alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### f u m i gan t r

egu l a t i ons ques t

i ons
R and y S ega w

a to: Nan cy

Le v in 06 / 28 / 2011 12 : 56

PM

Hi s t o r y: Th i s m e ss age ha s been r ep li ed t o and f o rw a r ded.

Nancy

The resources needed and provided are discussed in the regulations submittal, Enclosure 4, pages 98 and 524. The Fiscal Impact Statement on page 98 cryptically refers to Item 3930-001-0106 of the Budget Act of 2007. This amended the Food and Agricultural Code and requires DPR to provide addtional funding to county agricultural commissioners if they implement a fumigant limit and allowance system. The requirements are specified in Food and Agricultural Code section 12841.3, and is available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fac&group=12001-13000&fi

le=12841-1284 7

The alternatives analysis, page 2, discusses the various types of pesticide regulatory requirements. This section states "Application or use of pesticides is regulated at several levels. All pesticide products must have a U.S. EPA-approved label that describes the maximum application rate, methods of application, crops that can be treated, safety precautions, and other requirements. Labels are enforceable documents, and making pesticide applications contrary to label directions is a violation of both state and federal law. DPR also develops and implements state regulations that can be more restrictive than the label. Under state law, county agricultural commissioners can also impose additional use requirements through the permitting process required for certain pesticides (restricted materials), based on an evaluation of local conditions. Growers and applicators are required to follow the most stringent use requirements, whether specified by labels, state regulations, or county permit conditions. County agricultural commissioners are responsible for enforcing all pesticide use requirements, under DPR oversight."

Randy
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 336 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 336

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for 
 counterfeiting or selling Presidential inauguration tickets, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 2013

 Mr. Capuano (for himself, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. McNerney, and Ms. Norton) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for 
 counterfeiting or selling Presidential inauguration tickets, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SELLING OR COUNTERFEITING PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATION TICKETS.

    Chapter 25 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
``Sec. 515. Selling or counterfeiting Presidential inauguration tickets
    ``(a) Whoever knowingly--
            ``(1) except as provided in subsection (b) transfers for 
        money or property a ticket to a Presidential inaugural 
        ceremony;
            ``(2) with intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, 
        counterfeits, or alters a ticket to a Presidential inaugural 
        ceremony; or
            ``(3) with intent to defraud, enters or attempts to enter a 
        Presidential inaugural ceremony with a ticket, knowing that 
        ticket to have been falsely made, forged, counterfeited or 
        altered;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 6 months, 
or both.
    ``(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a transfer that occurs after 
the date on which the Presidential inaugural ceremony for which the 
ticket was issued takes place.
    ``(c) In this section, the term `Presidential inaugural ceremony' 
means a public inaugural ceremony at which the President elect or the 
Vice President elect take the oath or affirmation of office for the 
office of President of the United States or the office of Vice 
President of the United States, respectively.''.

SEC. 2. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

    The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 25 of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
item:

``515. Selling or counterfeiting Presidential inauguration tickets.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended November 30, 2008 (the "Quarterly Report") of Multi-Media
Tutorial Services, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ending November 30,
2008, I, Barry Reichman, President, the Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

      1.    The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
            in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company.

Dated: January 20, 2009

/s/ Barry Reichman
--------------------------
Barry Reichman
President
(Principal Executive Officer)
(Principal Financial Officer)
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 3, 2009

d0527 

# Order

June 3, 2009

137907

MARGARET GAINFORTH, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF FELICE VERMEERSCH, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137907 COA: 284972 Bay CC: 02-003940-NH BAY HEALTH CARE, d/b/a BAY DIAGNOSTIC CENTER FOR WOMEN, BAY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, f/k/a BAY HEALTH SYSTEMS and BAY MEDI CAL CENTER, INC., BAY RADIOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS, P.C., T. K. JONES, M.D., HARPAL SINGH, M.D., and HARPAL SINGH, M.D., P.C.. Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 23, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this ca se to the Court of Appeals, which shall hold this case in abeyance pending its decision in Farley v Carp (Court of Appeals Docket Nos. 283405, 28 3418, and 284681). After Farley is decided, the Court of Appeals shall reconsider this case in light of that case.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO.  2-03-345-CV

MICHAEL CONRAD SICKING	APPELLANT

	V.

