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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1336 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1336

To increase the fee for the enforcement of the Tea Importation Act, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 30 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To increase the fee for the enforcement of the Tea Importation Act, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. FEE INCREASE.

    The Tea Importation Act (21 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) is amended--
            (1) by striking out sections 11 and 12,
            (2) by inserting the fourth undesignated paragraph under 
        the center heading ``food and drug administration'' of title II 
        of the Labor-Federal Security Appropriation Act, 1942 (21 
        U.S.C. 46a) as a new section 11 of the Tea Importation Act, and
            (3) by amending such new section 11 to read as follows:
    ``Sec. 11. No tea or merchandise described as tea shall be examined 
for importation into the United States, or released by the Customs 
Services, under the Tea Importation Act unless the importer or 
consignee of such tea or merchandise has paid, before the examination, 
a fee in an amount equal to--
            ``(1) 10 cents for each hundred weight or fraction thereof 
        of the tea or merchandise; or
            ``(2) the approximate cost of the examination, whichever 
        amount is less. Such fee shall be deposited into the Treasury 
        of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.''.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.3   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 on Form 10-Q of Madison Gas and Electric Company, for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gary J. Wolter, Chief Executive 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:  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 results of operations of the Company.    /s/ Gary J. WolterGary J. Wolter
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Date: November 5, 2008
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                          
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Illinois Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Illinois Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 14,517 | 12,995 | 11,328
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 13,244 | 10,861 | 13,195 | 10,461 | 11,176 | 10,855 | 10,869 | 11,407 | 13,275 | 24,636
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 19,864 | 21,831 | 24,738 | 26,936 | 30,652 | 26,564 | 23,566 | 22,435 | 26,207 | 28,637
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 20,651 | 18,581 | 18,898 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00224-CV

STANDARD HODGES,

Appellant

v.

VIEN LADD A/K/A LADD VIEN, 

STEPHEN T. VANROOY AND 

RANCHERO LAND COMPANY, LP,

Appellees

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 110566

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Standard Hodges, who is not indigent and has retained counsel, 

appeals from a June 30, 2023 order of dismissal. The order is entitled "Order Granting 

Ladd Vien's Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss" and specifically refers to "Defendant Ladd 

Vien's Rule 91A Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Petition." See TEX. R. CIV.
Hodges v. Ladd Page 2

P. 91a. The order does not purport to dispose of Hodges's claims against defendants 

Stephen Van Rooy and Ranchero Land Company, LP. Our jurisdiction is limited to 

appeals from final judgments, except as explicitly allowed by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC.

& REM. CODE ANN. § 51.012; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). 

Because no statute permits interlocutory appeals from Rule 91a dismissals, the record 

must demonstrate that the order appealed from is final and appealable. See TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014.

On August 3, 2023, we notified Hodges that there does not appear to be a final 

order from which he can appeal to this Court, and the appeal is subject to dismissal. We 

further notified him that the Court may dismiss this appeal unless, within twenty-one 

days from the date of the letter, a response is filed showing grounds for continuing the 

appeal. On August 24, 2023, Hodges responded by filing a request to retain the appeal 

on the docket in which he explained that he had filed a motion to sever in the trial court 

and was awaiting a hearing on the motion. Hodges has filed nothing further in this 

Court. Because the order Hodges attempts to appeal does not dispose of all parties and 

claims, it is not final, and we have no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See Lehmann, 39 

S.W.3d at 195.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Hodges v. Ladd Page 3

STEVE SMITH

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 17, 2023

[CV06]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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 20, 2013

t1113 

# Order

Clerk November 20, 2013

147384 & (40)

SAL

- MAR ROYAL VILLAGE, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147384

COA: 308659

Macomb CC: 2011

- 004061

- AW

MACOMB COUNTY TREASURER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the May 30, 2013 judgment of the Court

of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to

appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of whether the

plaintiff’s complaint for relief falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Michigan Tax

Tribunal pursuant to MCL 205.731. See Hillsdale Senior Servs v Hillsdale Co , 494 Mich

46 (2013).

We retain jurisdiction.

V IVIANO , J., did not participate because he presided over this case in the circuit

court.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 25212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12117]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 98F-0291]


Asahi Denka Kogyo K.K.; Filing of Food Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that 
Asahi Denka Kogyo K.K., has filed a petition proposing that the food 
additive regulations be amended to provide for the expanded safe use of 
sodium 2,2'-methylenebis(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate as a 
clarifying agent in olefin polymers intended for use in contact with 
food.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vir D. Anand, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-216), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C 
St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food 
additive petition (FAP 8B4592) has been filed by Asahi Denka Kogyo 
K.K., 5-2-13, Shirahata, Urawa City, Saitama 336, Japan. The petition 
proposes to amend the food additive regulations in Sec. 178.3295 
Clarifying agents for polymers (21 CFR 178.3295) to provide for the 
expanded safe use of sodium 2,2'-methylenebis(4,6-di-tert-
butylphenyl)phosphate as a clarifying agent in olefin polymers intended 
for use in contact with food.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(i) that this action is 
of the type that does not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

    Dated: April 24, 1998.
 Laura M. Tarantino,
 Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied 
Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 98-12117 Filed 5-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 FIRST DEFIANCE FINANCIAL CORP. 

