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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3208 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3208

 To clarify that certain natural gas facilities are not subject to the 
                            Natural Gas Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 2013

Mr. McKinley (for himself, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, and Mr. Ryan 
   of Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To clarify that certain natural gas facilities are not subject to the 
                            Natural Gas Act.

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

SECTION 1. NATURAL GAS ACT JURISDICTION.

    Section 1 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) A person not otherwise subject to this Act shall not become 
subject to this Act solely by reason of such person's construction or 
operation of a facility not otherwise subject to this Act that 
liquefies, stores, processes, or delivers natural gas for vehicular 
natural gas or other end use purposes notwithstanding that natural gas 
may be reinjected from the facility into an interstate pipeline, 
provided that such reinjections are incidental to the facility's 
provision of natural gas for vehicular or other end use purposes and 
are required by the operational, maintenance, or safety needs of the 
facility.''.
                                 <all>
```
exv4w2



 






Exhibit 4.2









CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Experts” in the Registration
Statement on Form F-8 (File No. 333-129218) filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission, as amended on December 15, 2005, January 20,
2006 and on or about February 27, 2006, and to the incorporation by reference therein
of our report dated February 14, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements, and the
financial statement schedule of Inco Limited as at December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 and for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004 and management’s assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2004 which appears on page 134 of Inco
Limited’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.




/s/   PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP




Chartered Accountants



Toronto, Ontario

February 27, 2006



PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to the Canadian firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the other
member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and
independent legal entity.
----

| 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:  | November 12, 2010 | /s/ Richard D. Sieradzki                                 |
|--------|-------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |              | Richard D. Sieradzki                                     |
|   |              | Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |

----
#### SUVER et al. v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 20, 1952.

Motion to Set Aside Previous Order Denied Sept. 26, 1952.

Writ of Certiorari Denied Feb. 9, 1953.

See 73 S.Ct. 504.

Hubert Meredith, Owensboro, B. N. Gordon, Madisonville, Harris, Drury & Wathen, Morganfield, for movants.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Union Circuit Court by Earl Suver and Arthur Chaney from a judgment convicting them of violating KRS 437.110 and fixing their punishment at a fine of $1,000 and confinement for one year in jail.

A consideration of the record discloses no error prejudicial to movants’ substantial rights and the judgment is affirmed.

On Motion to Set Aside.

The movants have filed a brief designated “petition for rehearing,” and have requested an oral argument. Since the rules of this Court make no provision for a petition for rehearing in misdemeanor cases, we have treated the brief as a motion to set aside our previous order affirming the case.

The whole Court having considered the questions raised 'by movants, It Is Ordered that both the motion for oral argument and the motion to set aside the previous order affirming the case be and they are overruled.
**Exhibit 12.1****CERTIFICATIONS**  I, Kunihiko Sakioka, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Nissin Co., Ltd.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: July 29, 2005      NISSIN CO., LTD.
**Exhibit 32(ii)**

****

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

                In connect with thequarterly report of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the "'Company"') on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended August 31, 2009 to befiled with Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "'Report"'), I,Douglas P. Taylor, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,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 as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
| Date: October 14, 2009         | By: | /s/Douglas P. Taylor       |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|-------------------------------------------|
|                                                                        |     | Douglas P. Taylor,Chief Executive Officer |
(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 Trust.
 MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IIIBy:
    /s/ MARLENE DEBELName:
    Marlene Debel*Title:
    Regular Trustee  
 *
    
    Marlene Debel functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Trust for purposes of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
EXHIBIT 10.18

                            2006 EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN

         Our Executive Bonus Plan for 2006 is designed to provide an annual
incentive bonus to executive officers based on the achievement of certain
financial objectives, as well as achievement of personal objectives. The
financial objectives are set annually by our Board of Directors. Payments under
the bonus plan that are based on the achievement of the following financial
objectives: revenue, net income, same store sales increases, increase in
