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

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 177 (Thursday, November 20, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2289-E2290]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

IN APPRECIATION OF MY SENIOR AND AGING ISSUES ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS' 
                                SERVICE

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 19, 2008

  Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute today to the 
men and women of Southeastern Arizona who for the past two years have 
served on my Senior and Aging Issues Advisory Council.
  These 35 active and engaged citizens have selflessly shared their 
time and expertise with me as important advisors. Each one brought 
considerable personal and professional expertise to the table to help 
me gain a greater understanding of the challenges faced by seniors and 
their family members. Their advice and insights allowed me to better 
represent my constituents in Arizona's 8th Congressional District.
  The counsel they provided has been invaluable to me in making 
legislative decisions and delivering constituent services. I am 
grateful to them for the recommendations and issues

[[Page E2290]]

they brought to my attention during my first term in Congress and I 
look forward to their continued assistance.
  The Senior and Aging Issues Advisory Council members are: Harry 
Anthros, David Braun, Marlene Bluestein, Fred Ebeling, Dr. Mindy Fain, 
Karen Fields, Sharon Gartner, Doris Goldstein, Mary Gomez, Craig 
Gordon, Clark Hay, Kathleen Heard, Felipe Jacome, Anna Jolivet, Al 
Kaszniak, Joe La Cava, Cress Lander, Dr. Allan Levenson, David Likness, 
Larry Linderman, Marian Lupu, Barbara Matteson, Dr. Fred Miller, Jim 
Murphy, Steve Nash, Elizabeth Packard, Gordon Packard, Anita Royal, 
L'Don Sawyer, Bill Santa Cruz, Mattie Stone, Jan Sturges, Helen Symes, 
Russ Symes, Dr. Tony Vuturo and Carol West.
  I commend each of them for their contributions to our work on behalf 
of seniors and thank them for their service our community.

