alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the reference to our firm in the following Registration Statements
on Form S-8

        No. 333-47165 pertaining to the Precision Tune Stock Option Plan
        No. 333-47169 pertaining to the Precision Auto Care Employee Stock
            Option Plan
        No. 333-47171 pertaining to the Precision Auto Care, Inc. Director Stock
            Option Plan
No. 333-85877 pertaining to the Precision Auto Care, Inc. 1998 Outside
    Directors' Stock Option Plan
No. 333-85879 pertaining to the Precision Auto Care, Inc. 1999 Employee Stock
    Option and Restricted Stock Plan
No. 333-39226 pertaining to the Precision Auto Care, Inc. 2000 Outside
    Directors' Stock Plan

and to the use of our report dated September 8, 2000 (except Note 15, as to
which the date is October 11, 2000), included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Precision Auto Care, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2000, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and schedule, as amended, included in this
Form 10-K/A.



                                                               Ernst & Young LLP


March 19, 2001
McLean, Virginia

                                      64
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1374 

KA 13-01850 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RANDY JOHNSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.)

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ALAN WILLIAMS OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Genesee County Court (Robert C.

Noonan, J.), entered September 26, 2013. The order directed defendant

to pay restitution of $18,828.75, plus surcharge, to the Genesee

County Department of Social Services. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously modified on the law by vacating that part directing

defendant to pay restitution to Genesee County Department of Social

Services for expenses of foster care placement in the amount of

$7,378.00 and the surcharge thereon in the amount of $368.90, and as

modified the order is affirmed. 

Same Memorandum as in People v Johnson ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d

___ [Feb. 6, 2015]). 

Entered: February 6, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed November 5, 2012.

In The

Qnitrt of A.qnmts

FiftIi Iitrirt of ixaa at at1a

No. 05-I 1-00531-CR

AEFONSO A. ZUNIGA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-62078-P

OPINION

Before Justices O’Neill, FitzGerald, and Lang-Miers

Opinion By Justice Lang-Miers

A jury convicted appellant Alfonso A. Zuniga of aggravated sexual assault with a deadly

weapon and assessed punishment at life in prison. In one issue on appeal appellant complains that

the trial court failed to administer the jury oath. We resolve appellant’s sole issue against him and

affirm.

Appellant argues that the verdict in this case is void because it was rendered by an unsworn

jury. There are two references to the jury oath in the reporter’s record. First, after the conclusion

of voir dire on a Wednesday, the trial court told the jury that he would swear them in on the

following Monday morning, when the trial was scheduled to begin:
THE COURT: . . . I need to swear you in.

THE COURT: Does either side mind if I swear them in Monday morning?

The State j: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. So with that said. i’ll let the bailiffs show you where

you need to go, and I will swear you in Monday morning.

Second. when the proceedings resumed on Monday, the trial court stated that it swore (he jury in on

the previous Wednesday:

[The State]: I think, Judge, that the record should reflect, I believe, on

Friday aftemoom--- I’m not sure if the record reflects this, but

I believe that the Court swore in the jury Friday afternoon

or----

THE COURT: Idid,

[The State]: ---or Wednesday.

TKE COURT: Yes.

[The State]: So this jury is sworn.

Unless it is disputed at trial or the record affirmatively shows to the contrary, we are required

to presume that the jury was properly impaneled and sworn. TEx. R. App. P. 44.2(c)(2). Based on

the passages quoted above, appellant argues that the record affirmatively shows that no oath was

given. We disagree. Although a transcription ofthe oath is not part ofthe reporter’s record, the trial

court stated on the record that the oath was administered. In addition, the judgment states, “A jury

was selected, impaneled, and sworn.” In this case we are required to presume that the jury was

properly impaneled and sworn because the issue was not disputed at trial and the record does not

affirmatively show that the jury was not sworn. See id. We resolve appellant’s sole issue against

—7—
hun and affirm.

Do Not Publish

TEx. R. APP. P.47

1 1053 IFIJ05
(vttrt uf Apictti

fiftI! htrtrt uf !Jrxai at a11a;

JUDGMENT

ALFONSO A. ZUNIGA, Appellant

No. 05-1 1-00531-CR V.

TIlE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District

Court of Dallas County. Texas. (Tr.Ct.No.

F09-6207-P).

