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

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 13, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E74]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONGRATULATING JOE MADDON FOR HIS ACHIEVEMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL 
    AND FOR HIS SUPPORT IN HELPING RESTORE THE HAZLETON ``CASTLE'' 
                               AUDITORIUM

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 13, 2009

  Mr. KANJORSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Joe 
Maddon, from Hazleton, Pennsylvania, the manager of the Tampa Bay Rays 
baseball team and a leader of a citizen effort to restore the 
auditorium of the former Hazleton High School, now an elementary and 
middle school that has, for more than 80 years, been a landmark in the 
Hazleton area that is fondly referred to as ``The Castle.''
  Born in Hazleton in 1954, Mr. Maddon graduated from ``The Castle'' 
where he was a star athlete before moving on to graduate from Lafayette 
College in 1976 where he played baseball and football.
  Mr. Maddon then went on to distinguish himself in the world of 
professional baseball for more than three decades, first with the 
California/Anaheim Angels and, since 2006, with the Tampa Bay Rays, a 
team which he led to the 2008 World Series that was won by the 
Philadelphia Phillies.
  After the 2008 season, Mr. Maddon was named the American League 
Manager of the Year.
  During his remarkable career, Mr. Maddon has won accolades from 
Sports Illustrated, which described him as a ``Renaissance man from 
down-to-earth roots.'' The New York Times described him as ``one of 
baseball's more purely intelligent men in uniform.'' And the Boston 
Globe called Maddon ``the genuine article . . . universally respected, 
intelligent, wordily, eloquent and well-read.''
  Mr. Maddon has been a leader in the Tampa Bay area in raising 
awareness to the plight faced by those who are homeless and has 
actively worked to feed and shelter the victims of homelessness.
  Frequently praised as a man who has never forgotten his roots, Mr. 
Maddon has been committed to helping raise the funds necessary to 
renovate the auditorium of his former high school so that it can serve 
as a Community Arts Center.
  Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Joe Maddon for his 
personal and charitable achievements and also for the positive 
attention he has brought to his hometown of Hazleton and all of 
northeastern Pennsylvania. Mr. Maddon's example is an inspiration for 
others to emulate especially our young people who can look to him as a 
true role model.