                          ____________________
```
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



The undersigned, Maureen D. Howley, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Managing Owner, Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing
Owner), of Diversified Futures Trust I (the Trust), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Trusts Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly
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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Maureen D. Howley                            
|Maureen D. Howley                                
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|August 12, 2005
Department of 

Environmental Quality 

1274425 - R8 SDMS 

Amanda Smith 

Executive Director 

State of Utah 

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

GARY R. HERBERT RESPONSE AND REMEDIATION 

Governor 

GREG BELL 

Lieutenant Governor 

Brent H. Everett 

Director 

ERRC-114-13 

August 20,2013 

Bill Murray 

Superfund Program Director 

U.S. EPA Region 8 

1595 Wynkoop 8EPR-PS 

Denver Colorado 80202-1129 

Re: National Priorities List (NPL) Deletion 

Midvale Slag Site 

The Utah Department of Environment of Quality, Division of Environmental Response 

and Remediation (DERR) has reviewed your July 16, 2013, letter requesting concurrence with the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposal to delete the Midvale Slag Site from 

the NPL. In addition to your letter, the DERR also reviewed the draft Notice of Intent to Delete 

and concurs with EPA's proposal to delete the Midvale Slag Site from the NPL. 

If you should have any questions regarding the DERR's concurrence, please contact Tony 

Howes at 801-536-4283. 

BHE/TH/pd 

cc: Tony Howes, Division of Environmental Response and Remediation 

Hans Millican, Division of Environmental Response and Remediation 

Ema Waterman, U.S. EPA, Region 8 

Philip Hill, Midvale City 

John Jacobson, Midvale City 

Sincerely, 

Brent H. Everett, Division Director 

Division of Environmental Response and Remediation 

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City. UT 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144840 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4840 

Telephone (801) 536-4100 • Fax (801) 359-8853 • T.D.D. (801) 536-4414 

www.deq.utah.gov 

Printed on 100% recycled paper
Guía sobre la Preparación del Personal de 

Peluquerías y Salones de Uñas para el Virus COVID-19

OSHA se compromete a garantizar la salud y la seguridad de los trabajadores y lugares de trabajo en los 

Estados Unidos durante la pandemia del COVID-19. La agencia emitirá una serie de alertas con el fin de 

mantener seguros a los trabajadores.

Si usted opera o trabaja en una peluquería o salón de unas, los siguientes 

consejos de seguridad le pueden ayudar a reducir el riesgo de exposición 

al coronavirus de los trabajadores en peluquerías y salones de uñas:

• Instruir a los trabajadores que permanezcan en sus hogares si 

están enfermos.

• Requerir que un profesional cualificado en ventilación evalúe el 

sistema de HVAC del edificio.

• Proveer y hacer que todo trabajador use cubiertas faciales (por ejemplo cubiertas faciales de tela o 

mascarillas quirúrgicas) que tengan al menos dos capas de tejido apretado transpirable, a menos que 

sus tareas laborales requieran un respirador. Las cubiertas faciales deberían ser proporcionadas libre 

de costo para los trabajadores.

• Instruir a los clientes que usen cubiertas faciales durante el servicio.

• Implementar medidas de distanciamiento físico para los clientes en espera, como orientar a los 

clientes esperar afuera o en sus vehículos hasta su cita.

• Lavar y secar el pelo de los clientes antes de realizar cualquier trabajo y requerir a los clientes de los 

salones de uñas lavarse las manos o usar un desinfectante de manos antes de continuar con el servicio.

• Utilizar sistemas prepago o cajas de pago automático y proporcione un desinfectante de manos en el 

punto de venta.

• Enfatizar la importancia de lavarse las manos con jabón y agua para los trabajadores y clientes.

• Limpiar y desinfectar con frecuencia las superficies, herramientas y equipo.

• No permitir que los trabajadores utilicen las herramientas y equipo de trabajo de sus compañeros de 

labores. Si no es posible eliminar la necesidad de compartir, limpie y desinfecte después de cada uso.

• Garantizar políticas que alientan a los trabajadores denunciar cualquier preocupación sobre la 

seguridad y salud en el trabajo. 

Para información actualizada y otros recursos para proteger a los trabajadores del coronavirus, visite 

las guías de OSHA sobre la protección de los trabajadores.

Los avisos de OSHA se emiten en ocasiones para llamar la atención a 

asuntos y medidas de seguridad y salud de los trabajadores.

 • osha.gov/coronavirus • 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) • @OSHA_DOL

OSHA 4075-03R 2021
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 4500

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ANTONIO R. WOODS , a/k/a Toby, Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for t he District of South Carolina, at Columbia

. Mary G. Lewis , District Judge. ( 3:18

- cr - 00418

- MGL

- 1 )

Submitted : April 16, 2020 Decided: April 16, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge , and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion

. Hannah Rogers Metcalfe, METCALFE & ATKINSON, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin Neale Garner , Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpu blished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Antonio R. Woods pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2018). The district court sentenced Woods to 151 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Woods argues that the district court erred in designating him a career offender and
in assigning a two

- level enhancement to his offense level for maintaining a “stash house” under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(C)(2) (2018). The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Woods’ waiver of the right to appeal included in his plea agreement. An appeal waiver “preclude[s] a defendant from appealing a specific issue if the record establishes that the waiver is valid and the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Archie , 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014). A defendant

v alidly waives his appeal rights if he agreed to the waiver “knowingly and intelligently.” United States v. Manigan , 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). “To determine whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent, we examine the totality of the circumstances , including the experience and conduct of the accused, as well as the accused’s educational background and familiarity with the terms of the plea agreement.” United States v. Thornsbury , 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted)

. “Generally, if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” I d.3 Our review of the Rule 11 colloquy and the plea agreement confirms that Woods knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence and that his claim s fall squarely within the scope of the waiver. We therefore enforce the appellate waiver and grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.84
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO
   As of January 13, 2010
    
 
   (amending the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement
dated as of August 17, 2009)




---



##### 



FIRST
AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED CREDIT AGREEMENT
  W I T N E S S E T H:
    Definitions
 Amendments to Credit Agreement
   Certificates; Other Information




---



##### 



Minimum Liquidity Exhibit 4.2(b)
    Effectiveness
 Loan Documents
 Closing Documents
 Waivers
 Choice of Law
 Full Force and Effect
 Counterparts; Electronic Signatures




---



##### 



Headings
 Signatures on Following Pages




---



##### 



AKORN, INC.By:Title:




---



##### 



AKORN (NEW JERSEY), INC.By:Title:




---



##### 



EJ FUNDS LP, as the Agent and as a LenderBy:
    
    EJ Financial Enterprises, Inc.Its:
    
    General PartnerBy:John N. KapoorPresident




---



##### 



[except as specified on the written attachment hereto];




---



##### 



AKORN, INC., as BorrowerRepresentativeBy:Its:




---



##### 



The Borrowing Base (as calculated pursuant to the Borrowing Base
Certificate) then in effect from time to time
    
    $Less: Such Reserves as may be imposed by Agent in its reasonable
credit judgment but not reflected in the Borrowing Base Certificate
    
    $Plus: Available cash and Cash Equivalents in bank accounts and
investment accounts in which the Agent has a first priority
perfected Lien
    
    $Less: The aggregate outstanding principal amount of the Revolving
