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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2251 

To direct the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to amend 

Regulation D to increase the transaction limits on passbook savings, 

statement savings, and money market deposit accounts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 21, 2011 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System to amend Regulation D to increase the transaction limits on passbook savings, statement savings, and 

money market deposit accounts. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE OF TRANSACTION LIMITS. 

4 The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Sys5 tem shall amend part 204 of title 12, Code of Federal Reg6 ulations (commonly known as Regulation D), to include 

7 in the term ‘‘savings deposit’’ a passbook savings account, 

8 statement savings account or a money market deposit acVerDate Mar 15 2010 19:56 Jun 23, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2251.IH H2251

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2251 IH

1 count that otherwise meets the requirements of section 

2 204.2(d)(1) of such title and from which, under the terms 

3 of the deposit contract or by practice of the depository 

4 institution, the depositor is permitted or authorized to 

5 make no more than thirty transfers and withdrawals, or 

6 a combination of such transfers and withdrawals, per cal7 endar month or statement cycle or similar period of at 

8 least four weeks, to another account (including a trans9 action account) of the depositor at the same institution 

10 or to a third party by means of a preauthorized or auto11 matic transfer, or telephonic (including data transmission) 

12 agreement, order or instruction, or by check, draft, debit 

13 card, or similar order made by the depositor and payable 

14 to third parties. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 5, 2014

d0825 

# Order

Clerk September 5, 2014

148383(20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148383

COA: 317530

Tuscola CC: 12

- 012217

- FH

ROBERT BRUCE WHITE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 28,

2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED, becaus e it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
1 The HONORABLE HENRY WOODS, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 96-1981

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Andrew Ross Williams, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 6, 1996 Filed: December 17, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. A jury found Andrew Ross Williams guilty of possessing a motor vehicle, with intent to sell or otherwise dispose of it, knowing that the vehicle identification number (VIN) had been tampered with or altered, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2321. The district court 1 denied Williams's motion for judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence, and sentenced him to five months imprisonment and two years supervised release. Williams appeals, arguing there was insufficient evidence of his knowledge and his intent. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and giving it the benefit of all reasonable inferences,-2- we conclude that sufficient circumstantial evidence was presented from which a reasonable jury could infer that Williams knew the VIN had been altered and that he intended to sell the vehicle. See United States v. Patterson , 886 F.2d 217, 218 (8th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### State of New York, Respondent, v United Methodist Church, Respondent, and Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court (Cheeseman, J.), entered January 30, 1990 in Albany County, which denied defendant Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it for failure to state a cause of action.

Plaintiff commenced this action under Navigation Law article 12 to recover the costs associated with cleaning up the discharge of fuel oil from an abandoned petroleum storage system in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County. De*793fendant Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, as the insurer of the owner of the property where the discharge apparently occurred, is alleged to be liable under Navigation Law § 190. Atlantic moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it on the ground that only insurers of a "major facility” or "vessel” *(see,*Navigation Law § 172 [11], [17]), neither of which is involved here, can be held liable. Supreme Court denied Atlantic’s motion, finding its interpretation of Navigation Law § 190 too restrictive. Atlantic appeals.

We recently held that Navigation Law "article 12 fastens strict liability upon anyone, large or small, commercial or residential, responsible for a discharge of petroleum which threatens the State’s waters” *(State of New York v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*147 AD2d 77, 78). We went on to note that "the Legislature has seen fit to allow plaintiff, if it be so inclined, to bring a claim for these costs directly against the homeowner’s insurer” *(id.,*at 79). By acknowledging the right of action against a homeowner’s insurer, we implicitly acknowledged that the right of action against insurers provided by Navigation Law § 190 is not limited to insurers of a "major facility” or "vessel” but is to be broadly available *(see, State of New York v Travelers Indem. Co.,*120 AD2d 251, 254, *appeal dismissed*69 NY2d 900, *lv dismissed*70 NY2d 669). Considering that Atlantic’s argument to the contrary is based on a narrow interpretation of the law involving prior versions which have been repealed by amendment and that the pertinent statutory provisions must be liberally construed *(see,*Navigation Law § 195), we adhere to our position taken earlier and affirm Supreme Court’s denial of Atlantic’s motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)              
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History:                                               
|                                                            
|Nevada Natural Gas Number of Oil Wells  (Number of Elements)
|                                                            
|                                                            
|Nevada Natural Gas Number of Oil Wells  (Number of Elements)
|                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 5      | 5      | 52     | 55    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 56     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
Exhibit 32

Certification

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)

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), each of the undersigned officers of Liberty Global, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, and for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008.



|                         |  |  |  |                                                                                   
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 24, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael T. Fries                                                              
|                         |  |  |  | Michael T. Fries                                                                  
|                         |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer                                                           
|                         |  | 
|Dated: February 24, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Charles H.R. Bracken                                                          
|                         |  |  |  | Charles H.R. Bracken                                                              
|                         |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Co-Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
|                         |  | 
|Dated: February 24, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Bernard G. Dvorak                                                             
|                         |  |  |  | Bernard G. Dvorak                                                                 
|                         |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Co-Chief Financial Officer                              
|                         |  |  |  | (Principal Accounting Officer)                                                    

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form
10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-1CB
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-1CB


      The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

(ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 27, 2006
----------------

CRAIG BAINGO
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT



/s/ Kevin Meyers                                      Dated: March 27, 2006
----------------

KEVIN MEYERS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER, LOAN ADMINISTRATION
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 Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing USA Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerald DeCiccio, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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