                          ____________________
```
CITY OF CAYCE 

R E D I SC O V E R 

CAYCE 

a new kind of city 

MAYOR 

ELISE PARTIN 

MAYOR PRO-rat 

JAMES E. JENKINS 

COUNCIL MEMBERS 

KENNETH D. JUMPER 

RICHARD N. MYERS 

STEVE ISOM 

Cm' MANAGER 

loHN C. SHARPE 

AssiSTAtfT Cnv MANAGER 

TAMMY P BARKLEY 

August 13, 2010 

Ms. Susan Kurland 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation & International Affairs, X-1 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE W88-324 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Small Community Air Service Development Grant Application 

Docket OST-2010-0124 

Columbia Metropolitan Airport - Columbia, SC 

Dear Ms. Kurland: 

era 

CTJ 

I 

> 

o 

(NJ 

c.n 

i / 1 

r~--r\^.- EPART' 

M 

ANSPO 

;KE

T OP 

iTj-^. m 

CO 

As the Mayor of the City of Cayce, SC and a frequent air traveler, I strongly support the air 

service proposal detailed in the Small Community Air Service Development Program grant 

application. Commercial air service at Columbia Metropolitan Airport plays a vital role in 

providing support to education, government, business, and leisure travel to/from the area. 

Future community growth of the Columbia community depends, in part, on the airport's ability 

to meet the needs of existing local businesses as well as companies considering Columbia as a 

location for their operations. The proposal to support improved air service will greatly improve 

our ability to remain competitive in the global marketplace, which is the basis for supporting the 

local economy and attracting new businesses and residents to the area. 

The Columbia Metropolitan Airport has forged strong ties with the business conmiunity to retain 

and improve local air service. We appreciate the opportunity to expand that partnership to 

include the U.S. Department of Transportation through the Small Community Air Service 

Development Program. 

Sincerely, 

Elise Partin, Mayor 

EP/ 

1800 TWELFTH STREET • POST OFFICE Bo.x 2004 • CAYCE. SOUTH CAROLINA 291 71-2004 

TEL. (803) 796-9020 • FA.X (805) 796-9072 • NEW WEBSITE ADDRESS: mv\v.cmoFCAYCE-sc.GOV
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the report of Consolidated Water Co. Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David W. Sasnett, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





Date: May 10, 2011
By:
/s/ David W. SasnettDavid W. SasnettExecutive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                   
              EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


  The following is a list of subsidiaries of AFC at December 31, 1998.
All corporations are subsidiaries of AFC and, if indented,
subsidiaries of the company under which they are listed.

                                                                 Percentage of
                                                   State of      Common Equity
Name of Company                                  Incorporation   Ownership
American Premier Underwriters, Inc.                Pennsylvania      81
  Pennsylvania Company                             Delaware         100
    Atlanta Casualty Company                       Illinois         100
    Infinity Insurance Company                     Indiana          100
    Leader Insurance Company                       Ohio             100
    Republic Indemnity Company of America          California       100
    Windsor Insurance Company                      Indiana          100
Great American Insurance Company                   Ohio             100
  American Annuity Group, Inc.                     Delaware          82
    AAG Holding Company, Inc.                      Ohio             100
      American Annuity Group Capital Trust I       Delaware         100
        American Annuity Group Capital Trust II    Delaware         100
        American Annuity Group Capital Trust III   Delaware         100
        Great American Life Insurance Company      Ohio             100
          Loyal American Life Insurance Company    Ohio             100
          Prairie National Life Insurance Company  South Dakota     100
  American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company  Delaware         100
  American National Fire Insurance Company         New York         100
  Brothers Property Corporation                    Ohio              80
  Mid-Continent Casualty Company                   Oklahoma         100
  National Interstate Corporation                  Ohio              52
  Stonewall Insurance Company                      Alabama          100
  Transport Insurance Company                      Ohio             100

   The names of certain subsidiaries are omitted, as such subsidiaries
in the aggregate would not constitute a significant subsidiary.

                                 E-3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000928420
<NAME> 0
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                          64,284
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,584,517
<ALLOWANCES>                                    85,875
<INVENTORY>                                  3,507,596
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,377,359
<PP&E>                                       1,268,618
<DEPRECIATION>                                 635,735
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,214,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,281,963
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,688,343
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,813,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,214,807
<SALES>                                      3,095,407
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,095,407
<CGS>                                        1,760,530
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,760,530
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               234,003
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   505
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,393
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                224,333
<INCOME-TAX>                                    83,003
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            141,330
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   141,330
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER I, Ernst Luebke, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Mymetics Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2008                   By: /s/ Ernst Luebke
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            Principal financial and chief
                                            accounting officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 161 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[House]
[Page H10828]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                            PETITIONS, ETC.

  Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the 
Clerk's desk and referred as follows:

       330. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Veterans of 
     Foreign Wars of the United States, relative to Resolution No. 
     421 relating to the Congressional Gold Medal for All Code 
     Talkers; to the Committee on Financial Services.
       331. Also, a petition of the Veterans of the Foreign Wars 
     of the United States, relative to Resolution No. 442 on the 
     U.S.-Russia Joint Commission on POW/MIA Affairs; to the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs.
       332. Also, a petition of the Village of Palm Springs, 
     relative to a proclamation for ``Who Named America? Youth 
     Education Month''; to the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform.
       333. Also, a petition of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of 
     the United States, relative to Resolution No. 420 to 
     investigate the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty; jointly to 
     the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Armed Services.
       334. Also, a petition of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of 
     the United States, relative to Resolution No. 448 pertaining 
     to Energy Dependence and National Security; jointly to the 
     Committees on Armed Services, Science and Technology, Natural 
     Resources, Homeland Security, Ways and Means, and Energy and 
     Commerce.

                          ____________________
```
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

AP-76,059 & AP-76,060

EX PARTE TERRENCE LADON BROADWAY

On Applications for Writs of Habeas Corpus from

Harris County

WOMACK, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which JOHNSON, J., joined .

I join the Court’s opinion, and I file this opinion only to comment on its use of the

term “plea-bargain case.”

As the Court’s opinion points out, ante at note 3, we have given that term a special

definition in Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2): “In a plea bargain case – that is, a

case in which a defendant’s plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did

not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant ....” (In such a case a defendant’s right to appeal is limited to “only (A) those

matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after
(Broadway - 2)

getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.”) This case was not a plea-bargain case

under that definition, and Rule 25.2’s restriction on appeal did not apply.

But plea bargains, in the common meaning of the term, may be of many other

kinds that do not involve agreed recommendations of punishment by the prosecutor. The

most frequent may be a defendant’s agreement to plead guilty in one case (without an

agreement on punishment) in return for the dismissal of, or an agreement not to bring,

prosecutions for other offenses. Other bargains may affect the punishment without

coming within the Rule 25.2 definition of “plea bargain case.” For example, the parties

may agree that, in a case in which there might be an issue of a deadly weapon’s being

used (which would affect a defendant’s eligibility for parole; see section 508.145(d) of

the Government Code), the judgment will not include an affirmative finding of such use.

