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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 128 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 

for an event to award the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to 

the Montford Point Marines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 30, 2012 

Ms. BROWN of Florida (for herself, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. 

JONES, Mr. CRENSHAW, and Mr. WEST) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol 

Visitor Center for an event to award the Congressional 

Gold Medal, collectively, to the Montford Point Marines. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO 

4 AWARD THE CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL 

5 TO THE MONTFORD POINT MARINES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Emancipation Hall in the Capitol 

7 Visitor Center is authorized to be used on June 27, 2012, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HCON 128 IH 

1 for an event to award the Congressional Gold Medal, col2 lectively, to the Montford Point Marines. 

3 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—Physical preparations for 

4 the conduct of the event shall be carried out in accordance 

5 with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect 

6 of the Capitol. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                        
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         | 373,963 | 373,960
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 373,960 | 373,960 | 375,010 | 375,010 | 375,010 | 375,010 | 375,010 | 342,785 | 371,510 | 371,510
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 371,510 | 372,000 | 374,201 | 374,201 | 374,201 | 374,201 | 374,201 | 374,201 | 374,201 | 376,301
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 376,301 | 376,301 | 376,301 | 376,301 | 376,301 | 376,301 | 376,301 | 376,225 | 376,225 | 376,225
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 376,225 | 376,225 | 376,225 |         |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
III 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 85 

Congratulating the Rocky Mountain College Battlin’ Bears for winning the 

2009 National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics Men’s Basketball 

National Championship. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 25, 2009 

Mr. TESTER (for himself and Mr. BAUCUS) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the Rocky Mountain College Battlin’ Bears 

for winning the 2009 National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics Men’s Basketball National Championship. 

Whereas, on March 24, 2009, the Rocky Mountain College 

Battlin’ Bears won the 2009 National Association of 

Intercollegiate Athletics Men’s Basketball National 

Championship title with a stunning 77–61 triumph over 

the Columbia College Cougars; 

Whereas Rocky Mountain College, located in Billings, Montana, is one of the premier liberal arts schools in the 

State of Montana; 

Whereas Rocky Mountain College forward Devin Uskoski was 

named the Most Valuable Player of the National AssociaVerDate Nov 24 2008 21:51 Mar 25, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR85.IS SR85

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 85 IS 

tion of Intercollegiate Athletics men’s basketball tournament; 

Whereas Devin Uskoski averaged 17.4 points per game and 

11 rebounds per game throughout his senior season; 

Whereas the Battlin’ Bears finished the 2009 season with a 

record of 30–8 and won 10 of their final 11 games; 

Whereas Rocky Mountain College fans across Montana supported and encouraged the Battlin’ Bears throughout the 

basketball season; 

Whereas Rocky Mountain College President Michael R. Mace 

and Athletic Director Robert Beers have shown great 

leadership in bringing academic and athletic success to 

Rocky Mountain College; and 

Whereas the people of the State of Montana celebrate the 

success and share the pride of Rocky Mountain College: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) congratulates the Rocky Mountain College 

3 Battlin’ Bears for winning the 2009 National Asso4 ciation of Intercollegiate Athletics Men’s Basketball 

5 National Championship; 

6 (2) recognizes the achievements of the players, 

7 coaches, students, and staff whose hard work and 

8 dedication helped the Rocky Mountain College 

9 Battlin’ Bears win the championship; and 

10 (3) respectfully requests the Secretary of the 

11 Senate to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolu12 tion for appropriate display to— 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 85 IS 

1 (A) the President of Rocky Mountain Col2 lege, Michael R. Mace; 

3 (B) the Athletic Director of Rocky Moun4 tain College, Robert Beers; and 

5 (C) the Head Coach of the Rocky Moun6 tain College basketball team, Bill Dreikosen. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
329P14-2

#### State v. Dwayne Demont Haizlip

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COAP16-617)

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

3. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

1. Denied 09/19/2016

2. Allowed 09/19/2016

3. Dismissed as moot 09/19/2016

Ervin, J., recused
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 quarterly report of Gencor Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ E.J. Elliott                    
|E.J. Elliott                        
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|February 14, 2006                   
|                                    
|/s/ Scott W. Runkel                 
|Scott W. Runkel                     
|Chief Financial Officer             
|February 14, 2006                   



17
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- 

### 2011-0348 Directorate Id entifier: 

### 2011-NM-069 -AD

If you make changes to th e values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work-hours

(include

access, testing,

and close-up) Labor

cost

(@$85/h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### DFEC inspection 6.0 $ 510.00 

### $0 $ 510.00 

### 195 $99,450.00



### NDT EC inspection 1 5 .0 $1,020.0

0 

### $0 $1,020.00 

### 195 $198,900.00



### Repair *-

*variable cost $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 348,075



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

Indicates related information in AD Manual, FAA -IR-M-8040.1C. DOUBLE CLICK to follow the link



### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO

*Explanation:

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES* NO

*Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a s ubstantial number of small entities? Explain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO



### * Explanation 

### :
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Natural Gas Citygate Price in Washington  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Natural Gas Citygate Price in Washington  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | 4.12   | 3.86   | 3.15   | 2.45   | 2.32   | 2.20  
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 1.95   | 1.91   | 1.90   | 2.39   | 2.54   | 2.18   | 2.44   | 2.62   | 2.34   | 2.63  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4.16   | 5.31   | 3.83   | 5.13   | 6.15   | 7.95   | 7.87   | 7.14   | 8.11   | 6.59  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 6.29   | 5.55   | 4.48   | 4.89   | 5.82   | 4.42   | 3.66   | 3.51   | 3.65   | 4.25  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3.77   | 4.57   | 6.46   | NA     |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-20121

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO PEREZ ORDONES, also known as Francisco

Perez-Ordones,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CR-142-3

- - - - - - - - - -

December 15, 1999

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Perez Ordones (“Ordones”) appeals from his guiltyplea conviction on two counts of harboring illegal aliens and

aiding and abetting. He argues that the district court clearly

erred by failing to reduce his offense level as a minor or

minimal participant, relying on an informant’s uncorroborated

hearsay testimony, and failing to consider the scope of the 
No. 99-20121

-2-

larger conspiracy when assessing his role. We review the

district court’s determination regarding a defendant’s role in

the offense for clear error. See United States v. Zuniga, 18

F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th Cir. 1994).

