alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families
 *Title:*
                     Administrative subpoena. *OMB No.:*
                     0970-0152. *Description:*P.L. 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 amended section 652(a) of the Social Security Act (the Act) to require the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to promulgate an administrative subpoena to be used by the State Child Support Enforcement (CSE) programs in interstate cases. (See attachment #1) The OMB approval of the form is expiring and we are taking this opportunity to make minor revisions to the form to further assist States in gaining access to the assets of child support obligors. *Respondents:*
                     States. Annual Burden Estimates
Instrument
Number of 
                             respondents
Number of 
                             responses  
                             per  
                             respondent
Average 
                             burden hours  
                             per response
Total burden hoursAdministrative Subpoena
24,695
1
0.5
12,347
 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 12,347. *Additional Information:* Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to The Administration for Children and Families, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. *OMB Comment:*
                     OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after November 30, 2000. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it before January 2, 2001. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, Attn: Desk Officer for ACF. Dated: November 22, 2000. Bob Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.


[FR Doc. 00-30496  Filed 11-29-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1513 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1513

  To designate the United States courthouse located at 10th and Main 
  Streets in Richmond, Virginia, as the ``Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United 
                          States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 1993

   Mr. Scott (for himself, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Bateman, Mr. Pickett, Mr. 
 Sisisky, Mr. Payne of Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Wolf, 
  Mrs. Byrne, and Mr. Moran) introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 10th and Main 
  Streets in Richmond, Virginia, as the ``Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United 
                          States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF LEWIS F. POWELL, JR. UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    The United States courthouse located at 10th and Main Streets in 
Richmond, Virginia, is designated as the ``Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

    Any references in any law, regulation, document, record, map, or 
other paper of the United States to the courthouse referred to in 
section 1 is deemed to be a reference to the ``Lewis F. Powell, Jr. 
United States Courthouse''.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

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 Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Francis X. McCarthy, Jr., the Chief 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.

|/s/ FRANCIS X. MCCARTHY, JR.                                                            | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                                                        | 
|Francis X. McCarthy, Jr. Chief Financial Officer of Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. | 
|                                                                                        | 
|August 14, 2003                                                                         |
(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: May 15, 2008
    By:
    /s/ William C. StoneWilliam C. StoneChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) Date: May 15, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Patrick J. PedontiPatrick J. PedontiSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Glahn, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: From our review of the testimony elicited at the *Wade*hearing *(see, United States v Wade,*388 US 218), we conclude that the complainant demonstrated an adequate independent basis for her identification of defendant at trial. The complainant’s nonresponsive reference at trial to a pretrial photographic identification procedure was not objected to *906and, therefore, defendant’s argument that it constituted impermissible bolstering is not preserved for review. In any event, in light of the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, the admission of that testimony is harmless. Defendant’s conviction for sexual abuse in the first degree is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490). The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial after one of the police officers testified that defendant was a suspect in an unrelated menacing. That brief comment was not so prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair trial. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.—sexual abuse, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1505

To require a 25-percent reduction in appropriations for the legislative branch

of the Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 29, 1993

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

Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To require a 25-percent reduction in appropriations for the

legislative branch of the Government.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCTION OF 25 PERCENT IN APPROPRIA4 TIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF

5 THE GOVERNMENT.

6 Notwithstanding any other law, or any rule or other

7 authority, the total of appropriations for the legislative

8 branch of the Government for fiscal year 1994 may not

9 exceed 75 percent of the total of appropriations for the

10 legislative branch of the Government for fiscal year 1993.
2

•HR 1505 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRIORITY TO BE GIVEN TO ELIMINATION OF DUPLI2 CATIVE SERVICES.

3 In carrying out section 1, the Congress shall give first

4 consideration to reductions in appropriations that may be

5 achieved by means of elimination of duplicative services

6 in congressional operations, with particular emphasis on

7 consolidation of all legal services of the House of Rep8 resentatives, the Senate, and the Library of Congress.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2



           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL OFFICER
                               REGAN HOLDING CORP.
                 FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I am the Principal Accounting and Financial Officer of Regan Holding Corp.,
a California  corporation (the  "Company").  I am delivering this certificate in
connection  with the  Company's  annual  report on Form 10-K for the year  ended
December 31, 2005 ("Form 10-K").

