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

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 72816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29901]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  11 a.m., Friday December 24, 2010.

PLACE:  1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS:  Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-
5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-29901 Filed 11-23-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
<PAGE>

                            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 Kramont Realty Trust (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Louis P. Meshon, Sr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the
best of my knowledge, 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.


                                           /s/ Louis P. Meshon, Sr.
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Louis P. Meshon, Sr.
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           Kramont Realty Trust
                                           September 6, 2002
EERE Information Center Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version 

## Residential Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products and Commercial Clothes Washers Analysis Tools This website provides the technical analysis and results in support of the information presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking products and commercial clothes washers.

Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Spreadsheets Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Commercial Clothes Washers ( Excel 435 KB ) Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Cooktops ( Excel 1.2 MB ) Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Dehumidifiers ( Excel 523 KB ) Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Dishwashers ( Excel 1.1 MB ) Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Ovens ( Excel 1.3 MB )

National Impact Analysis Spreadsheets National Impact Analysis Tool for Commercial Clothes Washers ( Excel 827 KB) National Impact Analysis Tool for Cooktops and Ovens ( Excel 2 MB ) National Impact Analysis Tool for Dehumidifiers ( Excel 832 KB ) National Impact Analysis Tool for Dishwashers ( Excel 860 KB ) National Impact Analysis Tool for Microwave Ovens ( Excel 647 KB )

Printable VersionBuilding Technologies Program Home | EERE Home| U.S. Department of Energy Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov Content Last Updated: 06/13/2008
#### GARRETT v. STATE.

No. 26536.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 28, 1953.

C. S. Farmer, Waco, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged with negligent homicide in the second degree and his punishment was fixed by the jury at confinement in the county jail for a term of 90 days.

There is only one complaint offered herein and that is relative to the affidavit and information. In each instance the appellant is charged with unlawfully failing to stop after approaching a signal unit inside the city limits of Waco in said county, and thereupon he drove his automobile into one occupied by Vernon Hahn and caused the death of the said Vernon Hahn.

Appellant’s main contention is that nowhere therein is it said that appellant negligently committed these acts.

In the case of Salamy v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 465, 37 S.W.2d 1028, 1030, this court said:

> “The state has filed a motion for rehearing in which it is urged that our original opinion holding the indictment bad is incorrect. Negligence in the performance of an unlawful act is an element of the offense of negligent homicide of the second degree. If the indictment avers that the killing occurred while the accused was engaged in the commission of a misdemeanor, omitting any averment of negligence in connection therewith, we do not think it sound to say that the statutory element of negligence can be inferentially read into the indictment. In addition to authorities cited in our original opinion we also refer to Haynes v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 42, 224 S.W. 1100. In drawing indictments, the safer practice always is to follow approved precedents. Allen v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 467, 262 S.W. 502.’’

Because of the fact that the complaint and information failed to charge appellant with negligence, this cause is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of QMed Inc. (the "Company"), on Form
10-K/A for the year ended November 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Michael W. Cox, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company and William T. Schmitt, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ Michael W. Cox
-----------------------------
Michael W. Cox
Chief Executive Officer
March 30, 2005



/s/ William T. Schmitt, Jr.
-----------------------------
William T. Schmitt, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
March 30, 2005

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to QMed Inc. and will be retained by QMed Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
#### Homer WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28106.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 29, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*956PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $50.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or hills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

NEIL LYNN NUNES, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Appellant's motion for extension of time to 

produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Kelsey McAlpine 

is granted an extension of time to and including May 16, 2022, within 

which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. 

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court 

and the court reporter. 

a-St-)\-

Electronically signed by: 

Mike McGrath 

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court 

March 30 2022
#### Norman J. HENDRICK v. STATE (two cases).

Nos. 28317, 28318.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 11, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Robbery by assault is the offense; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

Accompanying the record is the affidavit of appellant requesting the dismissal, of the appeal. The request is granted. The ap: peal is dismissed.
Exhibit
23.1
 
  CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  We
consentto the incorporation by reference in Bel Fuse’s
Registration Statement Nos. 333-89376 and No. 333-65627 on Form S-8 of our
report dated March 13, 2009, relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Bel Fuse Inc. and subsidiaries (“the Company”) and the
effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, which
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating
to the Company’s adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes”, effective January 1, 2007, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,
2008.
 
 /s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 
 New York,
New York
 March 13,
2009
EXHIBIT 4.3


CERTIFICATE OF TRUST


OF


FIRST FINANCIAL CAPITAL TRUST I


THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF FIRST FINANCIAL CAPITAL TRUST I (the "Trust") is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned on behalf of the Trust to form a statutory trust under the Delaware
Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. §§3801 et seq.) (the "Act").


