alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28679]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[I.D. 110200B]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Foreign Fishing Vessels Operating in Internal Waters.
    Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0329.
    Type o f Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 36.
    Number of Respondents: 6.
    Average Hours Per Response: 30 minutes.
    Needs and Uses: Foreign fishing vessels engaged in processing and 
support of U.S. fishing vessels within the internal waters of a state, 
in compliance with the terms and conditions set by the authorizing 
governor, are required to report the tonnage and location of fish 
received from U.S. vessels. This reporting is required by the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Weekly reports are 
submitted to the NMFS Regional Administrator to allow monitoring of the 
quantity of fish received by foreign vessels.
    Affected Public: Business and other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: Weekly.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Forms Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a3739161b030e15143a1e1519541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cb8688a7aab2bfa4a58bafa4a8e5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: November 1, 2000.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-28679 Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT13**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofsection 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United Sates Code), each of theundersigned officers of Gruma, S.A.B. de C.V. (the “Company”), does herebycertify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

The Annual Reporton form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Form 20-F”) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-Ffairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
|                 | /s/  Jairo Senise       |   |
|----------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Dated: June 29, 2007 | Jairo Senise            |   |
|                 | Chief Executive Officer |   |

 
|                      | /s/ Juan Antonio Quiroga García |   |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: June 29, 2007 | Juan Antonio Quiroga García     |   |
|                 | Chief Corporate Officer              |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

----
EXHIBIT
      32.1








STATEMENT
      OF GREGORY P. JOSEFOWICZ,


CHAIRMAN,
      PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF BORDERS GROUP, INC.


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Gregory P. Josefowicz, certify that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April
      29, 2006, of Borders Group, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d))
      and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Borders Group, Inc.





Date:
      June 8, 2006





/s/
      GREGORY P. JOSEFOWICZ


Gregory
      P. Josefowicz


Chairman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer


Borders
      Group, Inc.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Borders Group, Inc. and will be retained by Borders Group, Inc. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 281

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States Embassy in

Israel should, at the earliest possible date, be relocated to the city

of Jerusalem.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 11, 1994

Mr. SHAW (for himself and Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida) submitted the following

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States

Embassy in Israel should, at the earliest possible date,

be relocated to the city of Jerusalem.

Whereas each sovereign nation, under international law and

custom, chooses its own capital city;

Whereas the state of Israel has selected Jerusalem as its capital city; and

Whereas Israel is the only country in which the United States

Embassy is not located in the designated capital of the

country: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 United States Embassy and the residence of the United
2

•HCON 281 IH

1 States Ambassador in Israel should be moved to Jerusa2 lem at the earliest possible date in accordance with inter3 national custom that embassies are located in the capital

4 city of the host nation.

Æ
#### CARLSON v. STATE.

No. 26308.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 11, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, á fine of $100.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
State of Utah 

Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D. 

Executive Director 

DNISION OF AIR QUALITY 

Richard W. Sprott 

Director 

JON M. HUNTSMAN, JR. 

Governor 

GARY HERBERT 

Lieutenant Governor 

Rec, d 

APR I 2 2005 

8P ... AR 

DAQP-034-05 

April 7, 2005 

Richard Long, Director 

Air and Radiation Program 

US EPA Region VIII 8P-AR 

999 18th Street, Suite 300 

Denver, CO 80202-2466 

Dear Mr. Long: 

My staff and I agree with your staffs list of rules that should be excluded from EPA's 

approval of the Utah rules recodification submittal of September 15, 1999. The list as we 

received it from your staff is enclosed with this letter. 

We submitted all Utah rules in September 1999 because, under the old codification 

system, those that are not or should not be part of the Utah State Implementation Plan 

were entangled within rules that are part of it. Given the processing practices of Utah's 

Division of Administrative Rules, there was no way to separate the parts that are in the 

Plan from those that are not when we submitted the documentation to you. 

We agree that the following rules should be excluded from EPA's approval of the 

recodification: 

R307-1-6. General Requirements: Exemption for Air and Water Pollution 

Control Equipment. Renumbered to R307-120. 

R307-121. General Requirements: Eligibility of Expenditures for Purchase 

of Vehicles That Use Cleaner Burning Fuels or Conversion of 

Vehicles and Special-Fuel Mobile Equipment to Use Cleaner 

Burning Fuels for Corporate and Individual Income Tax Credits. 

