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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1382 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1382

  To amend section 1507 of title 18, United States Code, to establish 
   appropriate penalties for obstruction of justice by picketing or 
 parading in or near court buildings or residences of judges, jurors, 
                  witnesses, or other court officers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 27, 2023

  Mrs. Blackburn (for herself, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cruz, Mr. 
   Hagerty, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Rubio, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mrs. Britt, Mr. 
Wicker, and Mr. Boozman) introduced the following bill; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend section 1507 of title 18, United States Code, to establish 
   appropriate penalties for obstruction of justice by picketing or 
 parading in or near court buildings or residences of judges, jurors, 
                  witnesses, or other court officers.

    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 ``Protecting Our Supreme Court 
Justices Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY PICKETING OR PARADING.

    Section 1507 of title 18, United States Code, is amended, in the 
first undesignated paragraph, by striking ``one year'' and inserting 
``5 years''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Medical Discoveries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dierdra
J. Burgess, Controller, 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 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.

Dated: August 14, 2006                     /s/ Dierdra J. Burgess
                                           -----------------------------
                                           Dierdra J. Burgess
                                           Controller

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form
10-QSB 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-QSB or as a separate
disclosure document.
Placeholder for: 

Survey Data from Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase I1 Cooling 

Water Intake Structures. 

U.S. EPA 

Contained in CBI docket and not available for public review
FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: E.P.

CASE NO.: SC18-359

Supreme Court of Florida.

MARCH 27, 2018

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation filed by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, it is ordered that the Board's recommendation is disapproved by the Court. The Court would approve a conditional admission of no less than three years. The applicant shall not be admitted to The Florida Bar without *634the condition of a three-year probationary period.

A True Copy

Test:

John A. Tomasino Clerk, Supreme Court
# Official Journal C 90/8 Ma

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 90 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 628 March 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 90

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 628 March 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 90/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2019/C 90/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  ) | 6 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 90/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

2019/C 90/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  )

2

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty.

2

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Moses BLACK v. GONZALES MUNICIPAL POLICE DEPARTMENT and Gonzales Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board

NO. 2018-CC-C485

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 6, 2018

Denied.
Clarification and Additional Information about the Uncertainty Analysis Presented in Appendix B of the TSD for the Prop osal of Subpart I of the EPA GHG MRR May 27, 2010

The following questions were submitte d to EPA on May 10, 2010 during the public comment period from Laurie Beu, consultant to ISMI.

1. For the emission factors, it says "Dat a from a database containing industry

confidential business information were aver aged...", was this the data sanitized and submitted by SEMI in January? Was IPCC 2006 data also used or was it strictly the recently submitted data?

EPA Response: The emission factors for the va riant of the refined process category method that was analyzed in the uncertainty analysis and presented in the TSD (available in EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927) were developed using the 2006 IPCC database. This was not the data that was received in cooperation SEMI, as the analysis was comp leted before that data was provided.

2. In running the Monte Carlo simulation, it says that we assumed zero and 10%

relative errors around the cases where only one data entry was available. Did you have cases where only a few data entries were availabl e (>5) and what were your assumptions for those cases?

EPA Response : In general, the uncertainty of each emission factor representing a refined process category was calculate d based on the standard deviation 1 of the emission factors measured for that proce ss category in the 2006 IPCC dataset (see section B.2, page 25, of the TSD). The ex ception was when a standard deviation couldn't be calculated because just one datu m was available. In that case two runs were conducted. For one run, zero percen t relative error was assumed around

these factors and for the other run 10% re lative error was assumed per the ISMI

Guidelines. The difference in results between these two runs based on these different assumptions was inconsequentia l (see section B.3, page 28, of the TSD).

3. Also, for the Monte Carlo simulation, we would like to understand the model from which you are generating data, in cluding which terms in that model are stochastically generated and which are fixed. We would like to know the

exact distributions used for the stochastic terms.

EPA Response: During the Monte Carlo simula tion of errors in calculated emissions, errors in EFs (both proces s utilization and by-product formation factors) were assumed to be log normally distributed for both the Tier 2b and

Refined Methods.

1 In the uncertainty analysis, the 95% confidence inte rvals presented in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for the Tier 2b emission factors were divided by two so that they would be comparable to the uncertainties calculated for the emission factors for the refined process method, which are standard deviations.
EXHIBIT
      31





CERTIFICATION


SECTION
      1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      302 OF THE SARBANES - OXLEY


ACT
      OF
      2002








I,
      John
      A. Dugan, CEO, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of SFG Financial Corporation
      (the "Registrant");





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this Quarterly 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 quarterly report;





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information
      included in this Quarterly Report fairly present in all material respects
      the financial condition, and results of operations of the Registrant as of,
      and
      for, the periods presented in this Quarterly Report.





4.
      I am
      are responsible for establishing
      and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
      Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and have:





a)
      Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures to insure that material
      information relating to the Registrant is made known to us, particularly
      during the period in which this Quarterly Report is being prepared;





b)
      Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
      Quarterly Report the (the "Evaluation Date"); and





c)
      Presented
      in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about the effectiveness
      of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
      as of the Evaluation Date;





5.
      I have
      disclosed, based upon our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors
      and the Registrant's board of directors:




a)
      All
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
      which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial data and have identified
      for the auditor's any material weaknesses in internal controls;
      and





b)
      Any fraud,
      whether or not material, that involves management or others who
      have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls; and





6.
      The
      Registrant's other director and I have indicated in this Quarterly Report whether
      or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors
      that could significantly affect changes in internal controls subsequent to
      the
      date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard
      to
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.




