alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Press Release: July 28, 2017

Contact: Public Affairs (202) 622-2960 

Readout of Financial Stability Oversight Council Meeting

WASHINGTON – U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin today convened a meeting of the 

Financial Stability Oversight Council (Council) in an executive session at the U.S. Department 

of the Treasury. 

During the meeting, the Council discussed potential improvements to the Volcker Rule,

including the recommendations regarding the Volcker Rule in the Treasury Department’s June 

2017 report issued pursuant to Executive Order 13772, “Core Principles for Regulating the 

United States Financial System.” 

The Council also discussed the ongoing annual reevaluation of its designation of a nonbank 

financial company. 

Additionally, the Council discussed the pending litigation brought by MetLife challenging its 

designation by the Council in December 2014. 

The Council also voted to approve the minutes of its previous meeting on May 8. 

Additional information regarding the Council, its work, and the recently approved meeting 

minutes are available at http://www.fsoc.gov

 

###
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                   ----------





               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 Integrated Data Corp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David C. Bryan, President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) and principal financial officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Date:  13 May 2004             By:  /s/ David C. Bryan
                                    ------------------
                                    David C. Bryan
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal executive officer and
                                     principal financial officer)
|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                    
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History:                                                                     
|                                                                                  
|U.S. Refinery Oxygenates Shell Storage Capacity as of January 1 (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                  
|                                                                                  
|U.S. Refinery Oxygenates Shell Storage Capacity as of January 1 (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | 16,926 | 13,174 | NA     | 11,856 | NA     | 11,736
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 11,151 | 9,809  | 9,032  | 8,275  | 5,687  | 5,705  | 4,629  | 1,548  | 1,336  | 1,028 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,005  | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 20

- 00444

- CV

In re Rachel K. Vaughan

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for expedited temporary r el ief

are denied

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

_______________________ ___________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Kelly

Filed: September 8, 2020
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 110

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the Administrator of the Federal

purposes.the ‘‘World Capital of Aerobatics’’, and for othertus of the county of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, asprograms and activities to acknowledge the staAviation Administration to conduct appropriate
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 110

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct appropriate programs and activities to acknowledge the status of the county of Fond

du Lac, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘World Capital of Aerobatics’’,

and for other purposes.

Whereas the International Aerobatic Club, which was founded

on February 6, 1970, held its first championships in

August 1970 in the county of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin;

Whereas in 1992 the International Aerobatic Club had 5,342

members throughout the world, representatives of which

gathered in Fond du Lac to compete in the 23d Annual

Aerobatic Championships during the period of August

9–14, 1992;
2

•HJ 110 EH

Whereas in 1992 the Experimental Aircraft Association and

the Board of Directors of the International Aerobatic

Club named Fond du Lac as the ‘‘World Capital of

Aerobatics’’;

Whereas participants and spectators drawn to the aerobatic

championships in Fond du Lac stimulate the economic

well-being of the community and provide a spectator

event of international significance; and

Whereas Congress declares that the county of Fond du Lac,

Wisconsin, is the ‘‘World Capital of Aerobatics’’: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Adminis4 tration may conduct appropriate programs and activities

5 at the Fond du Lac County Airport to acknowledge the

6 status of the county of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, as the

7 ‘‘World Capital of Aerobatics’’, and that the airport may

8 display signs notifying the public of such status.

Passed the House of Representatives July 26, 1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3578 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3578

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 2014

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To establish requirements for the adoption of any new or revised 
 requirement providing for the screening, testing, or treatment of an 
airman or an air traffic controller for a sleep disorder, 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. MEDICAL CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRMEN AND AIR 
              TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS RELATING TO SLEEP DISORDERS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation may, consistent 
with accepted medical standards and practices, implement or enforce a 
requirement providing for the screening, testing, or treatment 
(including consideration of all possible treatment alternatives) of an 
airman or an air traffic controller for a sleep disorder--
            (1) in the case of an airman, only if the requirement is 
        adopted pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding; and
            (2) in the case of an air traffic controller, only if the 
        Federal Aviation Administration meets its obligations pursuant 
        to chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a requirement 
that was in force before November 1, 2013.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
            (1) Airman.--The term ``airman'' has the meaning given that 
        term in section 40102(a) of title 49, United States Code.
            (2) Air traffic controller.--The term ``air traffic 
        controller'' means a civilian employee of the Department of 
        Transportation described in section 2109 of title 5, United 
        States Code.
            (3) Sleep disorder.--The term ``sleep disorder'' includes 
        obstructive sleep apnea.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 11, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

 § 

VS. § CRIMINAL NO. 4:22-CR-069-Y 

 § 

JUAN JESUS AYALA (2) § 

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ADJUDGING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court has reviewed all relevant matters of record in this case, 

including especially (1) the Consent to Administration of Guilty Plea 

and Allocution by United States Magistrate Judge and (2) the Report of 

Action and Recommendation on Plea Before the United States Magistrate 

Judge. No objections to either have been filed within fourteen (14) 

days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, 

the Court concludes that the report and recommendation of the magistrate 

judge on the plea of guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the 

Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and defendant 

is hereby adjudged guilty. The defendant’s sentence will be imposed in 

accordance with the Court’s sentencing scheduling order. 