ISO North 1950 West • PO Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820 • phone (801) 536-4000 • fax (801) 536-4099 

T.D.D. (801) 536-4414 • www.deq.utah.gov 
DAQP-034-05 

April 7, 2005 

R307-122. General Requirements: Eligibility of Expenditures for Purchase 

and Installation Costs of Fireplaces and Wood Stoves That Use 

Cleaner Burning Fuels. 

R307-135. Enforcement Response Policy for Asbestos Hazard Emergency 

Response Act. 

R307-214. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. 

R307-215. Emission Standards: Acid Rain Requirements. 

R307-220. Emission Standards: Plan for Designated Facilities. 

R307-221. Emission Standards: Emission Controls for Existing Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills. 

R307-320. Davis, Salt Lake and Utah Counties, and Ogden City: EmployerBased Trip Reduction Program. 

R307-332. Davis and Salt Lake Counties and Ozone Nonattainment Areas: 

Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems. 

R307-415. Permits: Operating Permit Requirements. 

R307 -417. Permits: Acid Rain Sources. 

R307-l-8. Asbestos: Renumbered to R307-801. 

If you have questions, you may contact Jan Miller of my staff at (801) 536-4042. I look 

forward to working with you and your staff toward early approval of this exclusion. 

RWS/JM/gw 

2
HPLC/UV analysis with detection at 265 nm (LOQ = 2.00 mg a.i./L). Additionally, six control 

replicates were exposed to test medium only (AAP medium). The algae were illuminated with a 

light intensity of 5530-5870 lux with constant shaking. A primary stock solution was prepared 

by dissolving 0.1264 g of test substance in 1000 mL of freshwater AAP medium to achieve a 

nominal concentration of 100 mg a.i./L The primary stock was mixed by inversion and stirred 

with a Teflon-coated stirbar and magnetic stirplate while all subsequent dilutions were made. 

The primary stock solution was proportionally diluted to prepare the desired nominal test 

concentrations. All test solutions appeared clear and colorless at the time of preparation, and 

there was no evidence of surface slicks or precipitation at exposure termination. Over the course 

of testing, temperature ranged from 23.28-23.84°C and pH ranged from 7.3-8.3. The mean cell 

density of control cultures increased by a factor of 199 within 72 hours. Based on mean 

measured test concentrations, the 72-hour EC50 values for yield and growth rate were 36 and 78 

mg a.i./L, respectively. Based on yield, the 72-hour NOEC and LOEC values were 13 and 25 mg 

a.i./L, respectively; the ChV for yield was calculated to be 18 mg a.i./L. Based on growth rate, 

the 72-hour NOEC and LOEC values were 25 and 48 mg a.i./L, respectively; the ChV for growth 

rate was calculated to be 34.6 mg a.i./L.

Yield:

72-hour EC50 = 36 mg a.i./L

72-hour NOEC = 13 mg a.i./L

72-hour LOEC = 25 mg a.i./L

72-hour ChV = 18 mg a.i./L

Growth rate:

72-hour EC50 = 78 mg a.i./L

72-hour NOEC = 25 mg a.i./L

72-hour LOEC = 48 mg a.i./L

72-hour ChV = 34.6 mg a.i./L

The 96-hour fish toxicity test (LC50 > 129 mg a.i./L), the 48-hour daphnid toxicity test (EC50 = 

9.7 mg a.i./L), and 72-hour algae toxicity test (EC50 = 36 mg/L; NOEC = 13 mg/L; LOEC = 25 

mg/L) were adequate for P-15-0428. For comparative purposes, the 96-hour fish LC50 of > 100 

mg/L, the 48-hour daphnid EC50 of 1.73 mg/L, and the 96-hour algae EC50 of 7.05 mg/L were 

calculated based on analog data presented in Based on the acute 

daphnia experimental data of 9.7 mg/L (9700 ppb), and the application of an assessment factor of 

5, the acute concentration of concern (CoC) for P-15-0428 is 1940 ppb. The daphnia 

experimental results indicate that it is the most sensitive species, thus the chronic value (ChV) 

for P-15-0428 is calculated by dividing the daphnia EC50 of 9.7 mg/L by an acute to chronic 

ratio of 70 (based on ) to yield a ChV of 0.139 mg/L (139 ppb). The chronic 

CoC for P-15-0428 is then derived by dividing the ChV of 0.139 mg/L (139 ppb) by a factor of 

10 (assessment factor) yielding a chronic CoC of 13.9 ppb.

