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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 308 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 308

To prohibit gaming activities on certain Indian lands in Arizona until 
               the expiration of certain gaming compacts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 2015

 Mr. Franks of Arizona (for himself, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Gosar, Mr. 
 Schweikert, and Mr. Salmon) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit gaming activities on certain Indian lands in Arizona until 
               the expiration of certain gaming compacts.

    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 ``Keep the Promise Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds as follows:
            (1) In 2002, the voters in the State of Arizona approved 
        Proposition 202, the Indian Gaming Preservation and Self-
        Reliance Act.
            (2) To obtain the support of Arizona voters to approve 
        Proposition 202, the Indian tribes within Arizona agreed to 
        limit the number of casinos within the State and in particular 
        within the Phoenix metropolitan area.
            (3) This Act preserves the agreement made between the 
        tribes and the Arizona voters until the expiration of the 
        gaming compacts authorized by Proposition 202.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    For the purposes of this Act--
            (1) the terms ``Indian tribe'', ``class II gaming'', and 
        ``class III gaming'' have the meanings given those terms in 
        section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703); 
        and
            (2) the term ``Phoenix metropolitan area'' means land 
        within Maricopa County and Pinal County, Arizona, that is north 
        of latitude 33 degrees, 5 minutes, 13 seconds north, east of 
        longitude 113 degrees, 20 minutes, 0 seconds west, and west of 
        longitude 110 degrees, 50 minutes, 45 seconds west, using the 
        NED 1983 State Plane Arizona FOPS 0202 coordinate system.

SEC. 4. GAMING CLARIFICATION.

    (a) Prohibition.--Class II gaming and class III gaming are 
prohibited on land within the Phoenix metropolitan area acquired by the 
Secretary of the Interior in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe 
after April 9, 2013.
    (b) Expiration.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall expire on 
January 1, 2027.
                                 <all>
```
#### GENERAL EXCHANGE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. N. E. JONES, Appellee.

No. 10673.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Jan. 31, 1940.

Rehearing Denied March 13, 1940.

Hayden C. Covington, of Brooklyn, N. Y.,- and Walter F. Schwartz, of San Antonio, for appellant.

John J. Pichinson and Frank C. Sergeant, both of Corpus Christi, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
|   | 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results operations of the  Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:           November 11, 2010 | By:               | /s/ John P. Messina |
|------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------|
|                                                       | Name:      John P. Messina  |
|                                                       | Title:  President |

----
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 Xtreme Green Products Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Sanford Leavitt, Chief Executive Officer, and Neil Roth, Chief Financial
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





(1) This
report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Sanford LeavittSanford
      LeavittChief
      Executive OfficerDate:
      Date: November 15, 2010




/s/ Neil RothNeil
      RothChief
      Financial OfficerDate:
      Date: November 15, 2010
Members of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery met with members of the Asphalt 

Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA) on July 15 to hear their concerns about stigma associated 

with roofing products made with coal combustion boiler slag if the Agency decides to finalize a Subtitle C 

rule. ARMA made the following points: 

• In 2009, ARMA used over 1 million tons of boiler slag for roofing shingles. 

• Based on their history of being on the wrong end of negative advertising regarding health effects of 

asphalt (a NIOSH study conducted in 2000, the findings of which were apparently taken out of context 

by a competitor), asphalt roofing manufacturers are certain the same will happen if CCRs are 

regulated as a hazardous waste. 

• They don't see any distinction between listing as a special waste and listing as a hazardous waste. 

• Even if beneficial use is excluded from regulation, regulation as a hazardous waste will lead to a 

hazardous waste stigma. 

• The Stigma effect associated with a C-rule would compel them to switch from boiler slag to silica 

sand, a material associated with occupational health risk from silicosis, or crushed rock, which 

involves a larger expenditure of energy, carbon dioxide emissions, and virgin material. 

• How will spills of CCRs during the manufacturing process and during transportation be classified? 

• What is the status of slag that has not entered the manufacturing process (i.e., purchased but never 

used) and of off-spec material?
ARMA/EPA Discussion of 

Classification of Slag as H

Waste and the Effects 

Asphalt Roofing Indu

July 15, 2010
Consequences

During 2009, the roofing industry 

than 1 million tons of slag. If 

hazardous, the roofing indust

continue using slag.