**SFG
              FINANCIAL CORPORATION**Date: January
              23, 2007
            By:
            /s/ John
              A.
              DuganChairman/CEO,
              Director
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION(Not filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, the undersigned, Steven D. Foster, the Chief Financial Officer of Parallel PetroleumCorporation (“Parallel”), hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Parallel forthe quarter ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the periodic reporting requirements of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in that Form 10-Q Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofParallel.Dated:November 8, 2006              /s/ Steven D. Foster   Steven D. Foster,   Chief Financial Officer        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toParallel Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Parallel Petroleum Corporation and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Seitel, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert D. Monson, President and Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 9, 2011/s/

Robert D. MonsonRobert D. Monson
President and Principal Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement, required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00490-CR

Boyd Zuniga, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 3030719, HONORABLE FRED A. MOORE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant Boyd Zuniga guilty of indecency with a child by contact. See

Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 21.11 (West 2003). The jury assessed punishment at eight years’

imprisonment.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to

examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
2

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

___________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: June 23, 2005

Do Not Publish
Clarence WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-315

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports datedDecember 1, 2008, with respect to the financial statements and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Pharmasset, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2008. We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statement of Pharmasset, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-142630, effective May 4, 2007) and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-151749, effective June 26, 2008).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

December 11, 2008
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

The undersigned, Kenneth Williams, in the capacitiesand on the date indicated below, hereby certifies that pursuant to 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 this Annual Report on Amendment No. 1 to Form20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 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 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: December 31, 2013

 

By:         /s/ Kenneth Williams

Name:    Kenneth Williams

Title:      Director, Chairman, President and Chief Executive andOperating Officer and Secretary

(Principal Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial Officer)

 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Gary D. Woerz, President and CFO
of International American Technologies, Inc, a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the
following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
with respect to the following of this quarterly report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
ended December 31, 2006.

The undersigned certifies that the above annual
report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and information contained in the above annual report fairly presents, in all
respects, the financial condition of International American Technologies, Inc. and results
of its operations.

Date: May 4, 2006
Gary D. Woerz
Chief Financial Officer and President/s/ Gary D. Woerz
S/1a CQC

Water Heater Energy

Conservation Standards

Public Hearing

June 20, 2000

r')

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 120CC
T Vent System Modifications

* Type-B vent connectors

* Reline masonry chimneys

* Costs?

* Where required? : : - '

- Maximum RE allowed?

- Which houses?

- What percent of houses?

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 120CC
Size Constraints

m Fraction of market affected

m Impacts

- space too small

- low boys & table top units

- cost of larger drain pans

- additional plumbing costs for larger tanks

* Alternative approaches to maintain

consumer utility ?

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 120CC
* Propane water heaters?

* Lowboy and tabletop water heaters?

* Instantaneous water heaters?

SP\~i

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 120CC
Costs and Efficiency

Improvements

· Heat traps

* Flue baffles

for gas water heaters

* Tank-bottom insulation

on electric water heaters

X Thicker insulation

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 120CC
Daily Hot Water Usage

* Gas vs. Electric

* RECS-97 Data

, Impacts of clothes washer standards.

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 120CC
Oil-Fired Water Heaters

Are cost-effective improvements to oilfired water heaters possible?

'»~ .T

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 120CC
Blowing Agents

* Availability

- production capacity

- dates

* Costs

* Single source

* Global Warming Potential (GWP)

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 120CC
Energy Factor Rating

* EF overrating of high efficiency electric

water heaters

* WATSIM accuracy

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 120CC
AMarket Shar

* Current market shares

* Trends for market shares

* Implicit discount rates

* RECS97

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 120CC
* Correlation of cost and price data

- 1 model for manufacturer cost

- Many models for retail price

* methodology

- Retail prices + by manufacturer cost (NOPR)

- Standard markup factors (Battelle)

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 120CC
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

* What is band of insignificance?

* What is the appropriate fraction of population

that should benefit from standards?

* Is lifetime too low for gas WH's?

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 120CC
Iifective Date of

New Standard

* Is the new standard to be effective three or

five years after promulgation?

* Because of uncertainties about the

availability of HFC-245fa should DOE delay

effective date of standards?

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 120CC
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 6783

GARY LEE SMITH

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

OFFICER J. AITA; SALISBURY CITY

,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

SALISBURY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; PFC J. SANDER, #1122; PFC J. DIMARE; PFC J. BURT,

Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Catherine C. Blake , District Judge. ( 8:14

- cv

- 03487

- CCB )

Submitted : January 31, 2018 Decided: February 14, 2018

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Gary Lee Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Ernest I. Cornbrooks IV, KARPINSKI, COLARESI & KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Gary Lee Smith appeals the district court ’s order dismissing in part his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2012) complaint for failure to state a claim

. We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Smith v. Aita , No. 8:14

- cv

- 03487

- CCB (D. Md. July 12, 201 6 ) . We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentio ns are adequately presented in the materials

before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Michael E. WATTS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3857

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.