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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 576 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 576

To prohibit the provision of certain trade assistance to United States 
 subsidiaries of foreign corporations that lack effective prohibitions 
                              on bribery.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 16, 1995

 Mr. Feingold introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the provision of certain trade assistance to United States 
 subsidiaries of foreign corporations that lack effective prohibitions 
                              on bribery.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TRADE ASSISTANCE.

    (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an 
agency referred to in subsection (b) may not provide economic support 
(including export assistance, subsidization, financing, financial 
assistance, or trade advocacy) to or for any foreign corporation or any 
United States subsidiary of a foreign corporation unless the head of 
such agency certifies to Congress that the foreign corporation has 
adopted and enforces a corporate-wide policy that prohibits the bribery 
of foreign public officials in connection with international business 
transactions of the corporations and its subsidiaries.
    (b) Covered Agencies.--Subsection (a) applies to assistance 
provided by the following agencies:
            (1) The Trade and Development Agency.
            (2) The Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
            (3) The Export-Import Bank.
            (4) The Agency for International Development.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``bribery'', in the case of a corporation, 
        means the direct or indirect offer or provision by the 
        corporation of any undue pecuniary or other advantage to or for 
        an individual in order to procure business and business 
        contracts for the corporation or its subsidiaries.
            (2) The term ``foreign corporation'' means any corporation 
        created or organized under the laws of a foreign country.
            (3) The term ``United States subsidiary'' means any 
        subsidiary of a foreign corporation which subsidiary has its 
        principal place of business in the United States or which is 
        organized under the laws of a State.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1


                         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 Lion Capital Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company")  on  Form 10-QSB for the period ended September
30, 2006 as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Timothy T. Page,  Chief  Executive
Officer  and Chairman  of the Board of Directors  of  the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant
to  Section  906  of  the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) 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.

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

                           /s/ Timothy T. Page
                           ------------------------------------------------
                           Timothy T. Page
                           Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
                           Board of Directors
                           Date: November 14, 2006
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Clyde COMBS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 7647.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 8, 1957.

Douglas Mahnkey, Forsyth, for defendant-appellant.

Clay Cantwell, Branson, for plaintiff-respondent.

STONE, Judge.

Defendant was charged by information with “unlawfully, willfully and feloniously” operating a motor vehicle on the public highways of Taney County, Missouri, while in an intoxicated condition [Section 564.-440]; and, upon trial by jury, he was found guilty and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $100. (All statutory references are to RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.) Having appealed to this court, defendant has filed a motion under Supreme Court Rule 28.12 that we fix the terms on which he may be admitted to bail.

The pertinent portion of Rule 28.12 provides that “where the defendant is unable to give bail at the time appeal is taken, he may, at any time while the case is pending on appeal, *apply to the appellate court having jurisdiction of the appeal*and be admitted to bail on such terms as the appellate court may prescribe.” (Emphasis ours) Although our appellate jurisdiction is not challenged, our initial duty is to inquire into and determine the jurisdictional question which obtrudes on the face of defendant’s motion and the certified copies of the information and judgment presented. State v. Plassard, Mo.App., 190 S.W.2d 464(1). Consult also Taney County v. Addington, Mo.App., 296 S.W.2d 129(1), and cases there cited.

By the express language of Section 564.460 [as amended Laws of 1953, p. 416], the offense, with which defendant was charged, *might*have been punished by imprisonment'in the penitentiary and was a felony. State v. Box, Mo., 169 S.W.2d 393. See also Section 556.020; State v. Garner, 360 Mo. 50, 226 S.W.2d 604, 606(1). That the jury' assessed only a fine, as was authorized also' by Section 564.460, did not reduce the offense to a misdemeanor. State v. Plassard, 355 Mo. 90, 195 S.W.2d 495, *530496. Clearly, we are without jurisdiction and the cause should be transferred to the Supreme Court. Const, of Mo., Article 5, Section 3; State v. Box, supra; State v. Owen, Mo., 258 S.W.2d 662, 663(1); State v. Klink, 363 Mo. 907, 254 S.W.2d 650, 651 (1); State v. Ready, Mo., 251 S.W.2d 680, 681(1). See also State v. Ryan, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 350.