Credit Exposure:
    
    $Liquidity as of the date of measurement
    
    $Required Minimum Liquidity
    
    $In Compliance
    
    Yes/No




---



##### 



The aggregate of all expenditures and obligations, for the relevant
test period set forth in Section 6.4 of the Credit Agreement, which
should be capitalized under GAAP
    
    $Less: Net Proceeds from Dispositions and/or Events of Loss which
Borrower is permitted to reinvest pursuant to subsection 1.8(c) and
which are included aboveLess: To the extent included above, expenditures financed with cash
proceeds from Excluded Equity IssuancesCapital ExpendituresPermitted Capital Expenditures (including carry forward of $______
from prior period)In Compliance
    
    Yes/No
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,446
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                       990
<INVENTORY>                                      3,360
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,465
<PP&E>                                         126,855
<DEPRECIATION>                                  78,537
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 103,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,458
<BONDS>                                         19,955
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            61
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,721
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   103,038
<SALES>                                          7,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,315
<CGS>                                            5,931
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,492
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   990
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (560)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,356)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,607)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,749)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,749)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.64)
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40180

Conference Calendar

 

ROBERT HADDIX, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STEPHANIE STEPHENS, Assistant District Attorney; JAY

JACKSON, Attorney at Law; JOHN HEATH, JR., Attorney at Law,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:03-CV-254

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Haddix, Jr., Texas prisoner # 1175826, filed a 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that the defendants had

conspired to deny him a fair and impartial trial. The district

court held that Haddix’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477 (1994). Haddix has failed to brief the district

court’s Heck determination, and, therefore, that issue is waived

and unreviewable. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25
No. 04-40180

-2-

(5th Cir. 1993). He consequently cannot show the district

court’s resolution of his claims to be erroneous.

Haddix’s appeal therefore lacks arguable merit and is

dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Haddix is warned that the

dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike

for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,

103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). We warn Haddix that once he

accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis

in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or

detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; STRIKE WARNING ISSUED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.2

Certification of
Senior Vice-President, Accounting
of Ocean Rig ASA

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 20-F (the
Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2002 of Ocean Rig ASA (the
Issuer).

I Erling Meinich-Bache, Senior Vice-President, Accounting, of the Issuer,
certify that, to the best of my knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                  
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) the Form 20-F fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and



| |                                                                                                                                                            
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (ii) the information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer.

Dated: June 28, 2003



| | /s/ Erling Meinich-Bache
Erling Meinich-Bache
Senior VP, Accounting
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO THE ISSUER AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE ISSUER AND FURNISHED TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 88232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25868]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-49-2024]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 250; Withdrawal of Notification of 
Proposed Production Activity; Boss Laser LLC; (Laser Machines); 
Sanford, Florida

    Notice is hereby given of the withdrawal of the notification of 
proposed production activity submitted by Boss Laser LLC for its 
facility in Sanford, Florida, within FTZ 250. The notification was 
docketed on September 17, 2024 (89 FR 77472, September 23, 2024). The 
withdrawal was requested by Boss Laser LLC on October 31, 2024.

    Dated: November 1, 2024.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-25868 Filed 11-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
NO. 07-01-0486-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D MAY 15, 2002

______________________________ EUSEBIO MARTINEZ, APPELLA NT

V. POTTER COUNTY, ET AL., APPELLEES

_________________________________ FROM THE 1 08TH DI STRICT COURT OF PO TTER CO UNTY; NO. 13,031-E; H ONORABLE ABE LO PEZ, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS , JJ.
Samuel Brown Si lverman appeal s from the trial cour t’s order g ranting taxing entities of Potter County

excess pr

oceeds from an order

of sale in the amount of $5,059.45. Presenting two issues, he contends (1) t he trial court’s ex partehearing deni ed him due pro cess resulting in reversible error because he was not given notice under R ule 21a o f the Texas Rules o f Civil Procedure in a contested case where pleadings were properly served and a hearing date was s et; and (2) the trial cour t’s failure to respond to a timely2

and proper re quest f or find ings of fact and con clusions of law is presumed harmf ul where Potter Cou nty, et al. was awarded ex parteall of the ex cess proceeds . For the r ea son s expressed h erein, wereverseand remand.
In 1999, judgment w

as entered agai nst Eusebi o Martinez and Olga M artinez for delinquent

taxes on a parcel of r

eal property and an order of sal e for real proper ty ensued to satisfy the debt. An exc ess of $5,059.45 wasdeposited w ith the Potter County Clerk on August 23, 1999 and a notic e of excess funds w as giv en to Martinez

. Stonehenge FASA, Texas JDC, L.P., the legal and equitable ben eficiary of a deed of trust sec uring the purchase-money

lien of the proper

ty again st which taxes were assessed, assigned its lien to Silver man, who filed a petition to cl aim $3,014.07 of the excess proceeds . On August 28, 2001, the trial court order ed that Silverman recover $3,014.07 of the excess proceeds. On September 4, 2001 , the trial court set aside its August 28 order and gra nted a new hearing on the ground that the taxi ng entitieshad not been gi ven noti ce of the hea ring. Thereafter, Potter County filed a motion to relea se the entire amount of excess funds. Without notice to Sil verman, on Septem ber 10, 2001, the trial court ordered the excess proc eed s be re leas ed to the t axing e ntit ies o f Po tter Coun ty. By its brief, Pot

ter County

candidly acknowledg es and stipulates t hat the trial court’s order of September 10, 2001 be r eversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for f ur ther proceedings

on the ground that no reporter ’s record of the hearing w as made.3

Agreeing with Pott er County, we reverse the j udgme nt of the trial court and remand the cause for furthe r proceedings.
Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish

.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT N OT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED S .L.F., A CHILD , A ppellant ,
v. Case No

. 5D 22

- 22 LT Cas e No. 2021- CJ

- 001391 -A-O
STAT E OF FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decision filed May 17, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County , Mike Murphy, Judge. Ma tthew J. Metz , Public Defender, and Victoria R. Cordero, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody , Attorney General , Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney Genera l, Daytona B each, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C .J., WALLIS and HARRIS , JJ. , concur.