Reasons for using sla

1. Adds strength to shingle.2. Protects asphalt from photodeg3. Prevents shingles from sticking 

the bundle.


Stigma

“Asphalt Shingles Put Hazard

on Top of Your Home”
Toxic Tort Liability

“ The hazardous waste in the 

roofing you manufactured ame harmed my...”



February 15, 2002 DHS wrote a le

Company stating:Î

“DHS and NIOSH are concerned abo

misleading nature of your ads.”

Î “You are misrepresenting the conclusi

of the NIOSH study entitled Health EfOccupational Exposure to Asphalt”. 
Based on “rumor” of Subtitle 

classification ARMA members actively seeking more expensreplacements: Silica sand

– employee exposure issues.– quarried, crushed, washed, etc.

Quarried/crushed rock

– mined, crushed, washed, etc.– employee exposure issues.
In addition to the Stigma, iss

the Asphalt Roofing Industr

the status of:

Î CCR processing for roofing – increased Î Transportation spills during truck or RR Î Manufacturing spills on production line. Î Cooling water that contacts product dur

manufacturing.

Î Off-spec manufacturing scrap.

Shingle prices to go 

significantly and make 

shingles less competitiv

additional costs associa

slag replacement
Consequences

During 2009, the roofing industry 

than 1 million tons of slag. If 

hazardous, the roofing indust

continue using slag.
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 19546.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 3, 1938.

M. E. Gates and E. R. Wright, both of Huntsville, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Conviction for murder; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The record is here without a statement of facts or bills of exception. All matters of procedure appearing regular, the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1


ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


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 Electronic Arts Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2022 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew Wilson, Chief Executive Officer of Electronic Arts Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), that to my knowledge:


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 Electronic Arts Inc. for the periods presented therein.





/s/ Andrew WilsonAndrew WilsonChief Executive OfficerElectronic Arts Inc.February 7, 2023





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 Electronic Arts and will be retained by Electronic Arts and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. §1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Nature Vision, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
capacities listed below, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (i) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated:   March
      24, 2008
              /s/   Jeffrey
      P. ZernovJeffrey
      P. ZernovChief
      Executive Officer(principal
      executive officer)
 
 
 Dated:   March
      24, 2008
              /s/   David
      M. KolkindDavid
      M. KolkindChief
      Financial Officer(principal
      financial officer)
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Nature Vision, Inc. and will be retained by Nature Vision, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EE-RM-03-630 COMMENT 02

NEMA-DOE Meeting on Lamp Codes & Standards Issues 

Date: January 21, 2003 

Time: 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM 

Place: NEMA, 13 00 North 17th Street, Suite 1847, Rosslyn, VA 

Expected Participants: 

Michael McCabe 

Ronald Lewis 

Brian Card 

Bryan Berringer 

Edward Levy 

Hampton Newsome 

DOE 

DOE 

DOE 

DOE 

Navigant Cons. 

FTC 

Joe Howley 

Peter Bleasby 

Al Rousseau 

Mark Sharp 

Mark Sugaya 

Dale Work 

Ed Yandek 

Craig Updyke 

I. Welcome and Introductions - Joe Howley or Peter Bleasby 

II. Follow Up from November 21 Meeting 

Reflector (ERlBR) Lamps - NEMA Shipment Data 

HID Lamps - NEMA Shipment Data 

III. NEMA CFL Efficiency Rulemaking Petition 

Ed Levy - Discussion on the Petitioning Process 

NEMA Strawman Draft --:- Discussion 

IV. Other Items 

GE Lighting 

OSRAM Sylvania 

Philips Lighting 

Panasonic 

Panasonic 

Philips 

GE Lighting 

NEMA
# C_2023311EN.01000101.xml

| 1.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.103744

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 311/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 2.5.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.103744 |
| Member State | France |
| Region | REUNION |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Air Austral — Compensation pour les dommages causés par la pandémie COVID-19 |
| Legal basis | Loi no 2005-1719 du 30 décembre 2005 de finances pour 2006, notamment ses articles 46 et 48. |
| Type of measure | Ad Hoc Case
  Air Austral |
| Objective | Compensation of damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences |
| Form of aid | Debt write-off |
| Budget | Overall budget: 0 EUR
  Annual budget: 0 EUR |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | From 5.1.2023 |
| Economic sectors | Air transport |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministère de l'économie et des finances |
| 139 rue de Bercy |

Date of adoption of the decision

2.5.2023

Aid number

SA.103744

Member State

France

Region

REUNION

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Air Austral — Compensation pour les dommages causés par la pandémie COVID-19

Legal basis

Loi no 2005-1719 du 30 décembre 2005 de finances pour 2006, notamment ses articles 46 et 48.