Dated: May 17, 2010
By:
/s/ GERALD DECICCIOGerald DeCiccioChief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Joseph Mecca, Respondent, v Staten Island Radiological Associates, P. C., et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to compel arbitration, for court appointment of an additional "neutral” arbitra*544tor, and to disqualify four "additional” arbitrators, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), entered June 26, 1989, which, in effect, granted the petition to the extent of disqualifying the four "additional” arbitrators and directing the appointment of an additional "neutral” arbitrator unless the two remaining arbitrators could agree upon such an arbitrator within a designated time period, and denied the cross application to compel arbitration to proceed with the four additional arbitrators, or in the alternative, to stay arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner Joseph Mecca, M.D., was an employee and shareholder of the appellant Staten Island Radiological Associates, P. C. (hereinafter SIRA), until the termination of his employment on or about July 1, 1985. Upon his association with SIRA in 1982, Mecca became a party to both an employment and a shareholders’ agreement. Those agreements specified arbitration as the method for resolution of any disputes between the parties. Following his discharge, Mecca sought arbitration of disputes concerning his severance pay and the redemption of his shares in SIRA.

At issue here is the construction of the arbitration clause of the shareholders’ agreement. The parties disagree as to whether the language, "each such party shall appoint one * * * arbitrator”, means each party to the dispute or each party as a signatory to the agreement. Mecca and SIRA appointed one arbitrator each and the four remaining shareholders in SIRA also attempted to designate one arbitrator each. This construction of the arbitration clause would permit SIRA and its shareholders to align a greater number of appointees against Mecca’s single appointee. The court found that this construction would be unreasonable and contrary to the parties’ intentions at the time the agreement was entered into. We agree. The proper construction of the words "each party” is each party to the dispute, not each signatory to the arbitration agreement. Any other construction would render the arbitration a "sham and its determination a foregone conclusion” *(Matter of Di Stasio [Avallone],*27 AD2d 726, 727 [Steuer, J., dissenting], *mod*21 NY2d 665).

Finally, the court’s reservation of the power to appoint a neutral arbitrator should the two presently designated arbitrators be unable to agree or act upon such an appointment, is authorized not only by CPLR 7504, but also by the arbitration agreement. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
No. 99-40455

-1-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40455

Conference Calendar

 

KEVIN LYNN BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TOMMY CRUM; WESLEY ADAMS,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:99-CV-64

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

February 16, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kevin Lynn Brown, Texas prisoner #654055, appeals the

dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Because Brown sought

both monetary damages and injunctive relief, he was required to

exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit in federal

court. Whitley v. Hunt, 158 F.3d 882, 887 (5th Cir. 1998); see

Arvie v. Stalder, 53 F.3d 702, 705-06 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Subsequent to the entry of final judgment by the district 

court, evidence of exhaustion of administrative remedies was

filed into the record. Because this evidence was not before the
No. 99-40455

-2-

district court when it rendered final judgment, the dismissal

without prejudice was not error. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment dismissing the

complaint without prejudice is AFFIRMED. Brown’s motion to

supplement the record on appeal is DENIED as unnecessary.
Post i ng an FDMS Docket without a Federal Reg i ster Not i ce


### MEMORANDU M 

### OC T 2 4 2 013 SU BJE CT: Posting**EPA -H** **Q-OPP 20** **0546** to Regulations.gov for Public Access 

### FROM: Lois Rossi,

## Direct~ 

## . v) Registration**Div ~** **~** .

Th ru :

# ~/It//'~ l ; ::£cyJ5- c J 3 Meredith Laws Chief < /1' 

### P/C c e. ',(
...t.- 

## 125 L

. Insecticide-Rodent i c i de Branch
. Registration Division

Due to the Federal Government furlough, the comment period for the pesticide Notice of Receipt fo r the Experimental Use Permit in docket number EPA-HQ-OPP

- 2013-0546 will be extended through 11113/2013. This memorandum authorizes extension of the public comment period. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ

- OPP-2013

- 0546, by one of the following methods: • www.regulations.gov : Follow the on -l ine instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: OPP Docket, Envi ronmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 2822 1 T , 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW , Washington, DC
. 20460. • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 2046 0
. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. EPA 's po l icy is that all comments received will be included i n the p ublic docket w ithout change and may be made available online at http: //www.regulations.gov , including any perso nal information provided , unless the comment includes information claimed to be C onfidential Business Information (CBI) or other information who s e disclosure is re s tricted by statute. Do not submit information tha t you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http: // www.regulations.gov or e - mail. T he http: // www.regulations.gov Web site is an " anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your iden tity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you sen d an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http :// www.regulations.gov , your e-mai l address w ill be automatical ly captured and included as part o f the comment that is placed in the public docket and made availab le on the Internet. I f you submit an e lectronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with an y diskor CD-ROM you submit
. IfEPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficul ties and cannot contact you for clarification, E PA may not be able to consider your comm ent. Electronic files sh ould avoid the use of special characters , avoid any form of encrypti o n , and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA ' s publ i c docket , v is it th e EPA Docket Center homepage at http: //www.epa.gov / epahome / dockets.htm. Should you have any questions regarding this memorandum , please contact Lo i s Ross i at (703) 305-7090, or vi a email at RDFRNotices@epa.gov
.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4528 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4528

 To extend the temporary reduction of duty on woven fabrics containing 
              85 percent or more by weight of vicuna hair.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2012

 Mr. Courtney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary reduction of duty on woven fabrics containing 
              85 percent or more by weight of vicuna hair.

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

SECTION 1. WOVEN FABRICS CONTAINING 85 PERCENT OR MORE BY WEIGHT OF 
              VICUNA HAIR.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.23 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to woven fabrics containing 85 
percent or more by weight of vicuna hair) is amended by striking the 
date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```