SIGNED October 24, 2022. 

 

 _________________________________ 

 TERRY R. MEANS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cr-00069-Y Document 60 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 172
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Texas

Dallas

USA )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case Number: 3:22−mj−00626−BT

)

Jimmie Lee Walton )

Defendant. )

ORDER OF TEMPORARY COMMITMENT

On this date the defendant made an initial appearance after having been arrested in this

district for an offense against the laws of the United States.

The government moved for a hearing to determine whether any condition or combination of

conditions will reasonably assure the defendant's appearances and the safety of any other person

and the community (18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), as amended P.L. 98−473, 98 Stat. 1873).

The defendant moved for a continuance of such hearing. IT IS, THEREFORE,

ORDERED that the hearing is to be held on 7/1/2022 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate

Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, unless extended for good cause.*

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is committed to the custody of the United

States Marshal for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons

awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal, pending the above scheduled

detention hearing.

A copy of this order shall be transmitted to counsel for the parties.

SIGNED 6/24/2022.

Renee Harris Toliver

Magistrate Judge

* A continuance on behalf of the government will be granted without a hearing only upon the written consent of

the Defendant or his attorney. A continuance on behalf of the Defendant will be granted without a hearing upon

the written request of the Defendant or his attorney. Continuances shall not exceed five work days from the

original setting for the Detention Hearing.

Case 3:22-mj-00626-BT Document 6 Filed 06/24/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 14
Order entered February 20, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00237
- CV
IN RE EDWARD W. MAND EL AND IGOR SHABANET S, Relators

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416
- 00519
- 2013



### O RDER Before Justices Bridges, Evans, and Lewis The Court has before it relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. The Court requests that real party in interest and respondent file any responses by March 4, 2013.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
EXHIBIT A

Case 4:22-cv-00662-O Document 21-1 Filed 08/23/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 127
Case 4:22-cv-00662-O Document 21-1 Filed 08/23/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 128
Case 4:22-cv-00662-O Document 21-1 Filed 08/23/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 129
Case 4:22-cv-00662-O Document 21-1 Filed 08/23/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 130
|                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                            
|                                                                                                         
|Missouri Refinery Vacuum Distillation Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                         
|Missouri Refinery Vacuum Distillation Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 40,000 | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |       
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
| 1.    | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of ImageWare Systems, Inc.; |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.    | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  |  |  |
|--|--|--|

| Date: June 26, 2020 | ImageWare Systems, Inc. By:/s/ Kristin Taylor                 |
|---------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                | Kristin Taylor                                                     |
|                | Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer) |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2483

GLENDA GAIL PARKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CA-03-431-A)

Submitted: April 30, 2004 Decided: May 14, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Glenda Gail Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Steven E. Gordon, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Glenda Gail Parker appeals the district court’s order

dismissing for want of jurisdiction Parker’s action challenging her

removal from employment and raising other claims. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Parker v.

Department of Def., No. CA-03-431-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 27, 2003). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
----

Authorisation of State measure pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement

(2005/C 140/09)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided that some of the notified measures do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and has further decided not to raise objections against the remaining notified measures.

Date of adoption: 

EFTA State: Norway

Aid No: Case 55 364

Title: Certain derogations from electricity tax

Objective: Taxation of electricity mainly used as a substitute for fuels. The electricity tax should curb increases in electricity use and stimulate the use of alternative energies. The derogations from the tax are necessary because of a loss of international competitiveness and to help companies adapt to a national tax which is higher than the minimum stipulated in Community legislation.

Legal basis: Article 61 of the EEA Agreement

Budget/Duration: Reduced electricity tax for the manufacturing, mining and quarrying industry, as well as for social works activities in so far as they use electricity for industry production in the same manner as the manufacturing/mining and quarrying industry until 2014. Regionally reduced electricity tax for Finnmark and North Troms until the end of 2006.

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/stateaidregister

----
#### HARRIS-LOVETT MOTOR CO. v. McDONALD.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 8, 1953.

Robert J. Watson, Middlesboro, for movant.

Cleon K. Calvert and William Stone, Pineville, opposed.

*905PER CURIAM.

TKe judgment in this case for $536.39 was rendered in favor of J. H. McDonald on a directed verdict after the Harris-Lovett Motor Company declined to offer proof. The case is reviewable by motion for an appeal under Chapter 24 of the 1952 Session Acts, which became effective June 19, 1952.

We have examined the case carefully and are not disposed to disturb the judgment. Therefore, it is affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00350-CR

Spergel Polk

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 396th District Court

of Tarrant County (1387106D)

May 12, 2016

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth