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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3070 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3070

   To clarify that for purposes of all Federal laws governing marine 
 fisheries management, the landward boundary of the exclusive economic 
zone between areas south of Montauk, New York, and Point Judith, Rhode 
                    Island, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 2015

  Mr. Zeldin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To clarify that for purposes of all Federal laws governing marine 
 fisheries management, the landward boundary of the exclusive economic 
zone between areas south of Montauk, New York, and Point Judith, Rhode 
                    Island, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``EEZ Clarification Act''.

SEC. 2. LANDWARD BOUNDARY OF EEZ NEAR BLOCK ISLAND FOR PURPOSES OF 
              FEDERAL MARINE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT.

    For purposes of all Federal laws governing marine fisheries 
management--
            (1) the landward boundary of the exclusive economic zone 
        between the area south of Montauk, New York, and the area south 
        of Point Judith, Rhode Island, shall be considered to be a 
        continuous line running--
                    (A) from a point 3 miles south of the southernmost 
                point of Montauk to a point 3 miles south of the 
                southernmost point of Block Island, Rhode Island, and
                    (B) from such point 3 miles south of the 
                southernmost point of Block Island, Rhode Island, to a 
                point 3 miles south of the southern most point of Point 
                Judith; and
            (2) the authority to manage such fisheries in waters 
        landward of such line is vested in States and interstate marine 
        fisheries management commissions, as applicable, that otherwise 
        have jurisdiction over such waters.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON IMPACT OF MODIFYING LANDWARD BOUNDARY OF EEZ FOR ALL 
              FEDERAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT.

    Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Commerce shall report to the Congress on the impact of 
section 2.
                                 <all>
```
#### PARTAIN v. STATE.

No. 17972.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 26, 1936.

S. I. Cornett, of Linden, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for assault to murder; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

Briefly, the facts show that the injured party, Jackson, was floor manager at a dance attended by appellant and others. Jackson testified .that appellant danced but refused to pay for so doing, and that at the close of the dance appellant followed him out to his car, where Jackson found he had a flat, and that while he was inspecting the tire appellant attacked him with a knife, and in the fight that ensued appellant cut him, Jackson, in the head and neck a good many times with said knife. The testimony shows that Jackson had ten or twelve cut and stab wounds, some of which the doctor testified were very close to being fatal. A state witness testified that he went up to where appellant was cutting Jackson, and Jackson had gotten on top of appellant in the struggle, but that one of appellant’s friends caught Jackson by the leg and pulled him over, and appellant got on top and began cutting Jackson on the neck. This witness and Jackson both affirm that appellant began the difficulty, and that during the entire fight appellant seemed to be cutting at Jackson’s neck and head. The witness referred to testified that when the fight was over he could see into Jackson’s-neck and see the veins, and could see blood gushing out, and that Jackson was so weak he could hardly sit in a chair. The testimony showed the blade of the knife to have been about three inches long. The testimony is in a condition of conflict, but we have always held that when such is the case we will not disturb the verdict.

By supplemental transcript appellant brings forward three bills of exception, but examination of same reveals the fact that they were filed in the office of the clerk of the district court on the 21st day of May, 1934, or considerably more than thirty days after the adjournment of the trial term of court on April 7, 1934. We do not find anywhere in the record any order of extension. The bills were filed too late for our consideration.

No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.
#### BROOCKS v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF HEMPHILL.

No. 2478.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Dec. 5, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 1933.

*522M. S. Duffle, of Beaumont, for appellant.

Minton & Minton,- of Hemphill,' for appel-lee. " -

■ WALKER, Chief Justice.

■:Thiscsuit was filed in the county court of. Sabine county : by appellant, John H. Broocks, against- appellee, Eirst National Bank of Hemphill, to set aside- a judgment rendered, in ;that court,- on the 4th-. day of December, -1931; in. favor ,of -appellee against appellant-for-the sum-.of $449.07 with inter-, ebtifrom -September 15⁄8' 1931,. attorney’s fees, costs: of court,-etc.,.-.with foreclosure. of-attachment lien-.against',certain .property of.ap-: pellant;. The trial--court rendered judgment, reforming, the. .original-judgment in, certain respects, but refused to set. it' aside and to grant - appellant a new trial; and from that order he has prosecuted his - appeal to this court. • . . , .

The appeal is based upon the assignment that the judgment attacked, and which the pourt refused to set aside, was void because of an alleged defect in- the affidavit for the writ of attachment, . The defect assigned was as follows:

> ■ “Third: That the defendant is about to convert this property or a part thereof into money for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of his creditors.”

The assignment is that the use of the- word “this” for the word “his” rendered the writ of attachment and the judgment foreclosing it absolutely void. This contention is overruled. The trial court had jurisdiction, of the parties and. the subject-matter to the litigation in the order of foreclosure and, therefore, its judgment was not void. Whether or - not the error complained of would have constituted reversible error, upon direct appeal'from the original judgment, is not an issue in this case.

. It follows that the judgment of the lower court should be in all things affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
CONSENT OF NETHERLAND SEWELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.


As oil and gas  consultants,  Netherland  Sewell  and  Associates,  Inc.  hereby
consent to: (a) the use of our reserve  report dated  February 21, 2000 entitled
"Estimate  of  Reserves  and  Future  Revenue  to the Pease Oil and Gas  Company
Interest in Certain Oil and Gas Properties  Located In Louisiana and Texas as of
January 1, 2000";  and (b) all references to our firm included in or made a part
of Pease Oil and Gas Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB to be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about April 13, 2000.


NETHERLAND SEWELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.


By:         /s/ Danny D. Simmons
                    Danny D. Simmons
                    Senior Vice President

Houston, Texas
Date: April 13, 2000
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Richard Beyer, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Freescale Semiconductor
Holdings I, Ltd., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2008 (the Quarterly Report), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) for the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I,
Ltd.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.

Dated: April 24, 2008



/s/ RICHARD BEYERRichard Beyer Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Freescale
Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NATIONAL
PRESTO INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          91,639
<SECURITIES>                                   140,651
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,692
<ALLOWANCES>                                       450
<INVENTORY>                                     18,633
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               272,083
<PP&E>                                          20,008
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,002
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 291,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,672
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,441
<OTHER-SE>                                     241,757
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   291,870
<SALES>                                        109,540
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,540
<CGS>                                           73,999
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,999
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   148
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,990
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,008
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,982
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,982
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.31
        


</TABLE>
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-78,731-01

EX P ARTE KENNETH MICHAEL HEADLE Y, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 918022-A IN THE 228TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1

. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convic t ed o f murder and sentenc ed to life imprisonment. The First C o urt o f Appeals aff irmed his conviction. Headley v. State , No. 01-02-01271- CR (Tex. App. — Houston [1 Dist.] J u n e 1 0 , 2004) (not designated for st publication). Applicant contends, am ong other things, that he was denied due proce ss when the State 1

This Court has review ed Applica nt’s other c laims, and finds them to be without merit. 1failed to disclose favorable impeachment evidence to the defe nse. Specific ally , Applicant allege s