	 	1.	Name.  The name of the statutory trust being formed is First Financial Capital Trust I.


	 	2.	Trustee.  The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware is as follows:


	 	 	
Wilmington Trust Company

Rodney Square North

1100 North Market Street

Wilmington, DE 19890

ATTN: Corporate Trust Administration





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a) of the Act.


	 	WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY,

not in its individual capacity but solely as

trustee of the Trust



	 	By:	/s/ Denise M. Geran

Name:  Denise M. Geran

Title:   Vice President
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A1232. YOHANNES WARNER v. THE STATE.

In March 1999, Yohannes Warner pled guilty to violating the Georgia

Controlled Substances Act by possessing marijuana within 1,000 feet of school

property and giving a false name to a law enforcement officer, and he was sentenced

as a first offender to four years of probation. In 2020, Warner filed a motion to vacate

a void sentence, arguing that he had not been properly charged under OCGA § 16-13-

32.4; thus, he could only be found guilty of misdemeanor possession of marijuana. 

The trial court dismissed the motion, and Warner appeals.

A direct appeal may lie froman order denying or dismissing a motion to correct

a void sentence if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact,

void or illegal. See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 217 (1) n.1 (686 SE2d 786)

(2009);Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). A sentence is

void only if it imposes punishment that the law does not allow. von Thomas v. State,

293 Ga. 569, 571 (748 SE2d 446) (2013). Furthermore, because Warner entered a

guilty plea, he has “waived all defenses except that the indictment charged no crime.”

Kemp v. Simpson, 278 Ga. 439, 439-440 (603 SE2d 267) (2004).

Warner concedes that the State intended to indict him under OCGA § 16-13-

32.4, which prohibits the possession of marijuana with intent to distribute within

1,000 feet of a school. The indictment was flawed, however, in that it omitted the

language “with intent to distribute.” According to Warner, the omission of this

language from the indictment rendered his sentence void. Such a challenge to an

indictment, however, does not constitute a colorable void sentence claim. See Jones

v. State, 290 Ga. App. 490, 493 (1) (659 SE2d 875) (2008) (a challenge to an

March 29, 2021
indictmentshould be raised through a timely motion in arrest of judgment rather than

a void sentence claim). Rather, a challenge to an indictment is a challenge to the

conviction. See id. at 494 (2). And the Supreme Court has made clear that a motion

seeking to challenge an allegedly invalid or void judgment of conviction “is not one

of the established procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal

case” and that an appeal from the denial of such a motion is subject to dismissal.

Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). Because Warner has not

raised a colorable void sentence claim, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/29/2021
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b)  of  Section  1350,  Chapter  63  of  Title  18,  United  States  Code,  the
undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies to the best of my knowledge
that:-

(3)  The  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 of
     the  Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a)  or  15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

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




/s/  Wang  Yufei
----------------------
Wang Yufei
Chief Financial Officer

August 13, 2003


                                       18
<PAGE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8

Ref: 8P-AR Tammy Whittington Associate Regional Director Resource Stewardship and Science 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129

Phone 800-227-8917 www.epa.gov/region08 

### MAY 

### Z 72015

National Park Service, Intermountain Region 12795 West Alameda Parkway P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225-0287 Re: Utah Regional Haze Plan (reference IA2 (SEUG-RSS)) Dear Ms. Whittington: Thankyou for your April 2, 2015 letterurging the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency to take strong action to restore air quality and remedy existing visibility impairment in five Class Inational parks in Utah. The regional haze provisions ofthe Clean AirAct aim to reduce manmade air pollutionthat contributes to haze in ournation's national parks and wilderness areas such as: Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, CanyonlandsNational Park, Capitol ReefNational Park and ZionNational Park in Utah. I understand and appreciate your emphasis onthe importance ofclear air for the millions ofvisitors who come to experience the contrasting colors and textures ofArches National Park, the scenic Waterpocket Fold in Capitol ReefNational Park and the many other scenic views that characterize these parks. The State ofUtahjustconcluded a public commentperiod on its proposed regional haze plan for nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. We understand that the state is currently responding to comments on the proposal, including comments from the National Park Service, and afterward will submit its final planto the EPA for review and action. The EPA will hold a public comment period when we propose our action on a regional haze plan for nitrogen oxides and particulate matter in Utah. EPA maintains a strong commitmentto soliciting and t:valuating public comments
-- including information on costs, visibilitybenefits and control technologies

-- before issuing a final action on a state or federal regional haze plan.Again, thank you for your letter and interest inprotecting visibility in Utah's national parks. We will carefully consider your concerns as we work on ourproposal action for Utah'sregional haze plan. Ifyou have any questions, please contact Carl Daly inthe EPA Region 8'sAir Program at (303) 312-6416 or have your staffcontact Gail Fallon at (303) 312-6281.