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,

Justices O’Neill and FitzGerald

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered November 5, 2012.

z;.i

/ F /

//

- — -

/ —

4.LIZ&BETH LA’NC-M11JS

JUS4iCE
Case 5:04-cv-00263-C Document 19 Filed 10/27/05 Page 1 of 11 PageID 54
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00263-C Document 19 Filed 10/27/05 Page 2 of 11 PageID 55
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00263-C Document 19 Filed 10/27/05 Page 3 of 11 PageID 56
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00263-C Document 19 Filed 10/27/05 Page 4 of 11 PageID 57
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00263-C Document 19 Filed 10/27/05 Page 5 of 11 PageID 58
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00263-C Document 19 Filed 10/27/05 Page 6 of 11 PageID 59
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00263-C Document 19 Filed 10/27/05 Page 7 of 11 PageID 60
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00263-C Document 19 Filed 10/27/05 Page 8 of 11 PageID 61
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00263-C Document 19 Filed 10/27/05 Page 9 of 11 PageID 62
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00263-C Document 19 Filed 10/27/05 Page 10 of 11 PageID 63
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00263-C Document 19 Filed 10/27/05 Page 11 of 11 PageID 64
STATE of Louisiana v. Pharaoh BRAZELL

NO. 2018-KO-0868

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

Denied.
T.S. v. CHEROKEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160506

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 14, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00751]

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of Commission public business meeting.

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

DATES: Friday, January 17, 2025, 10:00 a.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: Meeting to take place by telephone and is open to the public 
via livestream on the Commission's YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/user/USCCR/videos.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Kim: 202-376-7700; 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Government in 
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), the Commission on Civil Rights is holding 
a meeting to discuss the Commission's business for the month of 
January. This business meeting is open to the public. Computer assisted 
real-time transcription (CART) will be provided. The web link to access 
CART (in English) on Friday, January 17, 2025, is https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=USCCR. Please note that CART is text-
only translation that occurs in real time during the meeting and is not 
an exact transcript.

Meeting Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Business Meeting
    A. Discussion and Vote on FY 2025 Topic for USCCR Briefing Report 
on Mental Health Juvenile Justice
    B. Discussion and Vote FY 2026 Topic for USCCR Statutory 
Enforcement Report on Antisemitism on College Campuses
    C. Discussion and Vote on Report: The Federal Role in Enforcing 
Religious Freedoms in Prisons
    D. Management and Operations
     Staff Director's Report
III. Adjourn Meeting

    Dated: January 10, 2025.
David Mussatt,
USCCR Chief Regional Programs Unit.
[FR Doc. 2025-00751 Filed 1-10-25; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
Order entered October 18, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00182-CR

CHRISTOPHER LOWELL EMERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MB1449199-G

ORDER

We GRANT the State’s October 17, 2017 “Second Motion for Extension of Time to File 

State’s Brief” and ORDER the brief tendered to the Clerk of the Court contemporaneously with 

the motion filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
Exhibit 23.2





PWC — Gaveglio, Aparicio y Asociados S. Civil de R. L.





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No.333-215029) and Form S-8 (No.333-58298, No.333-129152, No.333-147448, No.333-161459, No.333-168588 and No.333-183142) of Belmond Ltd. and subsidiaries of our report dated April 24, 2019 relating to the financial statements of Perurail S.A., which appears in this Form 10- K/A Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Belmond Ltd.











Gaveglio, Aparicio y Asociados S. Civil de R. L.


Lima, Peru


April 24, 2019











Countersigned by:/s/ Francisco PatiñoFrancisco PatiñoPeruvian Certified Public AccountantRegister No. 01-25611
Hudes Ricky FREDERICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3324

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 20 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 20

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy 
    relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 
    Standards for Consumer Gas-fired Instantaneous Water Heaters''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2025

  Mr. Palmer (for himself, Mr. Burlison, Ms. Letlow, Mr. Collins, Mr. 
Weber of Texas, Mrs. Bice, Mr. Moore of Alabama, Mr. Ogles, Ms. Tenney, 
  Mr. Fulcher, Mr. Bergman, Mr. Crenshaw, Mrs. Fischbach, Mr. Hurd of 
  Colorado, and Mr. Baird) submitted the following joint resolution; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy 
    relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 
    Standards for Consumer Gas-fired Instantaneous Water Heaters''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to ``Energy 
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Gas-
fired Instantaneous Water Heaters'' (89 Fed. Reg. 105188 (December 26, 
2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016364EN.01002602.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/26

