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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4771 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Fungaflor Technical (Imazalil). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. NUNES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Fungaflor Technical 

(Imazalil). 

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

3 SECTION 1. FUNGAFLOR TECHNICAL (IMAZALIL). 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Imazalil (CAS No. 73790– 

28–0), in bulk active form 

(provided for in subheading 2933.29.35) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4771 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31(1)

                         CERTIFICATION
I, James W. Keyes, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2003, of 7-Eleven, Inc. (the "registrant");
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
end of the period covered by this report based
on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrant's internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the
registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial
information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 6, 2003
/s/ James W. Keyes
---------------------------------

President and Chief Executive Officer




                                      Tab 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

CHELSEA D. EDWARDS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 16-30127 

D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00112-EJL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding**

Submitted March 8, 2017***

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Chelsea D. Edwards appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Rosanna Malouf Peterson, United States District 

Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. 

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-30127 

Edwards contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to 

explain the sentence adequately, justify its upward variance from the Guidelines 

range, and respond to her mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see

United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and hold that there is 

none. The record reflects that the district court considered Edwards’s arguments 

for a mid-range sentence and sufficiently explained its reasons for the aboveGuidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(en banc). 

Edwards next claims that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. The 

district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of 

the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, 

including Edwards’s extensive criminal history and her repeated breaches of the 

court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058,

1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 18



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Sonat Inc.

Note 2 of Notes to Condensed  Consolidated  Financial  Statements  of Sonat Inc.
included in its Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 1998 describes
a  change  in the  method  of  accounting  for oil and gas  properties  from the
successful  efforts method to the full cost method. You have advised us that you
believe that the change is to a preferable method in your circumstances  because
of the following reasons:

 1.  The  Company  has  changed  its  oil  and gas  exploration  and  production
     strategic   direction  from  acquisitions  of  producing   properties  with
     significant   development  potential  to  an  exploratory  and  development
     drilling growth  strategy.  The Company believes that, due to its change in
     strategic direction, the full cost method provides for a better matching of
     revenues and expenses versus the successful  efforts  method,  and the full
     cost method more fairly  presents the cost of the reserves  acquired in the
     statement of financial position.

 2.  Reporting annual operating  results and financial  position on a successful
     efforts  basis  for  a  company  that  provides  for  its  growth   through
     exploration  drilling  provides a  different  reflection  of the  operating
     success of the  company  and the cost of  acquiring  reserves.  The Company
     believes that for a growing  exploratory  company a better  presentation of
     economic results is provided through the application of full cost method of
     accounting.  The full cost method  accurately  matches the cost of reserves
     obtained through an exploratory drilling program with the revenues produced
     through selling these reserves over a company's business cycle.

There are no  authoritative  criteria for  determining  a preferable  accounting
method  for  oil and  gas  properties  based  on the  particular  circumstances;
however, we conclude that the change in the method of accounting for oil and gas
properties is to an acceptable  alternative method which, based on your business
judgment to make this change for the reasons cited above,  is preferable in your
circumstances.  We have not  conducted  an audit in  accordance  with  generally
accepted auditing standards of any financial statements of the Company as of any
date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 1997; and therefore, we do not
express any opinion on any financial statements of Sonat Inc. subsequent to that
date.



October 20, 1998
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5510 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain smooth nonwoven 

fiberglass sheets of a type primarily used as acoustical facing for ceiling 

panels. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain 

smooth nonwoven fiberglass sheets of a type primarily 

used as acoustical facing for ceiling panels. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN SMOOTH NONWOVEN FIBERGLASS 

4 SHEETS OF A TYPE PRIMARILY USED AS 

5 ACOUSTICAL FACING FOR CEILING PANELS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.70.19 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 certain smooth nonwoven fiberglass sheets of a type pri9 marily used as acoustical facing for ceiling panels) is 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5510 IH

1 amended by striking the date in the effective period col2 umn and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) 

INC., AND ZTE (TX), INC. 

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-487

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-488

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-489

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-490

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-491

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-492

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-493

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-494

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-495

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-496

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-497

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay. After consideration of the Motion and the 

applicable law, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be DENIED. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay is DENIED. 

SIGNED this _____ day of December, 2020. 

________________________________

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00491-ADA Document 48-1 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 1
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Eric Dewayne Burns Sr.; * From the 350th District Court

Eric Dewayne Burns Jr.; of Taylor County,

and Vennetta Burns, Trial Court No. 13224-D.

Vs. No. 11-24-00100-CV * June 13, 2024

Debra Lynn Lowry and Liberty * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J. 

County Mutual Insurance Company, (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, 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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-607-000]

Take notice that on September 29, 2000, Trunkline Gas Company (Trunkline) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A attached to the filing, to become effective November 1, 2000.

Trunkline states that this filing is being made in accordance with Section 22 (Fuel Reimbursement Adjustment) of Trunkline's FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1. The revised tariff sheets listed on Appendix A reflect: a 0.62% increase (Field Zone to Zone 2), a 0.57% increase (Zone 1A to Zone 2), a 0.34% increase (Zone 1B to Zone 2), a 0.14% increase (Zone 2 only), a 0.68% increase (Field Zone to Zone 1B), a 0.63% increase (Zone 1A to Zone 1B), a 0.40% increase (Zone 1B only), a 0.48% increase (Field Zone to Zone 1A), a 0.43% increase (Zone 1A only) and a 0.25% increase (Field Zone only) to the currently effective fuel reimbursement percentages.