SHELLA DARLENE SICKING	APPELLEE

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

	FROM THE 235TH DISTRICT COURT OF COOKE COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	On February 19, 2004, we dismissed this appeal because the appellate documents included an untimely notice of appeal from a November 14, 2001 final divorce decree and Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was untimely.  In his motion for extension of time to file the untimely notice of appeal, Appellant stated that he was appealing from a July 25, 2003 post-judgment Order on Motion for Delivery of Property.  The order was not included in the appellate documents, and the trial court clerk informed us that no such order existed.  On March 24, 2004, Appellant filed a Motion for Reinstatement to which he attached a copy of the Order on Motion for Delivery of Property.  We construed the Motion for Reinstatement as a motion for rehearing.  We implied a motion for extension of time to file the motion for rehearing because the motion for rehearing was filed within fifteen days of the due date for filing a motion for rehearing, and offered Appellant an opportunity to provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the motion for rehearing.  Appellant subsequently provided a reasonable explanation.  Accordingly, on December 23, 2004 we withdrew our opinion and judgment of February 19, 2004, reinstated the appeal, and granted Appellant until January 25, 2005 to file a notice of appeal from the trial court’s July 25, 2003 Order on Motion for Delivery of Property.  Appellant has not filed a notice of appeal.

	We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), (c), 43.2(f).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	GARDNER, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED:  June 16, 2005
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of *SOURCECORP*, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),does hereby certify that, to my knowledge:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2005 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Date: August 10, 2005 | /s/ Barry L. Edwards                                  |   |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                       | Barry L. Edwards                                      |
|                       | Executive Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code). /

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3458 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3458

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen

                                 An Act

 
 To treat payments by charitable organizations with respect to certain 
                    firefighters as exempt payments.

    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 ``Fallen Firefighters Assistance Tax 
Clarification Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. PAYMENTS BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN 
FIREFIGHTERS TREATED AS EXEMPT PAYMENTS.
    (a) In General.--For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
payments made to--
        (1) any firefighter who was injured as a result of the ambush 
    of firefighters responding to an emergency on December 24, 2012, in 
    Webster, New York,
        (2) the spouse of any firefighter who died as a result of such 
    ambush, or
        (3) any dependent (as defined in section 152 of such Code) of 
    any firefighter who died as a result of such ambush,
by an organization described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 509(a) 
of such Code shall be treated as related to the purpose or function 
constituting the basis for such organization's exemption under section 
501 of such Code if such payments are made in good faith using a 
reasonable and objective formula which is consistently applied.
    (b) Application.--Subsection (a) shall apply only to payments made 
on or after December 24, 2012, and before the later of--
        (1) January 1, 2014, or
        (2) the date which is 30 days after the date of the enactment 
    of this Act.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Gilbert M. Martinez, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 1615 C.D. 2018

:

Tax Claims Bureau, Director Stacy :

Phile, in her Individual Capacity, the :

Treasurer Dennis Adams, in his :

Individual and Official Capacity and :

Berks County Assessment Office :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, October 2, 2019

, upon consideration of Appellant ’s

application for re consideration , the application is denied.
<PAGE>

                  EXHIBIT 21.1 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                       Other Names Under Which
          Subsidiary                         Jurisdiction of Incorporation          Such Subsidiary Does Business
          ----------                         -----------------------------          -----------------------------
<S>                                          <C>                                     <C>
GCW Holdings, Inc.                                      Delaware                                None

Costura Dominicana, Inc.                                Delaware                                None

GCI IP Sub, Inc.                                        Delaware                                None

Auburn Hosiery Mills, Inc                               Kentucky                                None

GCI Spainco, S.L.                                        Spain                                  None

Sport Socks Co. (Ireland) Ltd.                          Ireland                                 None

Sport Socks Co. (UK) Limited                         United Kingdom                             None

Sport Socks Co. (Belgium) BVBA                          Belgium                                 None

Gerber Childrenswear Canada, Inc.                       Delaware                                None

Costura Matamoros S.A. de C.V.                           Mexico                                 None

GCW Mexico S.A. de C.V.                                  Mexico                                 None
</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Yogurt Culture, Inc. and Michelle Anderssen v. Shannon A. Lang, 

