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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 364 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 364

To prohibit assistance to the Palestinian Authority until it withdraws 
         its request to join the International Criminal Court.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 14, 2015

   Mr. Clawson of Florida (for himself and Mr. Byrne) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit assistance to the Palestinian Authority until it withdraws 
         its request to join the International Criminal Court.

    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 ``Defend Israel by Defunding 
Palestinian Foreign Aid Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) On December 31, 2014, Mahmoud Abbas, the President of 
        the Palestinian Authority, signed several international 
        conventions in an attempt to join the International Criminal 
        Court.
            (2) The Palestinian Authority has indicated that it will 
        seek to use the International Criminal Court as a means to 
        pursue charges against Israel.
            (3) The Palestinian Authority remains engaged in a unity 
        government with Hamas, a terrorist organization responsible for 
        countless deaths and whose charter declares that ``there is no 
        solution to the Palestinian question except by Jihad''.
            (4) The United States provides more than $400,000,000 in 
        assistance to the Palestinian Authority each year.
            (5) Section 7041(i)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign 
        Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2015 
        (division J of Public Law 133-235) includes limitations on 
        assistance to the Palestinian Authority if it seeks to join the 
        International Criminal Court.
            (6) The United States Government must make immediately 
        clear to the Palestinian Authority that its attempts to join 
        the International Criminal Court will carry serious 
        consequences.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no amounts may be 
obligated or expended to provide any assistance, loan guarantee, or 
debt relief to the Palestinian Authority, or any affiliated governing 
entity, until the Palestinian Authority withdraws its request to join 
the International Criminal Court.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1



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 Amendment Number 1 to the Annual Report of CES Synergies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended
December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Tostanoski,
Chief Executive 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, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:  September 11, 2015 | By: | /s/ John Tostanoski    
|------------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                          |     | John Tostanoski        
|                          |     | Chief Executive Officer
Applicant – Refers to any person who requires formal approval or authorization from a

Federal agency

as a prerequisite to conducting the action being consulted on under Section 7 of the ESA . Applicant’s Role in the Consultation Process If the Federal a gency

identifies an applicant, NMFS and the action agency meet their obligations to that part y through the following:  The action agency provides the applicant an opportunity to submit information for consideration during the consultation;  The applicant i s entitled to review draft biological opinions obtained through the action agency , and to provide comments through the action agency ;  NMFS will discuss the basis of its biological determination with the applicant and seek the applicant’s expertise in identifying reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action if jeopard y or adverse modification of critical habitat is determined; and  NMFS will provide the applicant with a cop y of the final biological opinion. NMFS does not work directly with or take co mments directly from the applicant without the knowledge or consent of the action agency .
**EXHIBIT 32**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A-1 of Show Me Ethanol, LLC (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned General Manager and the Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
- The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  December 4, 2009

| By:    | /s/ Richard A. Hanson   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | Richard A. Hanson       |   |
| Title: | General Manager         |   |
|   |                    |   |
|   |                    |   |
| By:    | /s/ Richard A. Hanson   |   |
| Name:  | Richard A. Hanson       |   |
| Title: | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Fresca Worldwide Trading Corp. (the "Company") for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, I, Margaret Burton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

1.

Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  August 13, 2008

Fresca Worldwide Trading Corp.



By: /s/ Margaret Burton

Margaret Burton
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 FORM 8-K
 
 CURRENT REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934
 Date of Report (date of earliest event reported): October 15, 2007
 Commission File No. 001-33016
 
 EAGLE ROCK ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.
 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
 Delaware
    
    68-0629883(State or Other Jurisdiction of
    
    (I.R.S. EmployerIncorporation or Organization)
    
    Identification Number)
 16701 Greenspoint Park Drive, Suite 200
Houston, Texas 77060
 (281) 408-1200
 
 
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



Item 8.01. Other Events.
  Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.
  ExhibitNumber
    
    Description99.1
    
    Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet of Eagle Rock GP as of June 30, 2007.