Acute CoC = 1940 ppb

Chronic CoC = 13.9 ppb
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ' .. :.i:)~l}s:;'i/~i!i?0r~~J:-n 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS uL~ GC!{ C!VSc;·I 

LUBBOCK DIVISION 2D2? JIIL 

• ·~ 26 PH~=IO 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

v. CASE NO. 5:22-CR-041-H-BQ-1 

TROVON LASHAUN HICKS 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLEA 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

This case has been referred by the United States district judge to the undersigned 

for the taking of a guilty plea. The parties have consented to appear before a United States 

magistrate judge for these purposes. This Report and Recommendation on Plea is submitted 

to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). 

The defendant appeared with counsel before the undersigned United States 

magistrate judge, who addressed the defendant personally in open court and informed the 

defendant of, and determined that the defendant understood, the admonitions contained in 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The defendant pleaded guilty (under a written plea bargain agreement with the 

government) to Count One of the Superseding Indictment, charging defendant with a 

violation of 21 US. C. § 846, that is, Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to 

Distribute 5 00 Grams ore More of Cocaine. After examining Defendant under oath the 

undersigned magistrate judge finds the following: 

1. Defendant, upon advice of counsel, has consented orally and in writing 

to enter this guilty plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final 

approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge; 

Case 5:22-cr-00041-H-BV Document 109 Filed 07/26/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 263
L 

. ···· ··

2. Defendant fully understands the nature of the charges (including each 

essential element of the offense(s) charged) and penalties; 

3. Defendant fully understands the terms of the plea agreement and plea 

agreement supplement; 

4. Defendant understands all constitutional and statutory rights and wishes 

to waive these rights, including the right to a trial by jury and the right 

to appear before a United States district judge; 

5. Defendant's plea is made freely and voluntarily; 

6. Defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; 

7. There is a factual basis for this plea; and 

8. The ends of justice are served by acceptance of the defendant's plea of 

guilty. 

Although I have conducted these proceedings and recommend acceptance of 

Defendant's plea of guilty, the United States district judge has the power to review my 

actions and possesses final decision-making authority in this proceeding. Thus, if 

Defendant has any objections to these findings or any other action of the undersigned, he 

is required to make those known to the United States district judge within fourteen (14) 

days of today. 

Based on the above, I recommend that Defendant's plea of guilty be accepted, that 

Defendant be adjudged guilty, and that sentence be imposed accordingly. 

Signed July 26, 2022. 

.JL 

JOHN R. PARKER 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:22-cr-00041-H-BV Document 109 Filed 07/26/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 264
#### LATIMER v. STATE.

No. 24443.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 26, 1949.

None on appeal.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while his State Operator’s License to operate a motor vehicle was suspended. His punishment was assessed at a fine of $25.

All matters of procedure appear regular. The record is before this court without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which no question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### BEASLEY v. SEXTON.

No. 6657.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

April 16, 1953.

Robert F. Salmon and Ferrell & Ferrell, Linden, for'appellant.

Carney, Carney & Mays, Atlanta, for appellee.

LINCOLN, Justice.

The district court sustained appellee’s special, exception to appellant’s plea of privilege, and, the appellant declining to amend, the court overruled said plea. The paragraph of the 'plea of privilege in question reads: “The defendant, Reed Beasley, is not now a'resident of Cass County, Texas, and was not a resident of Cass County, Texas, on June 30, 1951, and is at the present time residing and teaching school at Bearden, Arkansas, and his" family, composed of his wife, Mrs. Mildred Beasley, and his son, James Beasley, both live and reside at Maud, Texas, which is in.Bowie County, Texas.” The appellee excepted to the plea because it did not state the county of the residence of the defendant Reed Beasley as required by Rule 86, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Said Rule 86 requires that the plea of privilege “shall *786state that the party claiming such privilege was not, at the institution of such suit, nor at the time of the service of process therein, nor at the time of filing such plea, a resident of the county in which suit was instituted, and shall state the county of his residence, and the post-office address of himself or his attorney!’.'