---

Action brought on 10 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Freundin)

(Case T-452/16)

(2016/C 364/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Beste Freundin’ — Application for registration No 14 169 916

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 in Case R 96/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1619

___________________________

Justin Neill lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Dr. Roberto Saez; Nurse Shawna Stephens; Nurse Jessie Prince; Nurse Fran Infante

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

____________ Submitted: October 5, 2020 Filed: October 8, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, inmate Justin Neill challenges the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment. Viewing the summary judgment record

1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.in a light most favorable to Neill, and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor,

see Brewington v. Keener, 902 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir. 2018) (de novo review), we agree that summary judgment was appropriate. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
# C_2018013EN.01001101.xml

| 15.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/11

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Kathrin Meyer v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-196/17) (1)

1

(2018/C 013/16)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

1

---
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Essential Health Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Mariana Valerio, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>GEICO Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Law Office of Gregory A. Goodman, P.C. (Gregory A. Goodman, Esq.), for appellant.Short &amp; Billy, P.C. (Skip Short, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated January 26, 2016. The order, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitrator's award dated July 17, 2015 in which GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator's award, denied the petition and granted the cross petition.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitrator's award, dated July 17, 2015 which upheld the award of an arbitrator, rendered pursuant to Insurance Law ยง 5106 (b), denying petitioner's claims to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator's award. The District Court denied the petition and granted the cross petition.</p><p>Upon a review of the record, we find that the determination of the master arbitrator had a rational basis and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to settled law (<i>see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. &amp; Sur. Co.</i>, 89 NY2d 214 [1996]; <i>Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.]</i>, 54 NY2d 207 [1981]; <i>Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.]</i>, 74 AD2d 442 [1980]). Consequently, the District Court properly denied the petition to vacate the master <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>arbitrator's award and granted the cross petition to confirm the award.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>We note that a special proceeding should terminate in a judgment, not an order (<i>see</i> CPLR 411).</p><p>MARANO, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: August 17, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v. BENNY GENARO TREJO , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 16

- 0644 PRPC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012

- 150337

- 001 The Honorable Mark H. Brain , Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENI ED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Adena J. Astrowsky Counsel for Respondent Benny Genaro Trejo, Eloy Petitioner FILED 10-12-2017STATE v. TREJO Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge James P. Beene, Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the f ollowing decision.

PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Benny Genaro Trejo seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is Petitioner ’ s first petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It i s petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discr etion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. W e find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
DOLGENCORP, LLC v. Howard Wade LUTTRELL

1150981

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**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 Lakeside Mortgage Fund, LLC (the
“Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, James S. Koenig, President and Chief Executive Officer of Lakeside Financial
      Group, Inc., the Manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
      to
      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 result of operations of the Company.








Dated:
                November 14, 2007
            /S/James
                S. Koenig,President
                of ManagerLakeside
                Financial Group, Inc.
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 63 

To prohibit Federal funds from being awarded or otherwise made available 

to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona (for himself, Mr. CRANE, Mr. BRECHEEN, and Mrs. 

LUNA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal funds from being awarded or otherwise 

made available to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Accountability for 

5 Lawless Violence In our Neighborhoods Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘ALVIN Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING WITH RE8 SPECT TO MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY. 

9 (a) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING.—Notwith10 standing any other provision of law, no Federal funds may 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 63 IH

1 be awarded or otherwise made available to the Manhattan 

2 District Attorney’s Office. 

3 (b) RECISION AND REPAYMENT OF FEDERAL FUND4 ING.—The unobligated balances of all amounts allocated 

5 for or otherwise made available to the Manhattan District 

6 Attorney’s Office is hereby rescinded, and the Attorney 

7 General shall take such steps as may be necessary and 

8 practicable to require the Manhattan District Attorney’s 

9 Office to reimburse the Federal Government for all 

10 amounts expended for such Office after the date of Janu11 ary 1, 2022. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Tearra Lashe DAVIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4197

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 15 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 15

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy 
    relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 
          Standards for Commercial Water Heating Equipment''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2025

    Mr. Messmer submitted the following joint resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy 
    relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 
          Standards for Commercial Water Heating Equipment''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
final rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to ``Energy 
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial 
Water Heating Equipment'' (88 Fed. Reg. 69686 (October 6, 2023)), and 
such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```