Since defendant’s motion is not addressed “to the appellate court having jurisdiction of the appeal” [Supreme Court Rule 28.12], it is denied without prejudice; and, the clerk of this court is directed to transfer this cause forthwith [Section 477.-080], together with a copy of this opinion and order, to the clerk of the Supreme Court of Missouri.

McDowell, p. j., and ruark, j., concur.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         February 8, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 1, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 182 to Competitive Product List*. Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-179, CP2024-185.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-02530 Filed 2-7-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**EXHIBIT 24.7**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

**(Annual Report on Form 10-K)**

The undersigned, an officer and/or director of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc., constitutes and appoints Nicholas Konidaris, Paul Oldham and KerryMustoe, and each of them, his or her true and lawful attorney and agent to do any and all acts and things and execute in his or her name as an officer or director of the Company the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 3,2010 and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and the undersigned does hereby ratify and confirm all that saidattorneys and agents and each of them shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. Any one of said attorneys or agents shall have, and may exercise, all powers conferred. 

Dated: May 12, 2010.
#### O. R. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29513.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 12, 1958.

H. M. Bellinger, San Antonio, for appellant.

Hubert W. Green, Jr., Dist. Atty., K. Key Hoffman, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*741BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted in each of three counts in the information charging the offense of contributing to the delinquency of three named minors; the punishment was assessed at three months in jail on each count.

No statement of facts or a bill of exception certifying to any facts adduced upon the main trial accompanies the record.

In his motion for a new trial appellant sets up what he claims to be newly discovered evidence. A statement of facts on the hearing of the motion is in the record. The motion avers that Abner Jack Walls, Jr., was one of the persons named in the complaint to whom he had sold and given beer, but that he was unable to locate him before the trial; that since the trial he had obtained an affidavit from Walls which he attached in support of his motion. The complaint and information in the record do not allege that appellant gave or sold beer to Walls. No motion for continuance is in the record and no reference is made to such a motion. There is no allegation that Wall’s testimony would probably change the result in the event of another trial.

4 Tex.Juris., p. 243, Sec. 173, reads as follows:

> “Motion for new trial. — Matters set up in a motion for a new trial which depend upon or require a consideration of the facts or the evidence adduced at the trial will not be considered in the absence of a statement of facts. For example, the overruling of a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, or the absence of a witness, or grounds of the motion complaining of the insufficiency of the evidence, or that the verdict is contrary to or is not supported by the evidence, will not be reviewed in the absence of a statement embodying the evidence adduced at the trial.”

This court cannot properly appraise' the merits of the claim that new evidence had been discovered, that it was material to the defense, and would probably produce a different result upon another trial, in the absence of the evidence which was heard upon the main trial or a bill of exception certifying that it contains all the evidence introduced on the trial pertaining to the matter complained of. 4 Tex.Juris., p. 234, Sec. 167; Anderson v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 409, 235 S.W. 885; Cantrell v. State, 103 Tex.Cr.R. 268, 280 S.W. 595; Bradford v. State, 105 Tex.Cr.R. 179, 287 S.W. 257; Reese v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 659, 64 S.W.2d 1114; Blair v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 66 S.W.2d 317; Henry v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 435, 111 S.W.2d 722.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Roger SIMMONS’ ADM’X (Mabel Simmons), Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 25, 1955.

J. Donald Dinning, McEIwain, Dinning, Clarke & Winstead, Louisville, for appellant.

A. W. Redmon, Louisville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court, B. H. Farnsley, Judge, allowing appellee to recover $2,000 upon life insurance policies.

The question presented is, who is entitled to the proceeds of these policies, the insured’s heir or the named beneficiary, who at the time of insured’s death was his divorced wife.

We have previously decided this question in Warren v. Spurlock’s Adm’r, 292 Ky. 668, 167 S.W.2d 858, where we held the heir is the proper party to receive the proceeds of the policy in circumstances similar to *14those presented by this record. As we think the Warren decision is sound, we are not disposed to disturb it.

*It*is provided in KRS *304.688*that the insurer is discharged from further liability if it pays the named beneficiary, after proper claim is made and before it receives notice of any other claim. Here, the beneficiary filed a copy of her divorce decree with her claim. This was sufficient to put the insurer upon notice that the insured’s heir “claims to be entitled” to the proceeds of these policies, since the decree recited each party was to return to the other all property acquired by or through the other by virtue of the marriage.

The motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1500 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 53 ) ll-C-7 9 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 8/5/20081:51:29PM

Sheet 53 of 343P. 2 

## A-&4-5 * 

# ll-C-7 * Dat e sent : From : Subject : To : John : 

### Tlie , 1 8 NO V 199 7 09:42:2 4 -050 0 MADELEIN E STRU M <STRUM.MADELEINE@epamail.epa.gOV > 

## meetin g summar

y o f Oc t 27 Pultrusio n Meetin g a t EP A jschweit@socplas.org Her e i s th e meetin g summar yfro m th e Oc

t 2 7 pultrusio n meeting . Pleas e forwar d i t t o th e industr

y attendees . As wit h al l ou rsummaries , i t wil l b e include d i n th e docket fo rth e reinforce d plasti c NESHAP . (I f yo u se e somethin g tha t need s t o b e correcte d a s yo u di d wit h th e previou s summar yI sen t you , let me kno

w since w e ca n mak

e th e change s before puttin g i t int o th e docket. ) Than k yo u fo ryou rfa

xo f Novembe r1 4 regardin g th e pultrusio n meetin g an d removin g th e HA P conten t option , wil l thu s no t pursu e th e epox yresi n actio n ite m fro m th e meeting . 

### W e Pleas e not e that we reall ynee d th e list o f criteri a fo rth e wet are a enclosur e a s soo n a s possibl e becaus e w e wan t t o brin g i t t o ou rsit e visi t t o glasform s (whic h w e wer e hopin g t o d o befor

e th e en d o

f th e yea r- we'v e no

t ye t se t th e date , bu t I'v

e spoke n t o Terr

yabou t it.) . Do yo u thin k i t coul d possibl y b e sen t t o m e thi s wee k o rth e beginnin g of nex t week ? Thank s Madelein e

**>»*P. 3


## DocketNo . A* J ^%_\ * Subcategor

y II - £ The enclosure s wit

h thi s documen

tar e identical t

o the enclosures wit

h docketite

m II - P ^ - 1 0 D



# - z
### y SERVED : MARCH 2 , 201 2

• ::^R'\RTMENTq r • U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N '^'^i^^vylllr^ni^^ ^ .

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C i mIIAF ^ - 5 P {••\^l

\ I N TH E MATTEROF MARTINAIR E AVIATION , LL C FAA DOCKE T NO . [T O B E ASSIGNED ]

(Civi l Penalty Action ) FDMSNO . FAA-2011-129 5 AMENDE D PROCEDURA LORDE R

. WHEREFORE , th e partie s b e andare hereb y ORDERE D t o adher e t o th e followin g procedural schedule : 1 . Venu e i s Detroit , Ml ; 2 . On o r

before Ma

y 15 , 2012 , th e partie s shal l conclud e al l discovery including , bu t

no t limite dto , depositions , documen t production , response s t o productio n request s and/o r interrogatories . I

f th e partie s canno t

resolv e adiscovery disput e the y shal l submi t th e disput e t o th e undersigne dfor resolutio n i

n atimel y manner ; 3 . Th e partie s shal l b e prepare dto present thi s cas e a

t ahearin g o n o r

afte r Jun e 1 , 2012' , subjec t

t o the availabilit

y o f courtroo mfacilities . Th e specifi c dat e andtime fo

r th e hearin g will b e forthcomin g i n aseparat e Order . 4 . Th e remainde r

o f ou r Procedural Orde r

shal l remai n i

n effect .

Cttc V RichardC . Goodwi n U.S . Administrativ e La w Judg e 

# -

A

Attachment

- Servic e Lis t

' 14C.F,R. § 1

3 22 1 states : "Th

e adininislrativ

c la w judg e shal l giv e eac hpart y a t leas t 6 0 day s notic e o f tli e dale, tim e an dlocatio n o f th e hearing.' " IFDM S No . FAA-20 1 M 29 5 (Civi l Penalty Action } SERVIC E L5S T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avemie , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : • Hearin g Docke t Cierlc , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2WI0O0 '