Today’s decision insures that such plea-bargain agreements, even though they do

not come within the definition in Rule 25.2, must be considered to have “constituted a

bargain,” as we said (ante, at 6). And, as we hold today, a defendant may voluntarily

make such an agreement. It seems clear to me, although today’s case does not involve the

issue, that the State would be required to perform its part of the agreement. Issues of the

trial court’s authority to reject such agreements surely will arise, and the Rule 25.2 cases

will provide guidance.

En banc.

Filed December 16, 2009.

Publish.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1874

___________

Michael B. Hodges, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Pulaski County Regional Detention *

Facility, *

 *

Defendant, *

 *

Blocker, Deputy, individually and in * Appeal from the United States

his official capacity; Acklin, Deputy, * District Court for the

individually and in his official * Eastern District of Arkansas. 

capacity; Carroll Gravett, Sheriff, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Pulaski County, individually and in *

his official capacity; R. Rack, Deputy, *

individually and in his official *

capacity; Meredith Camielle Mack, *

Originally sued as Mrs. Mack, *

inidivdually and in her official *

capacity; Reeder, Lt., individually and *

in his official capacity; Charles Blake, *

Mr., originally sued as “Blake”, *

individually and in his official capacity, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: September 22, 1998

 Filed: October 2, 1998

___________
The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of

the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

-2-

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Hodges, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court&s dismissal 1

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following an evidentiary hearing. Hodges claimed that

the defendants failed to protect him from a sexual assault by another inmate, and used

excessive force against him on two occasions, while he was a pretrial detainee at the

Pulaski County Regional Detention Center. Having reviewed the record, we conclude

that dismissal was proper because Hodges failed to offer evidence that the defendants&

response to the threat of harm to Hodges was unreasonable, see Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 837, 844 (1994), or that the defendants& use of force against Hodges

amounted to punishment, see Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 395 & n.10 (1989).

We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hodges

additional witnesses. Cf. Williams v. Carter, 10 F.3d 563, 566 (8th Cir. 1993)

(decision to grant or deny subpoenas for indigent parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(c) is within discretion of trial court). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
D1323 

Friday, December 12, 2008 

Daily Digest 

Senate 

Chamber Action 

Senate met at 10:00:23 a.m. in pro forma session, 

and recessed at 10:00:54 a.m. until 11 a.m., on 

Tuesday, December 16, 2008. 

Committee Meetings 

(Committees not listed did not meet) 

h 

No committee meetings were held. 

House of Representatives 

Chamber Action 

The House was not in session today. The House 

is scheduled to meet at 11 a.m. on Saturday, January 

3, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of H. Con. Res. 

440. 

Committee Meetings 

No committee meetings were held. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with DIGEST
U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

To Whom it May Concern, 

March 26, 2013 

Attached is a copy of an exemption request for 14 CFR 120 in accordance with the 

requirements prescribed in 14 CFR 11.61-11.101. 

Please contact me if there are any questions or problems with regards to handling this request 

on the Docket Management System. 

Thanks, 

David A Jessop 

Canyon Lake Helicopters 

406-360-6842 

allen@canyonlakehelicopters.com 
(a) Company Information: 

Petition for Exemption 

Canyon Lake Helicopters 

Name: Canyon Lake Helicopters 

Address: 516 Airport Road, Hamilton MT, 59840 

Contact#: 406-360-6842 

email: allen@canyonlakehelicopters.com 

March 26, 2013 

(b) Exemption is requested within 14 CFR Part 120, Drug and Alcohol Testing Specifically, 

identical but separate entries in the table in Section 120.117 specify that an FAA approved drug 

testing program must be implemented for Part 135 and Part 91.127 operations. Our Small 

organization, which currently has 2 employees, have implemented an FAA approved drug and 

alcohol misuse prevention program. While it is typical that Part 91 and 135 operations in most 

companies are handled by separate personnel, that is not the case in our small firm. 

(c) Relief: The relief we seek is acceptance of our existing program for both above operations, in 

order to avoid redundant effort and expense. 

(d) Public Interest: Reducing our cost helps us maintain the lowest possible rates for our 

services, as well as minimizes the effort that the FAA must expend managing our drug and 

alcohol program. Both are in the public interest. 

(e) Safety: Our existing program, is both adequate and appropriate for our Part 135 Operations, 

as well as 91.147 operations. Safety will not be compromised, but most likely increased. 

(f) Federal Register Summary: Request to allow existing FAA approved Drug Testing Program to 

be used for both Part 135 and Part 91.147 operations for a small organization currently 

consisting of only 2 full time employees. 

(g) Summary :Our small organization has been in operation for 4 years with no 

accidents/incidents or drug/alcohol issues. 

(h) Outside the US: Canyon Lake Helicopters does not currently have any operations outside the 

US, and will not be conducting any operations outside the US in the Foreseeable future.