Type of measure

Ad Hoc Case

Air Austral

Objective

Compensation of damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences

Form of aid

Debt write-off

Budget

Overall budget: 0 EUR

Annual budget: 0 EUR

Intensity

Duration

From 5.1.2023

Economic sectors

Air transport

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministère de l'économie et des finances

139 rue de Bercy

Other information

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

https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA

---
# C_2023323EN.01001601.xml

| 13.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/16

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10966 – COCHLEAR / OTICON MEDICAL)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 323/09)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Cochlear Limited (‘Cochlear’, Australia), |
| --- | --- |

—

Cochlear Limited (‘Cochlear’, Australia),

| — | The cochlear implant (‘CI’) business of Oticon Medical, the hearing implant division of Demant A/S, a Danish publicly listed company (Denmark). |
| --- | --- |

—

The cochlear implant (‘CI’) business of Oticon Medical, the hearing implant division of Demant A/S, a Danish publicly listed company (Denmark).

Cochlear will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Oticon Medical’s CI business.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and assets.

The concentration has been referred to the Commission by the Spanish Competition Authority (Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia) pursuant to Article 22(3) of the Merger Regulation. The referral was subsequently joined by Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Sweden.

2.

| — | Cochlear, a company incorporated under the laws of New South Wales (Australia), is the ultimate parent company of the Cochlear Group which provides implantable hearing solutions around the globe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Cochlear, a company incorporated under the laws of New South Wales (Australia), is the ultimate parent company of the Cochlear Group which provides implantable hearing solutions around the globe,

| — | Oticon Medical’s CI business develops, manufactures and sells globally cochlear implants. |
| --- | --- |

—

Oticon Medical’s CI business develops, manufactures and sells globally cochlear implants.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10966 – COCHLEAR / OTICON MEDICAL

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
#### FLEMING v. STATE.

No. 18076.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 18, 1936.

*253Frank S. Roberts, of Breckenridge, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for driving an automobile upon the public highway while appellant was intoxicated; punishment assessed was a fine of $100, confinement in the county jail for 60 days, and a prohibition against appellant from driving any motor vehicle on the highway for 90 days.

The state introduced a number of witnesses who testified that appellant was drunk at the time of an accident which called attention to his condition. On the other hand, appellant’s own testimony and that of witnesses introduced by him was in conflict with the state’s testimony, and undertook to explain the appearance and conduct of appellant at the scene of the accident as being the result of shock and injuries received by him at the time. The evidence of the state and appellant is in hopeless conflict, presenting a question which the jury alone could determine. They decided the matter in favor of the state, and there is ample testimony to support their verdict.

In his motion for new trial appellant set up newly discovered evidence, claiming that he was surprised at the testimony of the last rebuttal witness used by the state, and claiming that appellant could controvert the evidence of said witness by the testimony of one Buddy Tread-well, who was sick and not able to attend the trial. The last-named witness had been summoned at appellant’s instance, but he went to trial in his absence. Appellant knew that the controversy would be as to whether he was intoxicated at the time of the accident. If there was any particular part of the testimony of the state’s last witness which was surprising to appellant, he would have been in a much better position had he claimed surprise at the time the testimony was given rather than to take chances on it until after verdict. We can discover no reason why a diligent inquiry would not have developed in advance what the testimony of the state’s witness -would be and the importance of Treadwell’s testimony controverting same.