Shaun L. McGrath Regional Administrator

2 @Printedon RecycledPaper
```

[Federal Register: March 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 58)]
[Notices]               
[Page 14577]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26mr10-37]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010, 9 a.m.-12 Noon.

Place: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

Matter to be Considered: 
    1. Public Database--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR).
    A live Webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast/index.html.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: March 24, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-6933 Filed 3-24-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 185 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 185

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently reduce 
                      individual income tax rates.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 2011

 Mr. Wilson of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently reduce 
                      individual income tax rates.

    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 ``Permanent Tax Relief Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. 2003 TAX REDUCTIONS MADE PERMANENT.

    Section 303 of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
2003 is hereby repealed.

SEC. 3. FIVE-PERCENT REDUCTION IN INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(j) Rate Reductions After 2010.--
            ``(1) In general.--In the case of taxable years beginning 
        in a calendar year after 2010, the reduced percentage specified 
        in the following table shall be substituted for the otherwise 
        applicable tax rate in the tables under subsections (a), (b), 
        (c), (d), and (e).

``Otherwise applicable tax rate          Reduced percentage
  10...................................  9.5
  15...................................  14.25
  25...................................  23.75
  28...................................  26.6
  33...................................  31.35
  35...................................  33.25
 

            ``(2) Adjustment of tables.--The Secretary shall adjust the 
        tables prescribed under subsection (f) to carry out this 
        subsection.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this subsection shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.
    (c) Repeal of EGTRRA Sunset of Rate Reductions.--Title IX of the 
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not 
apply to the amendments made by section 101 of such Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.3 - Annual Statement of Compliance for the year
	       ended December 31, 2005


a)

AURORA LOAN SERVICES
A Lehman Brothers Company


Via UPS

February 23, 2006


Diana Kenneally
U.S. Bank National Association
1 Federal Street, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110

RE:	SASCO 2005-GEL1
	Annual Officer's Certificate as to Compliance

Dear Ms. Kenneally:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the period ending
on December 31, 2005:

1.	I have reviewed the activities and performance of the Master
Servicer during the preceding calendar year under the terms of the
Trust Agreements and to the best of this Officer's knowledge, the
Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its duties, responsibilities
or obligations under the Agreements;

2.	Based on said review and to the best of this Officer's knowledge,
the Master Servicer is not in default of its obligations under the terms
of the Trust Agreements in any material respect, or, if there is a default
in the fulfillment of its obligations, a description of each default or
failure and the nature and status thereof has been reported to this Officer;

3.	To the best of this Officer's knowledge, nothing has arose to lead
this Officer to believe that its Servicer has failed to perform any of its
duties, responsibilities and obligations under its Servicing Agreement during
the preceding calendar year;

4.	To the best of this Officer's knowledge, the Servicer is not in
default of its obligations under the terms of its Servicing Agreement in any
material respect, or, if there is a default in the fulfillment of its
obligations, a description of each default or failure and the nature and
status thereof has been reported to this Officer;

5.	The Master Servicer has received from its Servicer such Servicer's
annual certificate of compliance and a copy of such Servicer's annual audit
report, in each case to the extent required under the applicable Servicing
Agreement, or, if any such certificate or report has not been received by
the Master Servicer, the Master Servicer is using its best reasonable efforts
to obtain such certificate or report.


Certified By:


/s/ R. Peter Karr
R. Peter Karr
Senior Vice President
Master Servicing Division
1

Notice of Intent to Strike; Order filed October 27, 2020. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-01016-CR

____________

RODNEY K. COLEMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1569075

ORDER

In the above cause, the court received and filed Appellant’s initial brief on 

April 24, 2020, received and filed Appellant’s amended brief on April 27, 2020, 

and received and filed Appellant’s second amended brief on April 29, 2020. 

Appellant has not filed a motion for leave to file his amended brief or his second 

amended brief. The court hereby gives Notice of Intent to Strike Appellant’s 

amended brief and second amended brief unless Appellant files on or before 
2

November 6, 2020, a motion for leave to file the amended brief he wants the court 

to consider in deciding the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.7. Appellant should be 

cognizant of the word limit.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Christopher, Wise, and Hassan.