York corporation
Tolara Tetragon, Inc., a New York corporation
Tomio Tangents, Inc., a New York corporation
TT DK Japan, Inc., a New York corporation
Donna Karan Company Store (UK) Limited, a U.K. corporation
Donna Karan Company Stores UK Retail Limited, a U.K. corporation
Donna Karan Company Stores UK Holding Limited, a U.K. corporation
Donna Karan UK (Holding) L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company
#### John BROWN, Jr., Appellant, v. John WINGO, Warden, Kentucky State Penitentiary, Eddyville, Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 3, 1965.

*786John Brown, Jr., pro se.

Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., John B. Browning, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PALMORE, Judge.

John Brown, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the Lyon Circuit Court denying relief on his habeas corpus petition against the warden of the Kentucky State Penitentiary.

After his conviction and sentence of death on a charge of armed robbery had been reversed in Brown v. Commonwealth, Ky., 357 S.W.2d 681 (1962), the appellant was tried again and sentenced to life imprisonment. He contends the latter conviction (which appears not to have been appealed) is void because the trial court admitted evidence against him which had been obtained through an illegal search in violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Recognizing our decisions to the effect that habeas corpus will not be granted if a direct attack under RCr 11.42 would provide an adequate review procedure, cf. Ayres v. Davis, Ky., 377 S.W.2d 154 (1964), Brown alleges that RCr 11.42 would be unavailing because we have held that an illegal search is not a ground for relief under that rule. See King v. Commonwealth, Ky., 387 S.W.2d 582 (1962).

The reason an illegal search cannot form the basis for a successful RCr 11.42 proceeding is that an error consisting of the admission of improper evidence, even though the evidence may have been obtained in violation of constitutional rights, does not invalidate the proceeding or the judgment of conviction. The point is fully discussed in Collier v. Commonwealth, Ky., 387 S.W.2d 858 (1965). In this state the exclusionary rule was in force long before Mapp v. State of Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). Hence the error was and still is remediable by appeal. Habeas corpus cannot be used to undo an error that could have been corrected by a timely appeal. Pryor v. Thomas, Ky., 361 S.W.2d 279 (1962); Hamm v. Jones, Ky., 353 S.W.2d 544 (1962).

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 322 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 322

 To amend the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             February 1 (legislative day, January 30), 1995

  Mrs. Kassebaum (for herself and Mr. Dole) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

    Section 29 of the International Air Transportation Competition Act 
of 1979 (94 Stat. 48) is hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARK KESSLER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 643 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of April, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.