Ordones’s admissions during his rearraignment hearing

regarding his participation in the offense partially corroborated

the informant’s hearsay testimony and indicated that he was not

entitled to a reduction as a minor or minimal participant. As

Ordones failed to present any evidence to rebut the PSR’s finding

that he was not a minor or minimal participant, the district

court was free to adopt such findings without further inquiry. 

See United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995). In

addition, this court has held that the guidelines do “not require

a reduction in the base offense level even though the defendant’s

activity in a larger conspiracy may have been minor or minimal.” 

United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 19269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10254]



[[Page 19269]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


Creation of Ryan White Title IV List of Research Protocols

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration.

ACTION: Notice of creation of Ryan White Title IV List of Research 
Protocols.

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

SUMMARY: This will begin the process of establishing a list of research 
protocols of potential clinical benefit in the treatment or prevention 
of HIV to be used as a resource for the Ryan White CARE Act Title IV 
program.
    To fulfill its legislative mandate under the Ryan White 
Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Care (CARE) Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 
101-381), as amended by the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 1996 
(Pub. L. 104-146), which amended Title XXVI of the Public Health 
Service Act, Part D section 2671(c)(2)(A), the HIV/AIDS Bureau, Health 
Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), is creating a list of 
research protocols for dissemination to programs that receive Title IV 
funds to provide clients of those programs the opportunity to consider 
participating in the research. The list will consist of those protocols 
that have been determined by the Secretary to possess the potential to 
contribute to the prevention or treatment of HIV disease in women, 
children, infants or youth with findings that are generalizable. HRSA 
is now soliciting research protocols to be considered for the initial 
listing. Under the Ryan White Title IV program, HRSA is prohibited from 
funding the research projects.

DATES: Research protocols must be postmarked by May 1, 1998, to be 
considered for the initial listing. All research protocols received 
after the May 1, 1998, date will be considered on an on-going basis for 
updated listings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To submit a project description for 
consideration for placement on this list of protocols and for further 
information on the criteria for selection, please contact Ms. Elaine 
Gross at 1-800-362-0071.

    Dated: April 13, 1998.
Claude Earl Fox,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-10254 Filed 4-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
Exhibit 99.1
                                                                  ------------



                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWABS, INC.
                            CWABS TRUST 2005-HYB9,
                    MORTGAGE-BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-HYB9

     The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Sale and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i)  A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

(ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                         Dated: March 27, 2006
----------------

CRAIG BAINGO
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT



/s/ Kevin Meyers                                         Dated: March 27, 2006
----------------

KEVIN MEYERS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER, LOAN ADMINISTRATION
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20099-20100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10810]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

31 CFR Part 357

[Department of the Treasury Circular, Public Debt Series, No. 2-86]


Regulations Governing Book-Entry Treasury Bonds, Notes, and 
Bills; Determination Regarding State Statute

AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt, Fiscal Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Determination of substantially identical state statute.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury is announcing that it has 
reviewed the recently enacted South Dakota law adopting Revised Article 
8 of the Uniform Commercial Code--Investment Securities (``Revised 
Article 8'') and has determined that it is substantially identical to 
the uniform version of Revised Article 8 for purposes of interpreting 
the rules in 31 CFR Part 357, Subpart B (the ``TRADES'' regulations). 
Therefore, that portion of the TRADES rule requiring application of 
Revised Article 8 if a state has not adopted Revised Article 8 will no 
longer be applicable for South Dakota.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 23, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa A. Crosby, Attorney-Advisor, 
(202) 219-3320, or Cynthia E. Reese, Deputy Chief Counsel, (202) 219-
3320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 23, 1996, The Department published 
a final rule to govern securities held in the commercial book-entry 
system, now referred to as the Treasury/Reserve Automated Debt Entry 
System (``TRADES''). 61 FR 43626.
    In the commentary to the final regulations, Treasury stated that 
for the 28 states that had by then adopted Revised Article 8, the 
versions enacted were ``substantially identical'' to the uniform 
version for purposes of the rule. Therefore, for those states, that 
portion of the TRADES rule requiring application of Revised Article 8 
was not invoked. Treasury also indicated in the commentary that as 
additional states adopt Revised Article 8, notice would be provided in 
the Federal Register as to whether the enactments are substantially 
identical to the uniform version so that the federal application of 
Revised Article 8 would no longer be in effect for those states. 
Treasury adopted this approach in an attempt to provide certainty in 
application of the rule in response to public comments. This notice 
addresses the recent adoption of Article 8 by South Dakota.

[[Page 20100]]

    Treasury has reviewed the South Dakota enactment and has concluded 
that it is substantially identical to the uniform version of Revised 
Article 8. Accordingly, if either Sec. 357.10(b) or Sec. 357.11(b) 
directs a person to South Dakota, the provisions of Secs. 357.10(c) and 
357.11(d) of the TRADES rule are not applicable.

    Dated: April 16, 1998.
Van Zeck,
Commissioner of the Public Debt.
[FR Doc. 98-10810 Filed 4-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-39-P