that the prosec utor had an agree ment with the State’s primar y witness that she would rec eive favor able tre atment in her own pendingcase s in ex chang e for testifying a g ainst Applicant at trial. The trial court conducte d a live habea s hearing at which the court hear d testimony and arguments. The trial court has deter mined that the orig inal trial prosec utor had an agree ment with the witness that she would be g iven time serve d on her pending case s in exchang e for her testimony at Applicant’s trial. When the orig inal prosec utor was repla ced by a new prosec utor shortly befor e trial, the new prosec utor was not a dvised of the agree ment betwee n the orig inal prosec utor and the witness. There fore , the jury did not hear a

bout the agree ment. The trial court finds that the witness’s agree ment with the orig inal prosec utor would likely have had an eff

ect on the jury ’s opinion of her truthfulness. The trial court conclude s that beca use the defe nse was not g iven an o p p o rtunity to cross-e x amine the witness rig orously on the plea agree ment that she made with the State befor ehand, Applicant was denied due proce ss and the rig ht to c onfront adver se witnesses. The trial court rec ommends that Applicant be g rante d a new trial. Relief is g rante d. The judgme nt in Cause No. 918022-A in the 228th District Court of Har ris County is set aside, and Applicant is rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of Har ris County

. The trial court shall issue any nece ssary bench war rant within 10 day s afte r t h e m an d at e of this Court issues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rt ment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Novembe r 2, 2016 Do not publish
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of National Presto Industries, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its Staff upon request.








Date: March 16, 2011
By:
/s/ Maryjo CohenMaryjo CohenChief Executive Officer
# Official Journal L 364/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 364 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5718 December 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 364

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5718 December 2014

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1322/2014 of 19 September 2014 supplementing and amending Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to vehicle construction and general requirements for the approval of agricultural and forestry vehicles (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1322/2014 of 19 September 2014 supplementing and amending Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to vehicle construction and general requirements for the approval of agricultural and forestry vehicles (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Precision Castparts Corp. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended March 29, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Donegan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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: May 28, 2009



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/S/ MARK DONEGAN                    
|Mark Donegan                        
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

[LIGHTBRIDGE LOGO]

                               LIGHTBRIDGE, INC.
                               30 Corporate Drive
                              Burlington, MA 01803

NOTICE OF GRANT OF STOCK OPTIONS

NAME                                             OPTION NUMBER:  XXXXXXX
ADDRESS                                          PLAN:           04
CITY, STATE, ZIP

Effective Month, dd, yyyy, you have been granted a Stock Option to buy XXXXXX
shares of Lightbridge, Inc. (the "Company") stock at $xxxxxx per share.

The total option price of the shares granted is $XXXXXXXXXX.
Shares in each period will become fully vested on the date shown.

The Company's usual vesting schedule for new employees is as follows:

10% vests on the date of grant; an additional 15% vests on the first anniversary
of the date of grant; and the remaining 75% vests quarterly at a rate of 6.25%
until fully vested.

The company's usual vesting schedule for existing employees is as follows:

10% vests on the date of grant; an additional 15% vests quarterly during the
one-year period immediately following the vesting start date at a rate of 3.75%
per quarter during such one-year period; and the remaining 75% vests quarterly
at a rate of 6.25% until fully vested.

NOTICE, ACCESS AND CONSENT. BY YOUR SIGNATURE AND THE COMPANY'S SIGNATURE BELOW,
YOU AND THE COMPANY AGREE THAT THESE OPTIONS ARE GRANTED UNDER AND GOVERNED BY
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE COMPANY'S 2004 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN, AS AMENDED
(THE "PLAN"), AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF STOCK OPTIONS, BOTH OF WHICH ARE
INCORPORATED HEREIN AND MADE A PART OF THIS DOCUMENT. THE CURRENT PROSPECTUS
RELATING TO THE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OFFERED UNDER THE 2004 INCENTIVE PLAN,
THE PLAN AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF STOCK OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE
COMPANY'S INTRANET WEBSITE AT WWW.INSIDE.LIGHTBRIDGE.COM AND AT
WWW.OPTIONSLINK.COM AND CAN BE DOWNLOADED OR PRINTED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE, OR
PROVIDED IN WRITTEN FORM BY CONTACTING THE COMPANY'S HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
AT 30 CORPORATE DRIVE, BURLINGTON, MA 01803, 781-359-4000. BY YOUR SIGNATURE
BELOW, YOU CONSENT TO THE DELIVERY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED
HEREIN.

___________________________________________
Chief Executive Officer, Lighthtbridge, Inc.                 ______________
                                                                 Date

___________________________________________                  _______________
Employee                                                         Date
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LESTER BAILEY

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2630

[ November 15, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Paul L. Backman

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 062014CF011174A88810

.

Lester Bailey, Madison, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, C ONNER and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2022029EN.01000301.xml

| 20.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/3

---

Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates applicable as from 1 February 2022

(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (1))

(2022/C 29/02)

Base rates calculated in accordance with the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ C 14, 19.1.2008, p. 6.). Depending on the use of the reference rate, the appropriate margins have still to be added as defined in this communication. For the discount rate this means that a margin of 100 basispoints has to be added. The Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 foresees that, unless otherwise provided for in a specific decision, the recovery rate will also be calculated by adding 100 basispoints to the base rate.

Modified rates are indicated in bold.

Previous table published in OJ C 504, 14.12.2021, p. 47.

| From | To | AT | BE | BG | CY | CZ | DE | DK | EE | EL | ES | FI | FR | HR | HU | IE | IT | LT | LU | LV | MT | NL | PL | PT | RO | SE | SI | SK | UK |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.2.2022 | ... | -0,49 | -0,49 | 0,00 | -0,49 | 3,29 | -0,49 | -0,03 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | 0,26 | 3,17 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | 2,04 | -0,49 | 2,74 | -0,05 | -0,49 | -0,49 | 0,66 |
| 1.1.2022 | 31.1.2022 | -0,49 | -0,49 | 0,00 | -0,49 | 2,49 | -0,49 | -0,01 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | 0,26 | 2,38 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | -0,49 | 1,21 | -0,49 | 2,27 | -0,03 | -0,49 | -0,49 | 0,51 |

From

To

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

1.2.2022

...

-0,49

-0,49

0,00

-0,49

3,29

-0,49

-0,03

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

0,26

3,17

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

2,04

-0,49

2,74

-0,05

-0,49

-0,49

0,66

1.1.2022

31.1.2022

-0,49

-0,49

0,00

-0,49

2,49

-0,49

-0,01

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

0,26

2,38

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

-0,49

1,21

-0,49

2,27

-0,03

-0,49

-0,49

0,51

---

(1)  OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

---