alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 724 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To amend the Clean Air Act to remove the requirement for dealer certification 

of new light-duty motor vehicles. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR DEALER CERTIFICATION 

OF NEW LIGHT-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES. 

Section 207(h) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7541(h)) is 

amended— 

(1) by striking paragraph (1); and 

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 

(1) and (2), respectively. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
STATE EX REL. Dennis JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-0888

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 20, 2018

Reconsideration denied.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of

-- ) ) URS Federal Services, Inc. ) ) UnderContractNo. W56HZV-15-D-ER17 ) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 60809, 61110
Terry 

### L. Elling, Esq. Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq.

Holland & Knight LLP Tysons, VA Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney MAJ Deirdre K. Baker, JA CPT Harry M. Parent III, JA

Trial Attorneys SUMMARYBINDINGDECISION BYADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE D'ALESSANDRIS By ADR agreement approved by the Board on 22 November 2017, the parties requested that this appeal be decided by a onejudge "summaryproceeding with binding decision." The parties agreed that this "decision shall be final, conclusive, not subject to reconsideration or appeal, and may not be set aside, except for fraud." (ADR Agreement at 1, 3) This decision has no value as precedent and cannotbe cited in any other proceeding. The undersigned conducted a one-day evidentiary hearing on 10 April 2018 at the Board's offices in Falls Church, Virginia, after which the parties rested andpresented arguments. DECISION The appeals ofURS Federal Services, Inc. (URS) are denied. Based upon a review oftestimony at the evidentiary hearing and the record, we find that URS failed to satisfy its burden ofproofnecessary to recover in these appeals. Dated: 12 April 2018

DAYID D'ALESSANDRIS Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContractAppealsI certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Opinion and Decision ofthe Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals in ASBCA Nos. 60809, 61110, Appeals of URS Federal Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY 

### D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals
STATE of Louisiana v. Grover D. CANNON

No. 2018-KK-1846

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 20, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

Writ denied.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons.

While the trial judge in this matter is no doubt accomplished and well-versed in conducting criminal proceedings, I would grant and docket this matter to examine whether the colloquy between defendant and the trial court should be conducted in accord with procedures set forth in *State v. Touchet* , 1993-2839 (La. 9/6/94), 642 So.2d 1213. In my view, this Court is missing a valuable opportunity to provide guidance on the best practice for trial courts across the State in conducting hearings in this unprecedented area of the law. *See* *McCoy v. Louisiana* , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1500, 200 L.Ed.2d 821 (2018). Under the trial court's present ruling, the State will *183be present while the court poses questions to the defendant, with the possibility that defendant may disclose defense strategy or make inculpatory statements, thereby giving the State an unfair advantage. Again, while I find no error in the trial court's ruling and absolutely do not presume the trial court will commit error during its hearing, I simply believe this Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in this capital case in order to address this new frontier for all lower courts. *See generally* *Krogmann v. State* , 914 N.W.2d 293, 313-315 (Iowa 2018) (summarizing the development of this area of law from *Faretta* through *McCoy* ), *State v. Bridgewater* , 00-1529 (La. 1/15/02), 823 So.2d 877 (*on reh'g* ) (discussing a *Faretta* colloquy correctly conducted *ex parte* , pre-*McCoy* ), and *Faretta v. California* , 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) (recognizing a Sixth Amendment right to self-representation for a defendant who is "made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation").
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 23
            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
                                     BKD LLP

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8, File Numbers 333-03305, 333-03317 and 333-55680 of our
report dated February 25, 2005, on the consolidated financial statements of
United Bancorp, Inc. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for the years ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, which report is included in the Form 10-K/A,
amendment No. 2 of United Bancorp, Inc. and of our report dated February 25,
2005 on United Bancorp Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which report is
included in the Form 10-K/A, amendment No. 2 of United Bancorp Inc.


/S/ BKD LLP
-------------------------------------
Indianapolis, Indiana
October 11, 2005


                                     Page 7
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - multimedia_video(2)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149195(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(12)
              - arizona(8)
              - california(17)
              - colorado(5)
              - connecticut(3)
              - delaware(3)
              - district of columbia(2)
              - florida(8)
              - georgia(4)
              - hawaii(13)
              - idaho(3)
              - kansas(4)
              - kentucky(1)
              - louisiana(3)
              - maine(2)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(6)
              - minnesota(1)
              - mississippi(3)
              - montana(4)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(3)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(4)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(4)
              - north carolina(4)
              - north dakota(1)
              - ohio(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - (-)rhode island(2)
              - south carolina(3)
              - south dakota(47)
              - texas(5)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(2)
              - virginia(6)
              - washington(2)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(11)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        April 8, 2024        USGS Northeast Region: The Short Story

Featured Films and Shorts        August 28, 2017        Image of the Week: Gypsy Moth Infestation Continues in New England
Gabriel ESPINOSA, Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 3D17-2743

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Deborah PAPPION, DOC #522999, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-474

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 14.1**

** **

**Independent Auditor's Consent**

** **

                Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements ofRinker Group Limited on Form S-8 (file numbers 333-110647, 333-110648 and333-111156) of our report dated May 25, 2004 (except for Notes 37 and 38, as towhich the date is June 18, 2004), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-Fof Rinker Group Limited for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004.

 
| /s/ DELOITTE TOUCHE  TOHMATSU |
|-------------------------------|

 

 

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Chartered Accountants

 

Sydney, Australia

 

 

June 18, 2004

 

 

----
Exhibit 23.1

EX-23.1 CONSENTS OF EXPERTS AND COUNSEL

Consent of Registered Independent Public Accounting Firm

Board of Directors

Catcher Holdings, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm dated March 17, 2006 on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, shareholders equity, and cash flows for the year ended
December 31, 2005 and for the period since inception on March 31, 2004 to December 31, 2005, included in this Form 10-KSB, into the Companys previously filed Registration Statement (File No. 333-131304).