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  I  hereby  certify  that,  to the best of my
knowledge,  the Form 10-K fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained  in the Form 10-K  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: March 31, 2006
                                    /s/ R. Preston Pitts
                                    --------------------
                                    R. Preston Pitts
                                    Principal Accounting and Financial Officer




     A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 or
other  document  authenticating,   acknowledging,   or  otherwise  adopting  the
signature  that  appears in typed form  within  the  electronic  version of this
written  statement  required by Section 906 has been  provided to Regan  Holding
Corp.  and  will be  retained  by  Regan  Holding  Corp.  and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                            9581
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    25898
<ALLOWANCES>                                        46
<INVENTORY>                                      20282
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 58594
<PP&E>                                           31808
<DEPRECIATION>                                   21722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   69610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            23349
<BONDS>                                             56
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                       45967
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     69610
<SALES>                                          85054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 85054
<CGS>                                            36461
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    36461
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 10610
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5743
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2006
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3737
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3737
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0664 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TANYA TWOTEETH,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 5 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 30 2023

05/30/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0664
#### Eugenio CASTILLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No, 21405.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 30, 1940.

Julian LaCrosse, of Del Rio, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of marihuana, a narcotic drug. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

Accompanying the record is the written motion of the appellant, duly verified, requesting the privilege of withdrawing his appeal. The request is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

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.
(December 27, 1990)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Land, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.), rendered on December 2, 1988, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *IV2*to *AVz*years, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may hereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 4, 2019

No. 04-18-00975-CV

IN RE Abelardo G. GONZALES

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

On January 7, 2019, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining the trial 

court had not set for hearing or ruled on a motion he filed with the court in mid-November 2018. 

On January 16, 2019, this court denied relator’s petition because the motion had been pending 

before the trial court for only about two months. On January 31, 2019, relator filed a motion for 

rehearing, again complaining of the trial court’s refusal to set his motion for a hearing or rule on 

the motion. 

This court requests a response from the respondent. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.2; 52.9. Any 

response must be filed in this court no later than March 19, 2019. 

It is so ORDERED on March 4, 2019.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ________________________

Keith E. Hottle, 

Clerk of Court

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017 FLI 001815 C3, styled In the Interest of M.A.G. and Z.A.G., 

Children, pending in the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Missy Medary presiding.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1136

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the

construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Oregon.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1993

Mr. SMITH of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of a hydroelectric project in the

State of Oregon.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

4 Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of

5 the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory

6 Commission, upon the request of the licensee for FERC

7 Project No. 7829 (and after reasonable notice), is author8 ized, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and

9 public interest requirements of such section 13 and the

10 Commission’s procedures under such section, to extend the
2

•HR 1136 IH

1 time required for commencement of construction of such

2 project for up to a maximum of 2 consecutive 2-year peri3 ods. This section shall take effect for such project upon

4 the expiration of the extension (issued by the Commission

5 under such section 13) of the period required for com6 mencement of construction of such project.

Æ
Exhibit 18.2

November 5, 2008

LeCroy Corporation

Chestnut
Ridge, NY

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have been furnished with
a copy of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of LeCroy Corporation (the Company) for the three months ended September 27, 2008, and have read the Companys statements contained in note 1 to the consolidated financial statements
included therein. As stated in note 1, the Company changed its method of accounting for the classification of certain shipping and handling costs from selling, general and administrative expenses to cost of revenues and states that the newly adopted
accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances because the Company believes that the classification of these shipping and handling costs as cost of revenues better reflects the cost of producing and distributing its products and aligns its
external financial reporting with the results used internally to evaluate the Companys operational performance. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and discussed with Company officials the circumstances and business judgment and
planning upon which the decision to make this change in the method of accounting was based.

We have not audited any financial statements of the Company as
of any date or for any period subsequent to June 28, 2008, nor have we audited the information set forth in the aforementioned note 1 to the consolidated financial statements; accordingly, we do not express an opinion concerning the factual
information contained therein.

With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have not been established for evaluating the
preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another acceptable method. However, for purposes of the Companys compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter.

Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on managements business judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is
preferable in the Companys circumstances.



|                 
|-----------------
|Very truly yours,
|                 
|/s/ KPMG LLP
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          14,043
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  342,002
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,481
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               459,502
<PP&E>                                         432,520
<DEPRECIATION>                               (161,841)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,307,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          225,732
<BONDS>                                        292,835
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           920
<OTHER-SE>                                     747,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,307,542
<SALES>                                        968,318
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               968,318
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  893,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,515
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 81,772
<INCOME-TAX>                                    31,073
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             50,699
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    50,699
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50


</TABLE>