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

My name is Andy Williams and I live in Omaha, Ne. I am testifying in support of the Renewable Fuel Standard and I hope you will consider my comments when making your

decision.

I support a strong Federal RFS due to the many benefits it provides. These benefits include lower Greenhouse gas emissions, lower gas prices, l ess dependence of foreign oil, greater national security, and most importantly more American jobs including my own.

The proposal directly contrad icts the EPA’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increasing one of the world’s leading concerns

, Global Warming. It also risks the elimination of thousands of American jobs. According to the Fuels America coalition, the renewable fuels industry

– which includes biodiesel, conventional and cellulosic ethanol, as well as advanced biofuels and their suppliers

– supported 852, 000 jobs in 2014. This is an American built industry that is leading the world in the production of the cleanest and most su stainable liquid transportation fuel. These fuels are available today thanks in part to the Renewable fuel

Standard.

I was hired in February of 2012 to be a plant operator. Since then I have been promoted to

Lead Operator at Novozymes in Blair, Ne. I o versee 6 operators not including myself and half

of our plant on my shift. Our site is a major producer of enzymes that are used in the cellulosic and corn based ethanol plants. Together with customers, partners and the global community,

we strive to imp rove industrial performance while preserving the planet’s resources and helping

to build better lives

. This is accomplished by our enzymes ability to increase yields while decreasing our customers energy/water costs to operate. Our site broke ground in N ovember of 2009 and started producing products in July of 2012 specifically for the biofuel industry. In our almost 3 years of operation we have gone from start

- up to leading our company worldwide in almost all of the enzymes for bio

- fuel we produce, while also having drastically reduced our energy and water costs. We are driven at Novozymes by the will to c hang e our world for the

better

. Novozymes m anagement has worked extensiv ely to try and ensure all 100+ employees on our site have long term career opportunities

. I am excited and feel privileged to work for a company that is working towards a greener and cleaner world. Please help ensure we can

continue our company and pers onal goals towards a better tomorrow.

In the final rule, the EPA should require obligated parties to comply with the law by blending increasing volumes of renewable fuels. Please support American jobs, a cleaner environment and greater national security. A stable RFS is a big step towards a better tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Andrew Williams
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2867 

To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian Tribes on Indian lands under 

the National Labor Relations Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 

Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. THUNE, Mr. RISCH, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. HOEVEN, 

Mr. CRAPO, Mr. LANKFORD, and Mr. DAINES) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian Tribes on Indian 

lands under the National Labor Relations Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tribal Labor Sov5 ereignty Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER. 

7 Section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

8 U.S.C. 152) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2867 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or any In2 dian Tribe, or any enterprise or institution owned 

3 and operated by an Indian Tribe and located on its 

4 Indian lands,’’ after ‘‘subdivision thereof,’’; and 

5 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(15) The term ‘Indian Tribe’ means any Indian 

7 Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or 

8 community which is recognized as eligible for the special 

9 programs and services provided by the United States to 

10 Indians because of their status as Indians. 

11 ‘‘(16) The term ‘Indian’ means any individual who 

12 is a member of an Indian Tribe. 

13 ‘‘(17) The term ‘Indian lands’ means— 

14 ‘‘(A) all lands within the limits of any Indian 

15 reservation; 

16 ‘‘(B) any lands title to which is either held in 

17 trust by the United States for the benefit of any In18 dian Tribe or Indian or held by any Indian Tribe or 

19 Indian subject to restriction by the United States 

20 against alienation; and 

21 ‘‘(C) any lands in the State of Oklahoma that 

22 are within the boundaries of a former reservation (as 

23 defined by the Secretary of the Interior) of a feder24 ally recognized Indian Tribe.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES MONROE BALDWIN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 257 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
# C_2015408EN.01000102.xml

| 9.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/1

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.7573 — DMK/DOC Kaas)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 408/02)

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

On 5 November 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration between DMK and DOC Kaas. On 1 December 2015, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 November 30, 2016

p1121

Order 

Clerk

November 30, 2016

152891(14)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152891

COA: 328596

Saginaw CC: 11-035855-FC

BRYANT EUGENE BENTLEY, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 6, 

2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
Exhibit 32.01





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Sangui Biotech International, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas
Striepe, Chief Executive Officer, and I, Joachim Fleing, Chief Financial 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, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:




(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.