In addition to what is said above, we observe that in the order overruling the motion for new trial it is recited that the court heard evidence thereon. The evidence upon such hearing is not brought forward. In support of the correctness of the order, we must assume that the evidence supports the court’s ruling. Sanders v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 426, 36 S.W.(2d) 1032, and cases therein cited.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Page 1 of 1 

Janet Travis 

From : "Patricia Mariella" <Patricia.Mariella@gric.nsn.us> 

To: "Jones, Doug" <Doug.Jones@gric.nsn.us>; "Henry Perales" <Henry.Perales@gric.nsn.us> 

Cc: "Candice Bell" <Candice.Bell@gric.nsn.us>; "Darrell Gerlaugh" <Darrell.Gerlaugh@gric.nsn.us>; 

"Daniel Blair (E-mail)" <air@gilanet.net>; "janet travis (E-mail)" <jtravis@gilanet.net>; "Leroy 

Williams (E-mail)" <williams@gilanet.net>; "Margaret Cook (E-mail)" 

<Margaret.Cook@gric.nsn.us>; "Russell Betsuie (E-mail)" <Rbetsuie@gilanet.net>; "Willard 

Antone (E-mail)" <wantone3@gilanet.net> 

Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 3: 18 PM 

Subject: Upcoming NRC June 7 - open burning 

Chief Jones and Director Perales, 

The DEQ is making presentations in the Districts on the Tribal 

Implementation Plan (TIP) for air quality. One of the most critical 

issues we are seeking feedback on is the Open Burning section of the TIP 

ordinances. When we made our presentation on it to NRC about a month ago, 

the Committee asked us to prohibit burning of weeds and landscape waste in 

areas where houses are located close to each other. When we ask questions 

about this approach in District 4 a long discussion took place over fire 

hazards, bulk trash pick up and burning. 

What we heard was a general desire to have less open burning in the 

Community but very high anxiety about the current situation in which 

residents are piling up weeds but cannot burn them. We talked about bulk 

trash, but it seems that a lot of people feel that the piles are too big 

for bulk trash. Councilman John Antone asked if the Community could 

find grant money to buy a large truck, maybe a chipper shredder and a 

bobcat to be able to pick up these large piles of weeds and landscape waste 

that are piling up. We explained that grant money takes a fairly long time 

to get, even if it is available. But he asked that we begin to look into 

it. 

Would it be possible for you or your staff could be at the NRC meeting on 

next Tuesday June 7 when we talk about the TIP and the open burning 

responses from the districts? My guess is that a project to pick up large 

piles of weeds would probably take additional personnel as well. A pretty 

big cost but there may be some resources we could look at. 

What do you think? 

Pat Mariella 
Page 1 of 1 

Janet Travis 

From: "Patricia Mariella" <Patricia.Mariella@gric.nsn.us> 

To: "janet travis (E-mail)'' <jtravis@gilanet.net> 

Sent: Tuesday, May 24,2005 3:Ol PM 

Subject: FW GRlD board members 

Janet, 

useful background information. GRllDD is the 'new' irrigation district. 

Pat M 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Stephanie Antone 

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:02 PM 

To: Patricia Mariella 

Subject: GRID board members 

Pat: I just talked with Cecil. He said the following were on the GRlD board: Harry Cruye, Wllfred Wellington-D-3, 

Harlan Bohnee-D4, Norbert Stewart-D-5, Nathan Percharo-D-6, and Jonathan Thomas-D-7. He said he didn't 

know if they had anyone for D-2. I'll try to find out. 

Stephanie M. Antone 

Administrative Assistant 

Gila River Indian Community 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(520) 562-2234 ext. 285
**EXHIBIT 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (Nos. 333-31638, 333-38317, 333-90026and 333-116520) on Form S-8 and registration statements(Nos. 33-111118 and 333-121172) on Form S-3 of MercerInternational Inc. of our report dated January 31, 2003,relating to the consolidated statements of operations,comprehensive income (loss), changes in shareholders’equity and cash flows of Mercer International Inc. for the yearended December 31, 2002, which report is included in theAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2004 of Mercer International Inc./s/ Peterson SullivanP.L.L.C.March 14, 2005Seattle, Washington
124