2010 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This First Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the First Defiance Financial Corp. 2010 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is effective as of this      day of February,
2012. 
 WHEREAS, First Defiance Financial Corp. (the “Company”) previously adopted the Plan; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13.1 of the Plan, the Company desires to amend the Plan as set forth in this Amendment; 

NOW, THEREFORE, Section 1.23 the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted therefor: 

1.23 “Performance Criteria” shall mean: (a) revenue; (b) income (including, but not limited to,
net earnings, net income, before or after taxes, interest income, non-interest income and fee income); (c) earnings per share; (d) loan, deposit, new market or asset growth; (e) return measures (including return on assets and equity);
(f) tangible equity; (g) economic profit added; (h) earnings before or after taxes, interest, depreciation and/or amortization; (i) interest spread; (j) productivity ratios; (k) share price (including, but not limited
to, growth measures and total shareholder return); (l) expense targets; (m) credit quality; (n) efficiency ratio; (o) market share; (p) customer satisfaction; (q) asset quality measures (including, but not limited to,
non-performing assets, net charge-offs, classified assets, Texas Ratio, ALLL etc.; (r) capitalization (including, but not limited to, Tier 1 capital, CAMELS rating); (s) net income after cost of capital (NIACC); (t) strategic
objectives (including, branding, mergers and acquisitions, succession management, dynamic market response, new product build out, expense reduction initiatives, risk management and regulatory compliance); or (u) such other measures as the
Committee may select from time to time. 
 Different Performance Criteria may be applied to individual
Participants or to groups of Participants and, as specified by the Committee, may relate to the individual Participant, the Company, one or more Affiliates, or one or more of their respective divisions or business units, or any combination of the
foregoing, and may be applied on an absolute basis and/or be relative to one or more peer group companies or indices, or any combination thereof, in each case, as determined by the Committee in its sole discretion. 

[signature page attached] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized officer effective as of the date set forth above. 
  

			
	FIRST DEFIANCE FINANCIAL CORP.
		
	By:	 	 
		
	Its:
|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                        
|View History:                                                                         
|                                                                                      
|Calexico, CA Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Mexico  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                      
|                                                                                      
|Calexico, CA Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Mexico  (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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 3.15   | 2.58   | 2.69  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4.67   | 7.34   | 3.44   | 5.36   | 6.04   | 8.80   | 6.60   | 6.87   | 8.37   | 4.03  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 4.60   | 4.33   | 3.20   | 4.10   | 4.82   | 2.99   | 2.71   | 3.51   | 5.16   | 4.36  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3.23   | 4.15   | 5.28   | 3.95   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Exhibit 32.1

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 American Standard Energy Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, J. Steven Person, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, in my capacity as an officer of the Company, for purposes of 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 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 results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 6, 2014



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ J. Steven Person   
|    |  | J. Steven Person       
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of the written statement required by Section 906 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.
NRG West violations - please help us protect the city of Carlsbad . Kathy Combs t o : Shaheerah Kelly 05/26/2009 01:29 PM

From: Kathy Combs <combs.kathy@gmail.com> To: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA History: This message has been replied to.

Dear Ms Kelly,

N RG West has submitted an application to the California Energy Commission (Docket Number: 07-AFC-06) to build a 558 megawatt power plant in coastal Carlsbad, California named the Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP) and has requested authorization to emit up to 72.8 tons of NOx per year (though NRG West admits that the new units have the potential to emit 75.6 tons of NOx per year). N RG "voluntarily" agreed to limit NOx emissions from the 75.6 tons/yr to the 72.8 tons/year, p robably in order to avoid the 40 ton/year EPA trigger. This new power p lant will be located on the same property as the existing 55 year-old 963 megawatt Encina Power Station that runs approximately 7% p er year. As I understand the rules-Section 52.21(b)(48) - concerning a new stationary source of air p ollution, limits are placed on new applicants for permission to emit air pollution. At its soonest, the CECP will not begin construction until 2010 which means the previous 5 years of look-back (2005-2009) p ush the new application over the limit of 40 tons of emissions of NOx p er year. Based on the 2005-2009 years, the new CECP would emit 25% more than the threshold allows. This would require NRG to submit to the EPA for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of air quality. Please require them to do so. As the protector of environmental quality, the residents of Carlsbad rely on the EPA to enforce Federal air quality rules. It is imperative that NRG West be forced to comply with rules in place to protect the public. Other electrical generating assets are coming on-line in San Diego County that will provide for demand. There is every reason to make sure that all rules are being followed by the addition of CECP to the City of Carlsbad and the region. Thank you, I look forward to hearing from you and can provide additional information if needed.

Sincerely, Kathleen S Combs

Cc: Senator Barbara Boxer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARSHALL
INDUSTRIES QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                           1,198
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,169
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,578)
<INVENTORY>                                    234,603
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               408,065
<PP&E>                                          80,582
<DEPRECIATION>                                (43,567)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 479,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          135,778
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,578
<OTHER-SE>                                     320,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   479,336
<SALES>                                        859,643
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               859,643
<CGS>                                          716,687
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  716,687
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,585
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,158)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,187
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,255
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,932
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,932
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

D.C. KING, B.T. PALMER, M.A. WHITSON

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CASSI L. LEONARD

MACHINIST'S MATE THIRD CLASS (E-4), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201500337

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 16 July 2015.

Military Judge: CDR Heather Partridge, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN 

(CVN 72).

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LCDR Cheryl Ausband, 

JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Maj Michael D. Berry, USMC.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller, Esq.

11 February 2016

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted without 

assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved 

by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military 

Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 For the Court 

 R.H. TROIDL 

 Clerk of Court