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ Stonefield Josephson, Inc.
|                              
|CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS  
|                              
|Los Angeles, California       
|March 29, 2006
# L_2022257EN.01000501.xml

| 5.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 257/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 257/5

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/1849

of 28 September 2022

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Peitzer Karpfen’ (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Peitzer Karpfen’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Peitzer Karpfen’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Peitzer Karpfen’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Peitzer Karpfen’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Peitzer Karpfen’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.7. – Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 September 2022.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 231, 15.6.2022, p. 37.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
**EXHIBIT 10.9**

 

March 10, 2003 

 

Timothy Conley 

4114 Cranford Circle 

San Jose, California 95124 

 

Re: Employment Agreement 

 

Dear Mr. Conley: 

 

Pursuant to our recent discussions, this letter memorializes the terms of your continued employment with Valicert, Inc. (the “Company”). 

 

1. Salary. Your salary is $171,000 on an annualized basis, less applicable withholding. 

 

2. Bonus. Immediately prior to the consummation of theMerger (as such term is defined in the Agreement and Plan of Reorganization and Merger dated February 18, 2003, by and among Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (“Tumbleweed”), Velocity Acquisition Sub, Inc., and the Company (the “MergerAgreement”)), you shall earn a bonus in the amount of $264,100, less applicable withholding (“Bonus”). 

 

3. Amendment of Stock Option Agreement. Your stock option agreement shall be amended (the “Option Amendment”) to providethat immediately prior to the consummation of the Merger (as such term is defined in the Merger Agreement), all unvested options held by you shall become fully vested, and the period of time in which you may exercise these options shall be extendedto two (2) years after your termination. A copy of the Option Amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

 

4. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the attached exhibit, constitutes the entire agreement between you and the Companyrelating to the specific subject matter hereof and supersedes prior negotiations, representations or agreements between you and the Company. 

 

5. Modification. This Agreement may only be modified or amended by a supplemental written agreement signed by you, an authorizedrepresentative of Tumbleweed and an authorized representative of the Company. 

 

6. Termination. If the Merger (as such term is defined in the Merger Agreement) is terminated and not consummated by the parties thereto, this Agreement shall immediately terminate, and theCompany shall not be obligated to confer any of the benefits described in paragraphs 2 and 3 above. This Agreement shall terminate upon consummation of the Merger (as such term is defined in the Merger Agreement). 

 

I agree that there is no other compensation or benefits in anyform to which I am entitled from the Company. 

 

 

Please signand date this letter on the space provided below to acknowledge your acceptance of the terms of this Agreement. 

 

Sincerely,

/s/    JOHN VIGOUROUX        

John Vigouroux

Chief Executive Officer

 

I agreeto and accept continued employment with Valicert, Inc. on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. 

 

Date:
  
3/17/03
     
/s/    TIMOTHYCONLEY
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - products_data(1)
              - products_publications(4)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - (-)news_other_news(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(4)
              - arizona(4)
              - california(5)
              - colorado(2)
              - delaware(1)
              - hawaii(19)
              - idaho(8)
              - illinois(2)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(2)
              - kentucky(2)
              - maine(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(9)
              - nevada(1)
              - ohio(1)
              - (-)oklahoma(2)
              - oregon(1)
              - south carolina(1)
              - south dakota(28)
              - texas(2)
              - utah(2)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(1)
              - wyoming(18)

## By Year

Center News        December 17, 2021        Rare Landsat Underfly Mobilizes Cal/Val Experts Globally

Center News        January 27, 2023        Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds geologic mapping in Oklahoma
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board
of Directors

Marchex, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-116867, 333-123753, 333-132957, 333-141797, 333-149790 and 333-158394) on Form S-8 of Marchex, Inc. of our reports dated March 9, 2010, with respect
to the consolidated balance sheets of Marchex, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity, and cash flows, for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2009, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which reports appear in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Marchex, Inc.



|                   
|-------------------
|/s/ KPMG LLP       
|                   
|Seattle, Washington
|March 9, 2010
Glenroy SALMON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1464

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned certifies that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                      |  |                                                                    
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 6, 2008 |  | /s/ Steven H. Holtzman                                             
|                      |  | Steven H. Holtzman                                                 
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal executive officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-2075

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota Eliseo Espinoza Rios, also known as * Fernando, * [Unpublished] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 22, 2004 Filed: November 8, 2004

___________ Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Eliseo Espinoza-Rios (Rios) appeals from the final judgment entered in the United States District Court 1 for the District of Minnesota upon appellant’s plea of guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 5,000 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court granted the government’s motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 for a downward departure based on substantial assistance, and-2- sentenced Rios below the 120-month statutory minimum to 65 months imprisonment, plus 5 years supervised release. For reversal, in a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues the district court erred in failing to grant a more substantial downward departure. Rios’s displeasure with the extent of the district court’s downward departure, however, is not reviewable. See United States v. Dutcher , 8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir. 1993). We have also reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny the request for substitute counsel.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 76 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 76

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1900 West Gray Street in Houston, Texas, as the ``Hazel Hainsworth 
                     Young Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2013

 Ms. Jackson Lee introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1900 West Gray Street in Houston, Texas, as the ``Hazel Hainsworth 
                     Young Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. HAZEL HAINSWORTH YOUNG POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1900 West Gray Street in Houston, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Hazel Hainsworth Young Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Hazel 
Hainsworth Young Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```