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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 5 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States protecting 

the right of citizens to vote. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2021 

Mr. COOPER submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States protecting the right of citizens to vote. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 5 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

2 ‘‘SEC. 1. The right of a citizen of the United States, 

3 who is 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied 

4 or abridged by the United States or by any State, unless, 

5 at the time of an election, such citizen is serving a sen6 tence of imprisonment for a felony in a correctional facil7 ity. 

8 ‘‘SEC. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce 

9 this article by appropriate legislation.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

** **

 

The undersigned, theChief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of New Plan ExcelRealty Trust, Inc. (the “Company”), each hereby certifies that, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge on the datehereof:

 

(a)                                                          the Form 10-K of the Company for the yearended December 31, 2005 filed on the date hereof with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(b)                                                         the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 

 
|   |   |  /s/ Glenn J. Rufrano |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Glenn J. Rufrano           |   |
|   |   | Chief Executive  Office    |   |
|   |   | March 3, 2006              |   |

 

 

 

 

 

 
|   |   |  /s/ John B. Roche  |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |   | John B. Roche            |   |
|   |   | Chief Financial  Officer |   |
|   |   | March 3, 2006            |   |

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to New Plan Excel Realty Trust,Inc. and will be retained by New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

----
EXHIBIT
32.2








SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER








In
connection with the Annual Report of P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007, (the "Report")
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Larry J. Goddard, Chief
Financial 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 to
the best of my knowledge:





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





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








Date:
March 13, 2008





/s/ Larry J.
Goddard


Larry J.
Goddard


Vice
President-Finance, Chief Financial


Officer,
Secretary and Treasurer


(chief
accounting and financial officer)
Sheila Lockwood <lockwood@u.washing

ton.edu>

12/31/2007 08:07 PM To Group Ow-Docket@EPA

cc "D. Lundstrom" <dlund@u.washington.edu>, Sheila Lockwood <lockwood@u.washington.edu>

bcc

Subject Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771

The University of Washington is pleased to provide the following comments in response to the notice published in the Federal Register Volume 72 Number 209 October 30, 2007 Notice of Availability of Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan.

We would like to provide information relevant to EPA's request for comments and information on Dental Mercury and Unused Pharmaceuticals.

Dental Mercury There have been several active programs in place in Washington State targeted at mercury elimination. We would like to provide the following links for a few successful programs that have aided in eliminating mercury as a water pollutant and may serve to provide some of the information EPA is seeking.

King County Regulations for dental wastewater discharged to the sewer http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/indwaste/dentists.htm

The King County program has demonstrated part of the mercury reduction in biosolids is a direct result of the installation of amalgam separators. A detailed report can be viewed at http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/indwaste/amalgdiff.pdf

.

King County Education and Outreach materials http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/indwaste/dentalfactsheet.pdf

The Washington State Department of Ecology has developed Best Management

Practices for dental office wastes http://www.ecy.wa.gov/dentalbmps

.

Unused Pharmaceuticals The Washington State Department of Ecology has developed guidance to aide in the management of Pharmaceutical Wastes generated in Washington

State, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/hwtr/pharmaceuticals/index.html

.

Pharmaceutical Best Management Practices http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/hwtr/pharmaceuticals/pages/bmp.html

King County has developed a discharge authorization program for Hospitals operating within King County, http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/indwaste/hospitals.htm

In Washington through the Northwest Product Stewardship Council a Medicine Take Back Program is being developed and trialed. More

information is available at http://www.productstewardship.net/productsPharmaceuticalsMedicines.html

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this very important conversation. If we can provide additional information regarding the various programs operating within Washington State please contact DaveLundstrom or Sheila Lockwood at 206-616-5835 or e-mail chmwaste@u.washington.edu

.

Sincerely,

Sheila Lockwood University of Washington Environmental Health and Safety Compliance Outreach Coordinator

______________________________________________________________________ | Sheila K. Jobe-Lockwood, CHMM | | Program Operations Coordinator | Environmental Health and Safety-EPO | Box 354110 | University of Washington | Seattle, WA 98195 | Phone: (206) 616-5836 | Fax: (206) 685-2915 | e-mail: lockwood@u.washington.edu | Website: http://www.ehs.washington.edu |_____________________________________________________________________|
CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PowerSecure International, Inc.;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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:




---



##### 



5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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):
   Date:  May 6, 2010
    /s/ Christopher T. HutterChristopher T. HutterExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer,
 Treasurer and Assistant
Secretary
Second Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.67 
 RACKABLE SYSTEMS, INC. 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Second Amendment”) dated November 17, 2008 (the
“Effective Date”) is executed by and between Rackable Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Maurice Leibenstern (the “Executive”). The Company and the Executive are each
individually referred to in this Amendment as a “Party” and are collectively referred to in this Amendment as the “Parties.” 
 RECITALS 
 A. Executive and the Company are parties to an Employment Agreement,
dated August 22, 2007 (the “Employment Agreement”), which was subsequently amended on September 19, 2007 (the “First Amendment”), both of which collectively outline the general terms of
employment for the Executive. 
 B. Pursuant to this Second Amendment and effective immediately upon the Parties’ mutual execution and
delivery of this Second Amendment, the Parties desire to further amend the Employment Agreement as follows. 
 AGREEMENT 
 In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth in this Amendment, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged by the Parties, the Parties
agree as follows: 
 1. Amendment to Employment Agreement. The Parties agree that upon the Effective Date of this Amendment, the Employment Agreement
will be further amended as follows: 
 1.1 Paragraph 4 entitled “EMPLOYEE BENEFITS”, is hereby amended to add the following
sentence stating: “In addition, you will be entitled to a one-time lump sum payment of $30,000.00 for your relocation needs provided, however, that you agree to promptly and fully repay any such reimbursement to the Company in the event your
employment with the Company is terminated within one (1) year after November 17, 2008 other than a termination by you for Good Reason (as defined in the Employment Agreement and the First Amendment) or a termination by the Company without
Cause (as defined in the Employment Agreement and the First Amendment).” 
 1.2 Except as amended herein, the Employment Agreement (as
modified by the First Amendment) shall remain in full force and effect without modification thereto. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Second Amendment and those of the Employment Agreement or the First Amendment, the parties
agree that this Second Amendment shall prevail. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment as of the Effective
Date. 
  

									
	RACKABLE SYSTEMS, INC.	 		 	MAURICE LEIBENSTERN
					
	By:	 	  
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/    MAURICE LEIBENSTERN

	Name:	 	  Mark J. Barrenechea	 		 	Name:	 	  Maurice Leibenstern
	Title:	 	  CEO	 		 	Title:	 	  SVP, GC & Corp. Secretary
			
	Signature Date:                     	 		 	Signature Date: December 17, 2008

  

 Page 2 of 2
-88 -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/29

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL

■ ★

■

■

■

★ ■

■

■

■

★

●

●

●

●

★ ●

●

●

●
Sanitized – Attachment 010 

Page 1 of 7
Sanitized – Attachment 010 

Page 2 of 7
Sanitized – Attachment 010 

Page 3 of 7
Sanitized – Attachment 010 

Page 4 of 7
Sanitized – Attachment 010 

Page 5 of 7
Sanitized – Attachment 010 

Page 6 of 7
Sanitized – Attachment 010 

Page 7 of 7
Exhibit 4.3

 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
  REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
  FIRM


     We consent to the reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus and to the use of our report dated March 24, 2009, in this
Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-157671) of Smart Trust, Tax Free Income Trust (2009 Series A).

		
	   	 GRANT THORNTON LLP 




New York, New York

March 24, 2009
#### Smith *v.*Grabiel.

Opinion delivered June 11, 1928.

*Lems Bhoton,*for appellant.

*Carl E. Bailey,*for appellee.

Per -Curiam.

Appellants are owners of real property situated witMn a street improvement district in the city of Little Rock, and "they brought this suit in equity against the commissioners of the district to attack the assessment of benefits. The -suit was not commenced until long after thirty days -after the assessment of benefits was made by the commissioners, and the attack upon the validity of the assessment is collateral.

In *Ferrell*v. *Massie,*150 Ark. 150, 233 S. W. 1083, a motion to dismiss the appeal on -the ground that the transcript was not filed within the time required by statute *612was sustained. That was a suit for the collection of delinquent assessments in a street improvement district, as provided in the statute, and the owners of real property filed a cross-complaint attacking the validity of the district and the assessment of benefits. It was claimed that the cross-complaint took the case out of the statute with respect to the limitation of time for taking an appeal and filing the transcript, but the court held against that contention.

In *Lewellyn*v. *Street Improvement District of Russellville,*172 Ark. 496, 289 S. W. 470, it was held that an action instituted by property owners attacking an assessment of benefits in a street improvement district is collateral where it is instituted more than thirty days after approval of assessments at the hearing on notice, pursuant to Crawford & Moses’ Digest, § 5658. The court said:

“In a direct attack upon the validity of assessments, it becomes a question of proof whether or not the assessments are correct, but in a collateral- attack we must indulge the presumption that the assessors considered all the elements of enhancement of value or detriment which might result from the improvement, and the court is not at liberty to disturb the finding >of the assessors, unless the assessment is demonstrably erroneous on its face.”