system-wide locations, and retention/turnover percentage.

         The Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer may receive
bonuses of up to 103% of their base salary for achieving financial objectives,
and up to an additional 20% of base salary for achieving of personal objectives.
Other executive officers may receive bonuses of up to 76% of their base salary
for achieving financial objectives, and up to an additional 15% of their base
salary for achieving personal objectives. The level of financial objective bonus
received varies based upon the percentage of the objective that we achieve. If a
certain minimum percentage for an objective is not achieved, no bonus is paid
for that objective.
#### GRAYSON v. STATE.

No. 24061.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 26, 1948.

Nielsen & McCormick, of Raymondville, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant and G. W. Mason were severally charged by information with contributing to the delinquency of a child.

There appears no formal order consolidating the two cases. However, the trial was joint and the two cases were tried at the same time and before the same jury.

The jury’s verdict reads as follows:

> ‘We, the jury in the above styled and numbered cause, find the *defendants*guilty as charged in the *informations,*and assess *their*punishment at ninety days in jail, One Hundred Dollars fine, and court cost. (Emphasis supplied.)

> “Frank T. Williams,

> “Foreman of the Jury.”

Upon said verdict, judgment was rendered assessing against e,ach defendant a punishment of a fine of $100 and ninety days’ confinement in jail.

The verdict did not support the judgment, because it was indefinite in that it could not be ascertained therefrom whether the punishment assessed was joint or several. Such a verdict is invalid in a misdemeanor case, such as is here presented. Edwards v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 75 S.W. 859; Davidson v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 215, 97 S.W.2d 698, 42 Tex.Jur., p. 469, Sec. 367.

For the error in the verdict, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
# HISTORI

c:== Paine l=ield, May 29, 2012 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building ground floor, Room W12-140 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 20590**Y.~"** 

### 'n

.J U 

### A 1u: 

## 25

Re: Request for Extension, Docket Number FAA-2010-0392, Exemption 10092 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: On behalfof Historic Flight Foundation, this is to request extension of Exemption 10092 (Docket Number FAA-2010-0392) from 14 CFR Part 119.21 (a); 119.5 (g); 91.315; and 91.319 (a)(2). The name, address and contact information ofthe exemption holder are as follows: Historic Flight Foundation ("HFF") Attn: John T. Sessions, CEO 10719 Bernie Webber Drive Mukilteo, WA 98275 425.348.3200 or206.587.4040 joh11_@histor!cfl_igbt,Qig The specific sections of 14 CFR from which HFF seeks exemption are set forth above. The purpose ofthis request is to extend the exemption for an additional term such that the flight experience program covered by the exemption may be continued. In its initial two years, the program has allowed HFF to demonstrate the flying characteristics the world's oldest B-25 Mitchell bomberwith patrons aboard and in doing so, sustain its educational mission. The public interest is served through preservation ofaviation heritage and dynamic presentation of American history. In the first two years ofoperation, the conditions ofexemption have been fulfilled and all flights have been safely conducted. HFF expects this safety record to continue.

107"19

### BernieWebberDrive • Mukilteo,WA 98275-5011 • 425-348-3200Letterto U.S. Department ofTransportation May 29, 2012; page 2 In summaty, this is to request extension of Exemption 10092 (Docket Number FAA-2010-0392) from 14 CFR Part 119.21 (a); 119.5 (g); 91.315; and 91.319 (a)(2) to allow Historic Flight Foundation continuation of its flight experience program in its North American B-250, N88972. The public interest is served through preservation ofaviation heritage and dynamic presentation of American history. Historic Flight Foundation's high standards have resulted in an unblemished record ofsafe flights. This requestfor extension ofexemption is limited to the territory ofthe United States. Please contactthe undersigned should you have questions orfurther requirements. Thankyou foryour consideration.

JTS:mm
Second Amendment to Amended and Restated 1994 Stock Option Plan



 Exhibit 10.26 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 
 CAREMARK RX, INC. 1994 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 (FORMERLY THE MEDPARTNERS, INC. 
 1994 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN) 
  
 This Second Amendment to the Caremark Rx, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan
(formerly the Medpartners, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan) (the “Plan”) to be effective as of January 12, 2001. 
  
 WITNESSETH: 
  
 WHEREAS, Caremark Rx, Inc. (the “Company”) currently sponsors and maintains the Caremark Rx, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan (formerly the
Medpartners, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan) (the “Plan”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, Section 14 of the Plan grants the Compensation Committee of the Board the power at any time to amend the Plan, and the Compensation Committee now wishes to amend the Plan to modify the vesting provisions
for options granted under the Plan on and after January 12, 2001; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as indicated below: 
  
 1. 
  
 Section 7(i) of the Plan is
amended effective as of January 12, 2001, to read as follows: 
  
 (i) Vesting of Options. Except as set forth by the Committee in the applicable Stock Option Agreement, Options granted under the Plan shall vest and become exercisable as follows: 
  
 (i) 34% of the Options shall vest on the Date of Grant;

  
 (ii) 33% of the Options granted shall vest
on each of the first anniversary and second anniversary of the 
  