Trunkline states that copies of this filing are being served on all affected shippers and interested state regulatory agencies.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-25855  Filed 10-6-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
This action was submitted to the Office of Management and Sudget (OMS) for review under Executive Order (E.O.) 

12866, titled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4,1993). Whenever EPA makes publicly available 

a regulatory action that was reviewed under E.O. 12866, section 6(a)(3)(E) of the E.O. directs the Agency to also: 

(1)Make available to the public a copy of the information that was provided to OMS's Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review under the E.O., i.e., the text of the draft regulatory action and, if applicable, 

an assessment of the potential costs and benefits, as well as additional information for those actions that are 

determined to be economically significant under the E.O. (Information requirements are described in sections 

6(a)(3)(S) and (e)). 

(2) Identify for the public any substantive changes between the draft submitted to OIRA and the action that was 

subsequently issued, using a method that is complete, clear, and simple. 

(3) Identify for the public those substantive changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA. 

For this regulatory action, were substantive changes made to information reviewed under E.O. 

12866? [Please check the appropriate answer.] 

lEI No. [In the docket, include the information identified in item (1) below.] 

CJ Yes. [In the docket, include the information identified in items (1) - (3) below.] 

Accordingly, the Agency has included this form and the following information in the public 

docket for this regulatory action: [Please check the appropriate information.] 

lEI (1) A copy of the information that was provided to OIRA for review under the E.O. 

[] (2) Documentation of any substantive changes made to the draft regulatory text that was 

submitted to OIRA when compared with what was subsequently made publicly available. 

The documentation is provided on the pages following this form. Changes made at the 

suggestion or recommendation of OIRA, if any, are clearly identified through attribution to 

OIRA. EPA has used one or more of the following methods to note changes: [Select the 

appropriate option(s).] 

WI (a) Redline-Strikeout - A copy of the draft regulatory action submitted, using red linestrikeout to show the substantive changes that were made. 

[J (b) Hand Markup - A copy of the draft regulatory action submitted, using handwritten notes 

to show the substantive changes that were made. 

o (c) Note to the file - A document that identifies the substantive changes that were made, 

with page and paragraph references to the draft regulatory action that was submitted. 

If you have any questions about this regulatory action or this documentation, please call the 

contact: 

Name: l-ca-r-ol-e-c-oo-k----------I Email: ICOOk.CarO'e@epa.govIPhone:I(202)343-93341 

ReVised 05/05/2010
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 195 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25667]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than October 20, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Phillip Jackson, Applications 
Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. John Mark DeCook, Pella, Iowa, and Martin ``Bruce'' Heerema, 
Pella, Iowa; each to retain voting shares of Vermeer Investment 
Company, Pella, Iowa, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of 
Marion County State Bank, Pella, Iowa.
    2. Raymond James Schirmer, and Robert Lawrence Foust, both of 
Strawberry Point, Iowa; to acquire additional voting shares of Munter 
Agency, Inc., Strawberry Point, Iowa, and thereby indirectly acquire 
additional voting shares of Union Bank and Trust Company, Strawberry 
Point, Iowa.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 2, 
2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-25667 Filed 10-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit 32.2

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

Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Spansion Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i.) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 25, 2005 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                     |  |                                                                    
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 13, 2006 |  | /s/    DARIO
SACOMANI                                              
|                     |  | Dario Sacomani Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
1 of 1

EPA’s Potential Reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act TAS Provision–Meeting with 

Environment Chiefs of the National Association of Attorneys General

Thursday, May 28, 2015

3:00 – 4:00 p.m. EDT

Meeting Summary

EPA Moderator: Avi Garbow, EPA General Counsel

EPA Presenter: Tony Guadagno, EPA Office of General Counsel

Participants: Representatives of over 40 states

The topic of the potential reinterpretation of the tribal authority provision of the Clean Water Act

was one of several on the agenda. Two documents that were provided to invitees in advance of 

the meeting are available in the docket for this rulemaking:

 Clean Water Act Tribal Provision: Overview, prepared by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Office of Water and Office of General Counsel, May 2015.

 Clean Water Act Tribal Provision: Discussion Paper, prepared by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water and Office of General Counsel, May 

2015.

Tony Guadagno provided a brief overview of the potential action. 

Participants raised no questions or issues.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60209-60210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26018]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: October 16, 2000 at 11 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:   
    1. Agenda for future meeting: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-474-475 (Review) (Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from 
China and Taiwan)--briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently 
scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to 
the Secretary of Commerce on October 25, 2000.)
    5. Outstanding action jackets:
    (1.) Document No. GC-00-070: Approval of final disposition of 
investigation in Inv. No. 337-TA-395 (Certain EPROM, EEPROM, Flash 
Memory, and Flash Microcontroller Semiconductor Devices and Products 
Containing Same).
    (2.) Document No. GC-00-071: Administrative matters.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    Issued: October 4, 2000.


[[Page 60210]]


    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26018 Filed 10-5-00; 11:04 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-U