---



##### 



SIGNATURE
   EAGLE ROCK ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.By:
    EAGLE ROCK ENERGY GP, L.P., itsgeneral partnerBy:
    EAGLE ROCK ENERGY G&P, LLC, itsgeneral partnerBy:
    /s/ Alfredo GarciaAlfredo GarciaActing Chief Financial
Officer
(Duly Authorized and Principal Financial Officer)




---



##### 



Exhibit
Index


ExhibitNumber
    
    Description99.1
    
    Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet of Eagle Rock GP as of June 30, 2007.
# C_2023113EN.01000301.xml

| 28.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10350 – MONDELEZ / CHIPITA INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL COMPANY)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 113/03)

On 24 November 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10350. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10350. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
To: Bennett King <bennettsking@gmail.com>, Jeff Vanderlip <jvanderlip@trcc.com>, 

Cc:

Bcc:

Subject: EPA Approval of Tiarco Test Plan for Vapor Pressure Testing on CASRN 127-68-4 HPV TR 

:Third Group of Chemicals

From: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US - Tuesday 07/31/2012 04:25 PM

Dear Mr. King and Mr. Vanderlip, The purpose of this email is to inform you that 

the Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed and approved the study test 

plan submitted by Tiarco to determine the vapor pressure of Sodium 

3-nitrobenzene sulfonate (CASRN: 127-68-4) using the test method, ASTM E 

1782-08 (THERMAL ANALYSIS) and following OECD 104 and U.S. EPA, 

OPPTS 830.7950 guidelines as required in the Test Rule published in the Federal 

Register on January 7, 2011. The test method is acceptable and the company can 

go ahead to do the test. This letter will be placed in the Public Docket for this test 

rule ( EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112).

Paul J. Campanella, Ph.D.

Chemical Information and Testing Branch

Chemical Control Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 

202-564-8091
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7936

In Re: JERRY SANDERS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-34-MU)

Submitted: December 26, 2001 Decided: January 15, 2002

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Sanders, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Sanders filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking

an order compelling the district court to rule on his Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b) motion and his subsequent “petition for ruling on the

merits.” We dismiss the petition as moot.

Our review of the district court’s docket sheet shows that the

court entered an order denying Sanders’ Rule 60(b) motion on May 4,

2001. The court dismissed as moot his “petition for ruling on the

merits” on November 26, 2001.

Accordingly, we dismiss Sanders’ petition for a writ of

mandamus as moot. Sanders’ request to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted. 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.

PETITION DISMISSED
OPM.gov / Telework / Managing Teleworkers / Assessing Job Tasks

# Assessing Job Tasks

When making determinations regarding employee participation in telework, OPM strongly encourages agencies and managers to be creative when considering how to use telework and other workplace flexibilities.  For example, many share the perception that telework is an “all or none” proposition (e.g., some managers believe certain jobs are just not conducive for telework), therefore they dismiss outright the possibility of telework for some employees.  However, every job is made up of a collection of tasks.  Working at an alternate site may be better suited for some tasks than for others.  Also, most jobs, if not all, include some duties that are considered “portable” in that they generally can be performed from any location.  

Examples of portable work include, but are not limited to:
        - Reading reports;
        - Analyzing documents and studies
        - Preparing written letters, memorandums, reports and other correspondence;
        - Setting up conference calls; and
        - Similar tasks that do not necessarily require that an employee be physically present at the regular worksite. 

Writing, analysis, and research tasks are ideally suited to the quieter, less distracting environment of the alternate site.  Some teleworkers save certain tasks that they set aside for their telework days. Others do the same tasks no matter where they are working.  It is often the case that some of an employee’s duties can be performed at an alternative site, including administrative, clerical, and technical work.

Skip to main content

### In this section

- Telework Training
- TMO and Coordinators Toggle submenu   - Building a Telework Program 
  - Leading Change 
  - Pay, Leave, & Work Schedules
  - Agency Closure
  - Performance Management 
  - Official Worksite
  - Overseas Telework
  - Reasonable Accommodations
  - Emergency Telework 
  - Recruitment & Retention
  - Security & IT
  - Mail Management
  - Dependent Care
  - Agency Roles
- Managing Teleworkers Toggle submenu   - Telework Basics
  - Results-Oriented Management
  - Work Schedules
  - Emergency Planning
  - Assessing Job Tasks
- History, Legislation, & Reports
- Telework Employees Toggle submenu   - Telework Basics
  - Employee Eligibility
  - Emergency Planning
  - Work Schedules
  - Telework Etiquette Quick Tips
[Cite as State v. Smith , 128 Ohio St.3d 442, 2011-Ohio-1839.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLANT , v . S MITH , A PPELLEE . [Cite as State v. Smith , 128 Ohio St.3d 442, 2011-Ohio-1839.] Judgment of the court of appeals reversed. (No. 2010-1345

— Submitted October 12, 2010

— Decided April 19, 2011.) A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, Nos. 09CA009634 and 09CA009635, 2010-Ohio-3007.

