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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5603 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5603

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 
                     1965, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Second Higher Education Extension 
Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.

    Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 (Public 
Law 109-81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by striking ``June 30, 
2006'' and inserting ``September 30, 2006''.

SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Extension Act of 
2005 as amended by this Act, shall be construed to limit or otherwise 
alter the authorizations of appropriations for, or the durations of, 
programs contained in the amendments made by the Higher Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171) to the provisions of 
the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection 
Act of 2004.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 21, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5603

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 
                     1965, and for other purposes.
```
**Exhibit32.1**

Certification ofCEO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

*Icertify that this periodic report containing the issuer’s financial statementsfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that informationcontained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.*
|          | * * | *By:*           | */s/ Keith C. Robbins*              | * * |
|----------|----------|-----------------|-------------------------------------|----------|
| * * | * * | * *        | * *                            | * * |
|     |     |            | President, Chief  Executive Officer |
|     |     |            |                                |     |
| * * | Date:    | August 11, 2006 |                                |     |   |   |
|     |     |            |                                |     |
|          |          |                 |                                     |          |  |  |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32

         Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
         of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
                          Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Three Shades For Everybody, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 of Three Shades For
Everybody, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Three Shades For Everybody,
Inc.

Dated: September 22, 2011
                                         /s/ Daniel Masters
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Daniel Masters
                                         Chief Executive Officer


Dated: September 22, 2011
                                         /s/ Dominique Garcia
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Dominique Garcia
                                         Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K
or as a separate disclosure document.
* 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

February 27, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41004

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALBERTO HERNANDEZ-LOZANO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-229-1 

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

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alberto Hernandez-Lozano (Hernandez) appeals his conviction

and the 41-month sentence that was imposed for his guilty plea to

a charge of being found in the United States following removal, a

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Hernandez’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,

235 (1998). Although Hernandez contends that Almendarez-Torres

was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court
No. 04-41004

-2-

would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such

arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. 

See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Hernandez properly concedes

that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and

circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for

further review. Accordingly, Hernandez’s conviction is affirmed.

Hernandez asserts that his sentence must be vacated because

he was sentenced pursuant to mandatory Sentencing Guidelines in

violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). He

asserts that the error in his case is structural and is

insusceptible to harmless error analysis. Contrary to

Hernandez’s contention, we have previously rejected this specific

argument. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th

Cir. 2005). 

Hernandez contends that the Government cannot show that the

error that occurred at his sentencing was harmless. The

Government concedes that Hernandez preserved his claim of error.

We review Hernandez’s challenge to his sentence for harmless

error under FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(a). See Walters, 418 F.3d at 463. 

Nothing in the record demonstrates and the Government has not

shown that the district court would not have imposed a different

sentence under advisory Sentencing Guidelines. United States v.

Garza, 429 F.3d 165, 170-71 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly,
No. 04-41004

-3-

Hernandez’s sentence is vacated, and his case is remanded for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; REMANDED.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 7, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-61]


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

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 201

[Docket No. RM 2008-8]


Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection 
Systems for Access Control Technologies

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office published in the Federal Register on 
December 29, 2008, a notice pertaining to its triennial rulemaking 
proceeding in accordance with a provision of the Copyright Act which 
was added by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and which provides 
that the Librarian of Congress may exempt certain classes of works from 
the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that 
control access to copyrighted works. This document makes technical 
corrections to clarify the record of the proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Kasunic, Principal Legal Advisor, 
Office of the General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, 
Washington, DC 20024-0400. Telephone (202) 707-8380; telefax (202) 707-
8366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Copyright Office published in the 
Federal Register on December 29, 2008, a notice of proposed rulemaking 
pertaining to the fourth triennial rulemaking proceeding required by 
Sec.  1201(a)(1)(C) of the Copyright Act. The notice contained a list 
of the proposed classes of work that the Office will consider for 
exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological 
measures that control access to copyrighted works. As published, the 
notice contained errors which could be misleading and/or require 
clarification.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of December 29, 2008, in Docket No. RM 
2008-8, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 79425, in the third column, in the ``ADDRESSES'' 
section, line 12, the website address is corrected to read ``http://
www.copyright.gov/1201/comment-forms''.