 Second Amendment to the 
 Caremark Rx, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan 
 Page 1 







 Date of Grant; provided, however, that for Options granted prior to January 12, 2001, if during the
first year after the Date of Grant, the stock price of the Common Stock closes at or above $12.00 (or such other price as determined by the Committee and set forth in the applicable Stock Option Agreement) for any twenty (20) out of thirty
(30) consecutive trading days, the 33% of the Options due to vest on the first anniversary of the Date of Grant shall vest immediately at the end of such 20th day, and provided, however, that for Options granted prior to January 12, 2001,
if during the second year after the Date of Grant, the stock price of the Common Stock closes at or above $18.00 (or such other price as determined by the Committee and set forth in the applicable Stock Option Agreement) for any twenty (20) out
of thirty (30) consecutive trading days, the 33% of the Options due to vest on the second anniversary of the Date of Grant shall vest immediately at the end of such 20th day. 
  
 2. 
  
 The name of the Plan is changed effective as of January 12, 2001 from the Medpartners, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan to the Caremark Rx, Inc. 1994
Stock Incentive Plan. All references in any Company documents to the Medpartners, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan shall, after January 12, 2001, be a reference to the Caremark Rx, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan. 
  
 3. 
  
 All other provisions of the Plan not inconsistent herewith are hereby confirmed and ratified. 
  
 Approved by the Board of Directors by resolutions on January 12, 2001.

  
 Second Amendment to the 
 Caremark Rx, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan 
 Page 2
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 12 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-13720

 

D. C. Docket No. 04-00531 CR-06-ODE-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ANGEL ALVAREZ-LOPEZ,

a.k.a. Pariente,

a.k.a. Jorge Quintero,

a.k.a. Jose Alvarez,

a.k.a. Arturo Quintero-Peno,

a.k.a. Jorge Quintero-Santoyo,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

 

(June 12, 2007)

Before DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Judge.

__________________

*Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by

designation.
2

PER CURIAM:

After a trial by jury, appellant Jose Angel Alvarez-Lopez (the “defendant”)

was convicted of various drug trafficking crimes and with possession of firearms

in furtherance of the drug trafficking crimes. 

The defendant presents the following issues for appellate review: (1)

whether the district court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress

evidence; and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s

conviction for possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. 

“In reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we review

findings of fact for clear error and the application of law to those facts de novo.”

United States v. Martinelli, 454 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2006); see also United

States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1247 (11th Cir. 2000).

Where a defendant fails to move for a judgment of acquittal at the close of

all of the evidence in the case, we will reverse the conviction only to prevent a

manifest miscarriage of justice. United States v. Milkintas, 470 F.3d 1339, 1343

(11th Cir. 2006).

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the

benefit of oral argument, we conclude that there is no merit to any of the

arguments the defendant makes in this appeal. 
3

First, we conclude that, even if we exclude those facts contested by the

defendant, the search warrant affidavit contains enough information that reliance

on it would have been reasonable. Therefore, we hold that the search warrant

affidavit contained sufficient probable cause to justify the search at issue and the

district court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress.

Second, we conclude from our review of the record that there was more than

sufficient evidence presented at trial to sustain the defendant’s conviction for

possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. For these

reasons, we affirm the defendant’s convictions.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64192-64193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27149]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[MO 116-1116; FRL-6890-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Operating 
Permits Program; State of Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the state of Missouri pertaining to its 
Submission of Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information 
rule and to also approve this rule as it pertains to Missouri's part 70 
operating permits program. EPA also proposes to remove from the SIP the 
state's General Organization rule. In the final rules section of the 
Federal Register, EPA is approving the state's submission as a direct 
final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a 
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse

[[Page 64193]]

comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set 
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are 
received in response to this action, no further activity is 
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant 
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all 
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this 
action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
November 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Wayne Kaiser, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th 
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551-7603.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct 
final rule which is located in the rules section of the Federal 
Register.

    Dated: October 6, 2000.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 00-27149 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U