PLLC

Appellate case number: 01-19-00414-CV

Trial court case number: 1103656

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

On August 22, 2019, this Court issued an order staying the appeal after receiving notice 

that appellant, Michelle Anderssen, had filed a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the 

Bankruptcy Code. On September 24, 2019, appellant, Yogurt Culture, Inc., filed a motion to 

reinstate the appeal because the bankruptcy court dismissed Anderssen’s case on September 10, 

2019. A copy of the bankruptcy court’s order is attached.

Accordingly, we grant the motion and reinstate the appeal on the active docket. Appellant’s 

brief received on August 30, 2019 is ordered filed as of the date of this order. Appellee’s brief 

is due 30 days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___Justice Peter Kelly______________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __October 8, 2019___
#### Ex parte Walter TINSLEY.

No. 25897.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 11, 1952.

H. L. Williford, Hugh D. Reed, Jr., Fairfield, Ellen Victery, Teague, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

This is a companion case to Ex parte Wiley, Tex.Cr.App., 249 S.W.2d 627. The same question is involved as in the Wiley case.

Upon considering the application and the order made thereon, and the argument of counsel, we 'are of the opinion that the order of the District Court remanding relator to the custody of the sheriff should be affirmed. The clerk will issue mandate accordingly.
#### TRAPP v. STATE.

No. 22234.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 2, 1942.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal Jan. 6, 1943.

Jones & Jones, of Mineóla, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for selling intoxicating liquor in a dry area, punishment assessed being a fine of $125.

No judgment appears in the transcript. Without a judgment of conviction no' appeal will lie. See authorities cited in Note 5, Art. 813, Vernon’s Tex.C.GP., Vol. 3.

The appeal is dismissed.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.

GRAVES, Judge.

This cause having been heretofore dismissed on account of there being no judgment found in the record, such defect bring now remedied, we will consider the same upon the record.

 This is a charged violation of the local option liquor laws of Wood County. It is necessary that the result of the local option election be pleaded and proven, as well as the publication of the order of the commissioners court of such county entering its order prohibiting the sale of such intoxicating liquors in such county. Nowhere in the record is it shown that after the entry of the order of the commissioners court, the same was published in a newspaper as is required by law. See Akin v. State, 14 Tex.App. 142. In the absence of such order in the record, it is not therein shown and proven that it was unlawful to sell intoxicating liquor in Wood County. See Craig v. State, 167 S.W.2d 523, this day decided.

This judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
**Exhibit 32.01****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 Viseon, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for thequarter and six months ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon February 10, 2006 (“Report”), the undersigned Officerof the Company hereby certifies pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: February 10, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ANCHOR GLASS CONTAINER CORPORATION INCLUDED IN FORM 10-K
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-05-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                     1,060
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,940
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,025
<INVENTORY>                                    120,123
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               186,205
<PP&E>                                         368,524
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,653
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 627,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          168,667
<BONDS>                                        152,758
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           55,983
<PREFERRED>                                         34
<COMMON>                                           139
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,739
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   627,568
<SALES>                                        569,441
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               569,441
<CGS>                                          523,709
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  523,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   375
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (271)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (271)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (11,200)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,471)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (7.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (7.11)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28008]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6894-8]


Board of Scientific Counselors, Executive Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, as amended (5 U.S.C., App. 2) notification is hereby given that 
the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development 
(ORD), The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), will hold its 
Executive Committee Meeting.

DATES: The Teleconference will be held on November 16, 2000.

ADDRESSES: On Thursday, November 16, 2000, the teleconference will 
begin at 10 a.m. and will adjourn at 12 Noon. The call in number is 
202-260-7280, access code: 1774#. All times noted are Eastern Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Agenda of the BOSC Executive Committee 
will cover:
    <bullet> Discussion and approval of the BOSC report on the 
Management of PM Research in ORD,
    <bullet> Committee Assignments,
    <bullet> Multi-year Planning.
    The teleconference is open to the public. Any member of the public 
wishing to make a presentation at the meeting should contact Shirley 
Hamilton, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Research and 
Development (8701R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20460; telephone at (202) 564-6853. In general each individual making 
an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three minutes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley R. Hamilton, Designated 
Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Research and Development, NCER (MC 8701R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-6853.

    Dated: October 27, 2000.
Peter W. Preuss,
Director, National Center for Environmental Research.
[FR Doc. 00-28008 Filed 10-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M