Dated: June 11,
2008   /s/
Thomas Striepe


________________________


By:
Thomas Striepe


Chief
Executive Officer






Dated:
June 11, 2008  /s/
Joachim Fleing
 ________________________
 By:
Joachim Fleing
 Chief
Financial Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Sally Edwards, Chief Financial Officer of DDi Corp. (the Company) certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
September 30, 2008 (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 result of operations of
the Company for the period covered by the Report.

/s/ SALLY L. EDWARDSSally L. EdwardsChief Financial Officer


Date: October 29, 2008
[Crim. No. 1367.

Third Appellate District.

July 3, 1934.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LOUIS B. BUCKNER, Appellant.

Louis B. Buckner, *in pro. per.,*for Appellant.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Ralph H. Cowing, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

The appellant was convicted in the Superior Court of San Joaquin County of a felony, to wit: Burglary of the second degree.

The transcript on appeal was filed in this court April 20, 1934. No brief has been filed in behalf of appellant. The cause was regularly placed on the calendar for oral argument on June 11, 1934. No appearance was made for appellant at the time the case was called for hearing.

Pursuant to the provisions of section 1253 of the Penal Code the judgment and the order are affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SURINDER PAUL, AKA Surinder Paul

Singh,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 14-70671

Agency No. A079-248-868

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 16, 2016** 

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit

Judges.

A motion to reopen a removal proceeding must ordinarily be filed within

ninety days of a final removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). But there’s

FILED

DEC 01 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
page 2

no time limit if the motion to reopen is based on material evidence relating to

changed country conditions that was unavailable earlier in the proceeding. See id.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). To successfully reopen a proceeding, a petitioner must show

that this new evidence is “qualitatively different” from what was previously

submitted. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing

Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945–46 (9th Cir. 2004)). 

Paul insists that country conditions in India have changed, but he offers no

qualitatively different evidence that this is so. Paul’s three new affidavits, all from

his family members, recapitulate what he had previously submitted. Paul’s new

country conditions evidence is similarly redundant. The Board of Immigration

Appeals did not abuse its discretion by denying Paul’s motion to reopen as

untimely. 

DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40412

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EVODIO TORRES-IBARRA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-943-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Evodio TorresIbarra has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Torres-Ibarra has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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

December 1, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40412 Document: 00513780508 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2016
No. 16-40412

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40412 Document: 00513780508 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2016
EXHIBIT 24.8

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Robert E. Sulentic, Derek R. McClain, Arlin E. Gaffner and J. Christopher
Kirk and each of them, her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for her and in her name, place and stead, to sign on her
behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2001, and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with or without the others, full power and authority to do and
perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact or their substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

| |  | /s/HENRY J. FAISONHenry J. Faison
| |  | ---------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
# C_2016334EN.01000201.xml

| 10.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 334/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 334/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 September 2016

(2016/C 334/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1268 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 115,85 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4428 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84558 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5020 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0969 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2470 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,022 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,61 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3345 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4495 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3440 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4836 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4600 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7393 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5299 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5280 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 244,18 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,1404 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,5276 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4838 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 796,65 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6100 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,337 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,5475 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,201 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6552 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,1869 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,2030 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1268

JPY

Japanese yen

115,85

DKK

Danish krone

7,4428

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84558

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5020

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0969

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2470

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,022

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,61

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3345

RON

Romanian leu

4,4495

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3440

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4836

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4600

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7393

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5299

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5280

KRW

South Korean won

1 244,18

ZAR

South African rand

16,1404

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,5276

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4838

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 796,65

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6100

PHP

Philippine peso

53,337

RUB

Russian rouble

72,5475

THB

Thai baht

39,201

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6552

MXN

Mexican peso

21,1869

INR

Indian rupee

75,2030

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-11007 Summary Calendar

DANNY O. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(3:98-CV-731-L)