    2. On page 79427, in the first column, paragraph 7 is corrected to 
read:
     ``Computer programs'' [for forensic analysis]. Proponent: Glenn 
Pannenborg.
    3. On page 79427, in the third column, the third paragraph, line 6, 
the word ``proceeding'' is corrected to read ``preceding''.

    Dated: January 2, 2009.
David O. Carson,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E9-61 Filed 1-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-S
Exhibit 31.1

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

I,
Meenu Chhabra, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Proteostasis Therapeutics, 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:

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

b) (Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238/34-47986 and 33-8392/34-49313);

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

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

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

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

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



/s/ Meenu ChhabraMeenu ChhabraPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)DATE: March 30, 2016
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: LUIS RAMOS

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-17-00070-CR

Appeal from the

409th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20160D002189)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

judgment. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings, in accordance 

with the opinion of this Court. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
### Gormas, Michael (OST)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

November , 2014 Theresa Litsheim <ptlits@gmail.com> Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:03 PM EAS (OST) ptlits@hotmail.com Please keep us connected!!

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer, Chief, EAS Division Office ofAviation Analysis U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 

# /J o7

- C 

## J7- 1'7 

### ?.5- 

## Cft71

,i.



### Re: Continuation of AlaskaAirlines'EssentialAirService at Cordova, Gustavus, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Yakutat, Alaska, Docket OST-1998-4899 Dear Mr. Schlemmer : This letter is to express strong support for the selection ofAlaska Airlines to continue to provide essential air service to our community. Alaska's service connects Southeast Alaska passengers to one or more major communities ofinterest, with single-plane service to Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan or Seattle. From these hubs, our community can access the airline's extensive route system and benefit from its marketing relationships with other carriers. The passenger and cargo aircraft, which Alaska Airlines proposes to continue using on this route, provides freight, mail and cargo capacity that other carriers simply cannot provide. Further, Alaska Airlines aircraft are equipped with Required Navigation Performance Technology, which enables the airline to reliably access the airport during inclement weather, thus reducing diversions and cancellations and, in turn, enabling people and products to dependably reach the community.



### Simplyput,AlaskaAirlines'service is critical to the economic well being of our communitv and (IIwe) support their application to provide EssentialAirService to SoutheastAlaska.
Even tho this is a copy andpaste letter it covers everythingprettv well. Please keep us connected! I believe AlaskaAirlines is ESSENTIAL in keeping us connectedandfor me as a retail business owner especially.
Thank you and Best Regards! Theresa Litsheim Diamante Gift Shoppe Petersburg, AK 99833

1
exv10w23






	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 10.23




FANNIE MAE

EXECUTIVE PENSION PLAN





     Pursuant to Section 20 of the Fannie Mae Executive Pension Plan (the “Plan”) and as directed
by the Federal Housing Finance Agency and approved by the Board of Directors on December 16, 2009,
the Plan is amended as follows:



     1. A new Section 27 is added to the end of the Plan to read as follows:



     “Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan to the contrary, no Participant shall accrue
further benefits under the Plan after December 31, 2009. For the avoidance of doubt, the final
installment payment of the 2008 retention bonus award, payable in February 2010, shall be allocated
to Total Compensation earned for 2009 in accordance with the definition of Total Compensation in
Section 2 of the Plan as amended by the amendment dated December 22, 2008.”
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 quarterly  report of NuVim,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the  quarterly  period  ended  September  30,  2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the "Report"),
I, Richard P. Kundrat,  President,  and 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, to the best of my knowledge:

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: November __, 2006

/s/ Richard P. Kundrat
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Jarnail Dhaddey, President, Director,  President, Chief Executive and Operating Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary of Titan Oil & Gas, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended August 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  results  of operations of the
Company.