These decisions control here. We have examined the face of the proceedings, and there is nothing to indicate the illegality thereof. If the property owners desired to attack the assessments on grounds which require proof, they should have taken an appeal within the time required by statute, and, not having done.so, the motion by appel-lees to dismiss the appeal must be sustained. It is so ordered.

Mehaffy, J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                     5
<CIK>                                         0000881695
<NAME>                                        PALOMAR MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
       
<S>                                                   <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                          JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                                 13,978,061
<SECURITIES>                                            2,401,550
<RECEIVABLES>                                           4,282,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                              467,000
<INVENTORY>                                             9,216,447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       34,944,181
<PP&E>                                                  8,112,390
<DEPRECIATION>                                          1,531,913
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         75,677,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  21,439,165
<BONDS>                                                18,861,659
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                   298
<COMMON>                                                  330,832
<OTHER-SE>                                             35,045,785
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           75,677,739
<SALES>                                                 9,852,055
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        9,852,055
<CGS>                                                   9,440,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           9,440,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      2,532,394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (21,481,453)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (21,481,453)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         (8,696,680)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (30,178,133)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               (1.01)
        


</TABLE>
Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  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 result of operations of the Company.
 Date:  November 6, 2008
    /s/  Christopher T. HutterChristopher T. HutterVice President, Chief Financial
Officer, Treasurer and Assistant
Secretary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUN ZHENG,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 71778

Agency No. A088

- 894

- 427

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 13, 2018 **

Before: LEAVY , M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Jun Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ o rder dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclud es this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 71778

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evi dence the agency’s factual findings

,

applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinatio ns created by the

REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We

deny the petition for review

.

Substantial evidence support s the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies as to the date Zheng left his hometown , whether his father

paid the bail bond, and a discrepancy between his testimony and declaration as to

“Teacher Jin” who introduced Zheng to Chr istianity

. See id. at 1048 (adverse

credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the cir cumstances). Zheng’s

explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241,

1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credibl e testimony, in this case,

Zheng ’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft

,

348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Zheng ’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the

agency found not credible, and Zheng does not point to any other evidence in the

record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be3 15

- 71778

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in China. See

id. at 1156

- 57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
March 22, 2012

The Honorable Ray LaHood

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Alaska Airlines’ application for SAN-DCA, Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0029. 

Dear Secretary LaHood:

As a California legislator representing a portion of the City of San Diego, I fully support the application of 

Alaska Airlines for air service between San Diego and Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA). San Diego 

is the largest region without direct service to DCA. In fact, the San Diego region generates one of the largest 

passenger market demands without nonstop service to the convenient airport serving our nation’s capital. 

San Diego’s sheer market size coupled with the fact that flights from San Diego to the incredibly lessconvenient Dulles Airport, average some of the highest airfares of all West Coast cities, further reinforces the 

necessity for this flight. The high airfare is exacerbated when factoring in taxi fares from Dulles to 

Washington’s city center that average about $60 each way. This means travelers between Washington’s city 

center and San Diego via Dulles can pay on average close to $400 one-way.

 

There are also countless other San Diego-based and Washington-based businesses that are engaged in health 

science, telecommunications, and national defense that need quick and convenient access to Reagan National 

Airport. Alaska Airlines service would add a needed nonstop option to a primary gateway to Washington, DC. 

Our office joins with the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the San Diego Regional Economic 

Development Corporation, the World Trade Center San Diego, and the San Diego Regional Chamber of 

Commerce in support of Alaska Airlines’ application for San Diego – Washington Reagan National slots.

We thank the Department of Transportation for the opportunity to comment and we hope to have a favorable 

outcome of Alaska Airlines’ San Diego – DC proposal soon.

Sincerely,

Nathan Fletcher

Assemblyman, 75th District

STATE CAPITOL

P.O. Box 942849

SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0075

(916) 319-2075

FAX (916) 319-2175

E-MAIL

Assemblymember.Fletcher@assembly.ca.gov

DISTRICT OFFICE

9909 MIRA MESA BLVD., SUITE 130

SAN DIEGO, CA 92131

(858) 689-6290

FAX (858) 680-6296

WEBSITE

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/fletcher

Assembly

California Legislature

Nathan Fletcher

Assemblymember, Seventy-Fifth District
Exhibit 32

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 annual report of Flanders Corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2008, we hereby certify, solely for the purpose of complying with 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:

1. The annual 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
Company.

Date: March 16, 2009



/s/ Harry SmithHarry SmithChief Executive Officer / (Principal Executive Officer)/s/ John OakleyJohn OakleyChief Financial Officer / (Principal Accounting Officer)