It will be observed that the paragraph of appellant’s plea of privilege above quoted alleges his residence, “at the present time,” is at Bearden, Arkansas. The allegation that appellant’s wife and son reside in Bowie County does not meet the requirements of the rule that the plea “shall state the county of his residence”. Pevehouse v. Morton, Tex.Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 904; Peacock v. Bradshaw, 145 Tex. 68, 194 S.W.2d 551. The presumption suggested by appellant that he resides where his wife resides does not obtain, because the man and his wife may have different places of residence. Nolte v. Saenz, Tex.Civ.App., 153 S.W.2d 281; State ex rel. Hunt v. Scanlan, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 989, writ dismissed. It is the general rule that pleadings in relation to pleas of privilege are strictly construed, Nolte v. Saenz, supra.

There are additional reasons, how;ever, to support the action of the judge in overruling the plea of privilege. There is no allegation that appellant was not at the institution of the suit a resident of Cass County and no allegation that at the time of the service of process' therein he was not a resident of Cass County. The date “June 30, 1951,” appearing in the plea of privilege is the date appellee, plaintiff below, alleged the assault took place. It is not the time when the suit was instituted, nor when service was had on appellant. The suit was not filed until 'July 10, 1951. While these matters are not alluded to in either of the briefs on appeal, yet the absence of such allegations appears on the face of the plea, of privilege, and because thereof the plea is fundamentally defective.

Finding no error in the action of the court in sustaining the exception and in overruling the plea of privilege, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 21 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 21

   Expressing the sense of the Congress that any health care reform 
legislation that is enacted to meet the health care needs of the people 
of the United States should emphasize disease prevention and encourage 
                 the development of healthy lifestyles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 1993

 Mr. Machtley submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Congress that any health care reform 
legislation that is enacted to meet the health care needs of the people 
of the United States should emphasize disease prevention and encourage 
                 the development of healthy lifestyles.

Whereas medicine in the United States is beginning to emphasize the prevention 
        of disease and the development of healthy lifestyles;
Whereas more businesses are promoting disease prevention, healthy lifestyles, 
        and good nutrition through wellness programs than did so in the past;
Whereas the goal of wellness programs is to help individuals develop healthier 
        personal habits and to decrease health care costs in the long run;
Whereas wellness programs have definite financial advantages to business and 
        industry;
Whereas businesses could save on insurance premiums and reduce the number of 
        health insurance claims filed by their employees if the employees would 
        participate in a wellness program;
Whereas wellness programs lead to reduced absenteeism and increased productivity 
        in the workplace;
Whereas, in a recent poll, 78 percent of the employers that were surveyed 
        responded that they used wellness programs to promote good health in 
        their employees and 89 percent responded that they planned to increase 
        their commitment to health promotion during the 5 years following the 
        survey; and
Whereas it is estimated that 70 percent of companies in the United States with a 
        work force that exceeds 1,000 employees offer some type of wellness 
        program for employees: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that any health care reform 
legislation that is enacted to meet the health care needs of the people 
of the United States should emphasize disease prevention and encourage 
the development of healthy lifestyles.

                                 <all>
```
#### HARRIS v. STATE.

No. 22248.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1942.

Floyd E. Ryan and S. F. Hill, both of Houston, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant and Tobe Hampton were jointly indicted and tried for robbery. The jury returned a verdict assessing a punishment of eight years in the penitentiary on each of them, from which Zelmon Harris appeals.

The record is before us without bills of exception. The motion for a new trial raises no question for our consideration other than the sufficiency of the evidence. It is set out that the court erred in admitting certain testimony, but we have no bill of exception to the admission of the testimony and the matter is not before ns for consideration.

The motion for new trial also complains that the court did not give an affirmative charge submitting appellant’s defense to the jury. In the absence of an exception to this charge, timely filed, it is not presented to this court for consideration. However, no such charge would have been appropriate under the facts.

On the question of the sufficiency of the evidence, the injured party testified positively to a state of facts which, if believed by the jury, amply warrant the conviction and the penalty assessed. Appellant took the witness stand and denied that story, giving his own version of the occurrence. The jury’s finding in the matter precludes our consideration of it.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.