__________________ {¶ 1} Sua sponte, this cause is no longer held for the decision in 2010- 1216, State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge , 128 Ohio St.3d 236, 2011-Ohio-235, 943 N.E.2d 535. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur. P FEIFER and L ANZINGER , JJ., dissent.

__________________ Dennis P. Will, Lorain County Pros ecuting Attorney, and Billie Jo Belcher, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Jack W. Bradley and Michael E. Stepanik, for appellee.

______________________
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 19010.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 26, 1937.

Rehearing Denied June 23, 1937.

Edgar Soule, of Houston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Dav-idson, State’s Atty., df Austin, for the State.

King C. Haynie,.of Houston, for appellant on motion for rehearing.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault; the punishment, a fine of $50 and confinement in jail for four months.

Appellant has filed an application for a writ of certiorari. An inspection of the application discloses that the hills of exception and statement of facts appellant is seeking to have brought before this court were not approved by the trial judge and have never been filed in the court below. Manifestly, it would avail appellant nothing to grant the application.

In the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exception, no question is presented for review.

The application for writ of certiorari is overruled and the judgment affirmed.

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.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

In his motion for rehearing appellant contends that in view of article 1, § 10, of the Constitution of this State, he could not be proceeded against except upon an indictment. The section referred to reads in part as follows: “And no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on an indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine or imprisonment, otherwise than in the penitentiary,” etc.

It is the appellant’s position that where, the offense may be punishable by both fine and imprisonment in jail the prosecution may only proceed upon an indictment. In the present case the trial was had in the county court upon information and complaint.

Apparently the appellant has overlooked the provisions' of article' 5, § 17, of the Constitution, in which it is expressly provided that prosecutions may be commenced in the county court “by information filed by the county attorney, or by affidavit, as may be provided by law.” In the present case the complaint and information charged appellant with an aggravated assault, an offense of which the county court had jurisdiction. Under the statute, misdemeanors cognizable by’ the county court may be prosecuted upon complaint and information. Articles 413 and 415,' C..C.P. 1925. It 'is clear that these statutes were enacted 'under the constitutional authority reflected by the provisions of section 1-7, supra. - ¡ -

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 7, 2009 

p0930 

Order 

 

October 7, 2009 

137467 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137467 

 COA: 247391 

Jackson CC: 02-002915-FC 

KATHERINE SUE DENDEL a/k/a 

KATHERINE SUE BURLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of February 24, 2009, the application for leave to appeal the September 

11, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts, cert gtd __ US __; 129 S Ct 2527; 174 L Ed 2d 314 

(2008). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on June 25, 2009, __ US __; 

129 S Ct 2527; 174 L Ed 2d 314 (2009), the application is again considered and, pursuant 

to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE in part the 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

reconsideration of the defendant’s Confrontation Clause and hearsay issues in light of 

Melendez-Diaz. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. We 

direct the Court of Appeals’ attention to the fact that we have also remanded People v 

Lewis (Docket No. 136622) to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of 

Melendez-Diaz. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
[Cite as State v. Foster, 2018-Ohio-4561.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2017-07-108 

 : AMENDED DECISION 

 - vs - ON REOPENING 

 : 11/13/2018 

RODNEY DWAYNE FOSTER, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2016-01-0083 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 

High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee 

Rodney Dwayne Foster, #A726786, London Correctional Institution, 1580 State Route 56 

SW, London, Ohio 43140, defendant-appellant, pro se 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This cause is before the court after the appeal was reopened pursuant to an 

App.R. 26(B) application filed by appellant. Appellant's application to reopen was granted on 

the basis that appellant was not informed that he could file a pro se brief after his counsel 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967). 

{¶ 2} Appellant has now filed a pro se brief and the case has been considered upon 
Butler CA2017-07-108 

- 2 - 

a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of 

proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a 

no error brief previously filed by appellant's counsel and appellant's pro se brief. 

{¶ 3} Appellant's pro se brief raises four assignments of error pertaining to 

ineffectiveness of trial counsel, ineffectiveness of appellate counsel, withholding of 

exculpatory evidence by the prosecutor, and appellant's lack of culpability in the victim's 

death. 

{¶ 4} We have accordingly examined the record and considered the arguments 

raised in counsel's brief and in appellant's pro se brief and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for 

the reason that it is wholly frivolous. 

 S. POWELL, P.J., PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.