Dated: November 29, 2011





By: /s/ Jarnail Dhaddey


Name: Jarnail Dhaddey


Title: Director, President, Chief Executive Officer,


Chief Operating Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary


(Principal Executive, Financial & Accounting Officer)
[No. 21736-1-III.

Division Three.

May 11, 2004.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Raymond D. Cox, *Appellant,*and Sue A. Cox, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Benton County, No. 01-3-00896-1, Sharon M. Brown, J. Pro Tern., entered December 13, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kato, C.J., concurred in by Sweeney and Brown, JJ.
From: Diane Arnst <Arnst.Diane@azdeq.gov>

To: Colleen McKaughan/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Lisa Hanf/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Cc: "Eric C. Massey" <Massey.Eric@azdeq.gov>, Trevor Baggiore <Baggiore.Trevor@azdeq.gov>

Date: 07/06/2012 01:22 PM

Subject: Nogales PM2.5 SIP Issues

This area was designated Nonattainment based on 2006-2008 data. The 2009-2011 data shows only 2 

exceedances, which could qualify for redesignation to Attainment status. Note that the monitors are nonFEMs. ADEQ plans to install a TEOM by the end of 2012, but the SIP deadline is December 13, 2012. Is 

this area eleigible for a Determination of Attainment or a Clean Data Finding before December 2012? 

If not, should this plan be a Nonattainment Area Plan that models attainment by the end of 2011? or a 

later year? Or should the 2012 SIP be a Maintenance Plan?

A Section 179B "but for" analysis is not necessary for a PM2.5 Nonattainment Area SIP, since the area is 

not violating this NAAQS for 2009-2011. How can we anticipate international PM2.5 emissions in 2024 

that may interfere with the success of a Maintenance Plan? 

Diane L. Arnst, Attorney at Law

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Air Quality Division Planning Section Manager

1110 West Washington Street

Phoenix, AZ 85007

(602) 771-2375

Arnst.Diane@azdeq.gov
[No. 51264-1-I.

Division One.

June 14, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Bhupinder Singh, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-1-10489-2, George T. Mattson, J., entered October 15, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
### Follow-up on retirements Kevin Culligan to: cortney_higgins
03/11/2011 05:39 PM Cc: RobertJ Wayland, Bill Maxwell

1 Attachment

Chapter4.pdf

Cortney,

Bob asked me to follow up with you on how we generated the list of retired units. I have attached Chapter 4 of the IPM documentation for your reference, but I am including the
relevant info in the e-mail itself.

Table 4-1 (on page 4-2) explains our primary information sources. Most of our information
on retirements comes from Glob al New Energy's New Entrants Databse. We also obtain
additional information from sources and states when we get comment on IPM (such as during the NODA last fall). Also as noted in table 4-2 - we did not include units in the database if they'd reported to EIA multiple years of non-operation. While there were some updates in the Global New Energy database since we put out the NODA and some changes were made in response to the NODA itself, utilities have had an opportunity to comment on units that were treated as retired (e.g . not included in NEEDS) during the NODA process. They will get a similar opportunity during the comment period for the Toxics Rule. Hopefully this provides the clarification you were looking for.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 421 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 421

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Chinese 
 Communist Party should be held accountable for present day efforts of 
        knowingly and intentionally manipulating their currency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2023

 Mr. Santos submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Chinese 
 Communist Party should be held accountable for present day efforts of 
        knowingly and intentionally manipulating their currency.

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) condemns the Chinese Communist Party for knowingly and 
        intentionally manipulating its currency;
            (2) supports the actions by Former Secretary Mnuchin under 
        the Trump administration to engage with the International 
        Monetary Fund to eliminate the unfair competitive advantage 
        created by China in 2019; and
            (3) calls on the Biden administration to take similar 
        action to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable for 
        their present day efforts to manipulate their currency.
                                 <all>
```