-------------------- August 7, 2002 Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant Danny O. Crawford appeals the district

court’s take-nothing judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee (“the City”) following a bench tr ial. Crawford asserts seven issues, challenging, inter alia , the sufficiency of the evidence to support
the factual findings of the City’s Civil Service Board and the district court, and the legal conclusions of that court.2

We have reviewed the record on appeal, the appellate briefs of
the parties, and the extensive Memorandum Opinion and Order of the
district court, which fully explicates the op erative facts and pertinent law. We are convinced by our review that the district court’s thorough disposition of Crawford’s largely meritless case correctly applied the pertinent law to the material facts. Essentially for the reasons set forth by the district court in its

c omprehensive opinion, the judgment of that court is, in all
respects,

AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A1572. DANTE HAYWARD v. THE STATE.

On August 6, 2019, following a bench trial, the trial court found Dante

Hayward guilty of multiple offenses. Two days later, the court entered an order

denying Hayward’s motion to suppress. Hayward’s attorney filed a timely motion for

new trial. In September 2020, Hayward filed a pro se notice of appeal from the denial

of his motion to suppress. In March 2021, Hayward filed a second pro se notice of

appeal, and the trial court clerk transmitted the record to us. We lack jurisdiction.

Where a motion for new trial is timely filed, jurisdiction remains with the trial

court. See Jones v. State, 309 Ga. App. 149, 149 (1) (709 SE2d 593) (2011).

Accordingly, any notice of appeal filed while a motion for new trial remains pending

confers no jurisdiction on this Court. See id.; Drake v. Clutter, 194 Ga. App. 644, 644

(391 SE2d 473) (1990). 

June 22, 2021
Under these circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, which

is hereby DISMISSED.1

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 As noted, the motion for new trial wasfiled by trial counsel. In White v. State,

the Supreme Court made clear that, unless the trial court permits an attorney to

withdraw, that attorney’s duty to his client extends at least through the end of the term

in which sentence was entered, “during which time the court retains authority to

change its prior orders and judgments on motion or sua sponte for the purpose of

promoting justice.” White v. State, 302 Ga. 315, 319 (2) (806 SE2d 489) (2017).

Nothing in the record indicatesthat counsel has been relieved of representation. Thus,

it is unclear whether Hayward’s trial counsel is under a continuing duty to represent

him. If the attorney was under such duty, Hayward was unable to file a pro se notice

of appeal. See id.; see also Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357, 363 (3) (767 SE2d 24)

(2014) (holding that a criminal defendantmay not represent himself while represented

by counsel). We note that, in May 2020, Hayward filed a motion for the appointment

of new counsel, but the trial court has not ruled on this motion.

06/22/2021
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

I,  Jay  Sargeant,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  EYI  Industries,   Inc.  (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, that, to the best of
my knowledge:

(i) the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company,  for the fiscal quarter
ended September 30, 2005, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit
32.1 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

By:

/s/ Jay Sargeant
Name:
Jay Sargeant

Title:
Chief Executive Officer

Date:

November 21, 2005


A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.

This  certification  accompanies  the Form  10-QSB to which it  relates,  is not
deemed  filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  and is not to be
incorporated  by reference  into any filing of the Company under the  Securities
Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after
the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of Deltic Timber Corporation (the report) for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a14(b) or Rule 15d14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Ray C. Dillon, the Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth D. Mann, the Chief Financial Officer, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | the report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Deltic Timber Corporation.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Ray C. DillonRay C. DillonChief Executive OfficerMarch 6, 2008/s/ Kenneth D. MannKenneth D. MannChief Financial OfficerMarch 6, 2008