ON E COP Y Michae l L . Dwortcin , Responden i ' s Counse l Michae l L . Dworld n an dAssociate s 40 5 Californi aStreet , Suit e 21 0 Sa n Francisco , C A 9410 4 TEL . 415-421-250 0 FAX : 415-421-256 0 Kat e Barber , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Grea t L^e s Region , AGL-7 B . Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 230 0 Eas t Devo n Avenu e DesPIaines.I L6001 8 TEL : 847-294-786 2 FAX : 847-294-749 8 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 -• ' U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Forserviceinpersonorbyexpeditedcourjer , use th e followin g address : Federa

l Avialio aAdministration

, 60 0 Independenc

e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Cleric, AGC-430.
### NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT

### of HEALTH

May 22, 2012

Mr. Carl Daly (8P-AR) Director, Air Programs U.S. EPA, Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129
DearMr. Daly: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION Gold Seal Center, 918 E. Divide Ave. Bismarck, NO 58501-1947 701.328.5200 (fax) www.ndhealth.gov

The North Dakota DepartmentofHealth (NDDH) is providing this clarificationpertainingto the April 12, 2010 submittal which certified that North Dakota's State Implementation Plan (SIP) is adequate to implementthe 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). With respect to Section 11O(a)(2)(D)(ii) ofthe Clean Air Act, North Dakota sources have not been identified by EPA as having interstate or international impacts, under section 126 or section 115, respectively, in any pending actions relating to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Further, North Dakota's SIP-approved PSD program (see NDCC 33-15-15) meets the notification requirements of Section 126(a), as the PSD program requires the State to notify any state, Federal land manager, or Indian governing body whose land may be affected by emissions from the new source ormodification. Please contact Tom Bachmanofmy staffat (701)328-5188 ifyouneed additional information. Sincerely,

Terry L. O'Clair, P.E. Director DivisionofAirQuality TLO/TB:saj

Environmental Health Section Chief's Office 701.328.5150 Division of Air Quality 701.328.5188 Division of Municipal Facilities

701.328.5211 Printedon recycledpaper. Division of Waste Management 701.328.5166 Civision of Water Quality 701.328.5210
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1226 

To repeal the affordable housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2011 

Mr. ROYCE (for himself, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. PEARCE, and Mr. 

HENSARLING) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To repeal the affordable housing goals for Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac. 

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 ‘‘GSE Mission Improve5 ment Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS. 

7 (a) REPEAL.—The Federal Housing Enterprises Fi8 nancial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 is amended by 

9 striking sections 1331 through 1336 (12 U.S.C. 4561–6). 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1226 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Federal Housing 

2 Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 

3 is amended— 

4 (1) in section 1303(28) (12 U.S.C. 4502(28)), 

5 by striking ‘‘and, for the purposes’’ and all that fol6 lows through ‘‘designated disaster areas’’; 

7 (2) in section 1324(b)(1)(A) (12 U.S.C. 

8 4544(b)(1)(A))— 

9 (A) by striking clauses (i), (ii), and (iv); 

10 (B) in clause (iii), by inserting ‘‘and’’ after 

11 the semicolon at the end; and 

12 (C) by redesignating clauses (iii) and (v) 

13 as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively; 

14 (3) in section 1338(c)(10) (12 U.S.C. 

15 4568(c)(10)), by striking subparagraph (E); 

16 (4) in section 1339(h) (12 U.S.C. 4569), by 

17 striking paragraph (7); 

18 (5) in section 1341 (12 U.S.C. 4581)— 

19 (A) in subsection (a)— 

20 (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘or’’ 

21 after the semicolon at the end; 

22 (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the 

23 semicolon at the end and inserting a pe24 riod; and 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1226 IH

1 (iii) by striking paragraphs (3) and 

2 (4); and 

3 (B) in subsection (b)(2)— 

4 (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting 

5 ‘‘or’’ after the semicolon at the end; 

6 (ii) by striking subparagraphs (B) and 

7 (C); and 

8 (iii) by redesignating subparagraph 

9 (D) as subparagraph (B); 

10 (6) in section 1345(a) (12 U.S.C. 4585(a))— 

11 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘or’’ 

12 after the semicolon at the end; 

13 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the semi14 colon at the end and inserting a period; and 

15 (C) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4); 

16 and 

17 (7) in section 1371(a)(2) (12 U.S.C. 

18 4631(a)(2))— 

19 (A) by striking ‘‘with any housing goal es20 tablished under subpart B of part 2 of subtitle 

21 A of this title,’’; and 

22 (B) by striking ‘‘section 1336 or’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76

 37

 38

 39 ★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/15

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL