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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 828 

Recognizing the end of the COVID–19 pandemic for Federal employees, 

servicemembers, and contractors. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 11, 2022 

Mr. REED (for Mr. LANKFORD) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the end of the COVID–19 pandemic for Federal 

employees, servicemembers, and contractors. 

Whereas, on September 18, 2022, President Biden said ‘‘the 

pandemic is over’’; 

Whereas, since January 2021, in the United States, reported 

COVID–19 cases and hospitalizations have decreased by 

more than 75 percent and reported COVID–19-related 

deaths have decreased by almost 90 percent; and 

Whereas, as of June 2022, 6,137 servicemembers had been 

discharged from service due to non-compliance with the 

COVID–19 vaccine requirement: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) the President should remove all COVID–19 

3 vaccine, testing, masking, and social distancing reVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:29 Oct 12, 2022 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SR828.IS SR828

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 828 IS 

1 quirements on all Federal employees, 

2 servicemembers, and contractors; 

3 (2) all members of the Armed Forces who chose 

4 not to receive the COVID–19 vaccine and were re5 lieved or discharged because of that choice should be 

6 reinstated and allowed to perform the same duties 

7 that those individuals performed before being so re8 lieved or discharged; and 

9 (3) all Federal employees and contractors who 

10 chose not to receive the COVID–19 vaccine and were 

11 disciplined or restricted in their duties in any way 

12 because of that choice should be allowed to resume 

13 their typical duties without limitation. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer
       Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


       Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the
undersigned, Joseph L. Castle II, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Castle Energy Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

I.     The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the three months ended March
       31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
       13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

II.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
       respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
       Company.


Dated:   May 13, 2005                               /S/JOSEPH L. CASTLE II
      ------------------------------                ----------------------------
                                                    Joseph L. Castle II
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Castle Energy Corporation and will be retained by Castle Energy
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Frankie Earl MILLER, petitioner, v. MINNESOTA.

No. 13-6451.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Minnesota denied.
# Jornal Oficial C 8/9 de

| | ISSN 1977-1010 |
| --- | --- |
| Jornal Oficial
  da União Europeia | C 8 |
| | |
| Edição em língua portuguesa | Comunicações e Informações | 62.° ano9 de janeiro de 2019 |

ISSN 1977-1010

Jornal Oficial

da União Europeia

C 8

Edição em língua portuguesa

Comunicações e Informações

62.° ano9 de janeiro de 2019

---

| Índice | Página |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Avisos |
| | PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS |
| | Parlamento Europeu |
| 2019/C 8/01 | Decisão | 1 |

Índice

Página

V   Avisos

PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Parlamento Europeu

2019/C 8/01

Decisão

1

---

| PT | |
| --- | --- |

PT

---

V Avisos

PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Parlamento Europeu

| 9.1.2019 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | C 8/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2019

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

C 8/1

---

DECISÃO

(2019/C 8/01)

O SECRETÁRIO-GERAL DO PARLAMENTO EUROPEU,

| — | TENDO EM CONTA o Regulamento (CEE, Euratom, CECA) n.o 259/68 do Conselho (1), com a última redação que lhe foi dada pelo Regulamento (UE, Euratom) n.o 1023/2013 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 22 de outubro de 2013, que altera o Estatuto dos Funcionários da União Europeia e o Regime Aplicável aos Outros Agentes da União Europeia (2), e, designadamente, o artigo 30.o deste Estatuto, |
| --- | --- |

—

TENDO EM CONTA o Regulamento (CEE, Euratom, CECA) n.o 259/68 do Conselho (1), com a última redação que lhe foi dada pelo Regulamento (UE, Euratom) n.o 1023/2013 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 22 de outubro de 2013, que altera o Estatuto dos Funcionários da União Europeia e o Regime Aplicável aos Outros Agentes da União Europeia (2), e, designadamente, o artigo 30.o deste Estatuto,

| — | TENDO EM CONTA a decisão da Mesa do Parlamento Europeu, de 13 de janeiro de 2014, relativa à delegação de poderes da entidade competente para proceder a nomeações e da entidade habilitada a concluir contratos de admissão, |
| --- | --- |

—

TENDO EM CONTA a decisão da Mesa do Parlamento Europeu, de 13 de janeiro de 2014, relativa à delegação de poderes da entidade competente para proceder a nomeações e da entidade habilitada a concluir contratos de admissão,

| — | TENDO EM CONTA a expiração, em 31 de dezembro de 2018, das seguintes listas de reserva do Parlamento Europeu:
  AD/1/13, AST/4/11, AST/1/13, PE/168/S, PE/171/S, PE/185/S, PE/186/S; |
| --- | --- |

—

TENDO EM CONTA a expiração, em 31 de dezembro de 2018, das seguintes listas de reserva do Parlamento Europeu:

AD/1/13, AST/4/11, AST/1/13, PE/168/S, PE/171/S, PE/185/S, PE/186/S;

| — | TENDO EM CONTA o parecer da Comissão Paritária emitido na sua reunião de 24 de outubro de 2018, |
| --- | --- |

—

TENDO EM CONTA o parecer da Comissão Paritária emitido na sua reunião de 24 de outubro de 2018,

DECIDE

Artigo único

O prazo de validade das listas de reserva:

AD/1/13, AST/4/11, AST/1/13, PE/168/S, PE/171/S, PE/185/S, PE/186/S

é prorrogado até 31 de dezembro de 2019.

Luxemburgo, em 30 de novembro de 2018.

Klaus WELLE

Secretário-Geral

---

(1)  JO L 56 de 4.3.1968, p. 1.

1

(2)  JO L 287 de 29.10.2013, p. 15.

2

---
EXHIBIT 5

Manually 

Filed

Case 3:16-cv-07222-SK Document 78-5 Filed 12/31/18 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12422]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-292-000]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

May 16, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 12, 1995, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) submitted for filing with the Commission 
pursuant to Section 154.1(a) of the Commission's regulations the 
following tariff sheets (Rate Schedules X-132 and X-133) to its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 2, effective as follows:

To Be Effective November 1, 1993

First Revised Sheet Nos. 1567 through 1601

To Be Effective January 1, 1994

Second Revised Sheet No. 1570
Second Revised Sheet No. 1590

    Columbia states that it provides service from its Chesapeake LNG 
facility to three customers pursuant to Rate Schedules X-131, X-132 and 
X-133. Columbia states that changes were made to the subject X-Rate 
Schedules effective November 1, 1993, as a result of Columbia's 
compliance with and implementation of Order No. 636 effective November 
1, 1993. All parties to the subject revised X-Rate Schedules have been 
performing pursuant to their terms since November 1, 1993, the 
effective date Columbia's implementation of Order No. 636. Second 
Revised Sheet Nos. 1570 and 1590 reflect a minor rate reduction 
effective January 1, 1994, as part of Columbia's compliance with Order 
No. 636. Columbia is submitting Rate Schedules X-132 and X-133 at this 
time since they have been executed, and states that it will submit Rate 
Schedule X-131 when executed by the customer.
    Columbia also notes that some of Rate Schedule X-132's delivery 
points were eliminated as a result of Columbia's assigning upstream 
capacity in its Order No. 636 restructuring, and requests a waiver of 
compliance with any Commission requirements in part 157 of its 
regulations with respect to that specific amendment to Rate Schedule X-
132.
    Columbia states that copies of its filing have been mailed to each 
of its Original Volume No. 2 tariff holders, firm customers and 
interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with 
Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. 
All such motions or protests must be filed on or before May 23, 1995. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashel,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12422 Filed 5-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      14,855,602
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,238,788
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,212,336
<PP&E>                                         201,486
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,955,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,984,258
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       151,128
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,785,836
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,955,309
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,149,707
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,109,691)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,109,691)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,109,691)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)


</TABLE>
**
**EXHIBIT 31**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Ron Hooper, certifythat: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sabine Royalty Trust,for which Simmons Bank acts as Trustee; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact 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 allmaterial respects the financial condition, distributable income and changes in trust corpus of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), or for causing such controls and proceduresto be established and maintained, for the registrant and I have: 

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

b) Designed such internal controlover financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my 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 occurredduring 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 controlover financial reporting; and 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors: 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation 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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 
By: /s/ Ron Hooper
Ron Hooper

SVP, Royalty Trust Management

Simmons Bank

Date: November 6, 2020 
**
EXHIBIT 11.1

STATEMENT AND COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



|                                          |  |                                  |  |                                  |      |        |       |                   |   |     
|----------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------- | ---- | ------ | ----- | ----------------- | - | ----
|                                          |  | Three Months EndedMarch 31, 2007 |  | Three Months EndedMarch 31, 2006
|                                          |  | Shares                           |  | EarningsPer Share                |      | Shares |       | EarningsPer Share
|                                          |  | (in Thousands)                   |  | (in Thousands)                  
|Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  | 7,182                            |  | $                                | 0.34 |        | 7,170 |                   | $ | 0.32
|                                          |  |                                  |  |                                  |      |        |       |                   |   |     
|Diluted                                   |  |                                  |  |                                  |      |        |       |                   |   |     
|Average Shares Outstanding                |  | 7,182                            |  |                                  |      |        | 7,170 |                   |   |     
|Common Stock Equivalents                  |  | 13                               |  |                                  |      |        | 3     |                   |   |     
|                                          |  |                                  |  |                                  |      |        |       |                   |   |     
|                                          |  | 7,195                            |  | $                                | 0.34 |        | 7,173 |                   | $ | 0.32
|                                          |  |                                  |  |                                  |      |        |       |                   |   |
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 23, 2009 

s0615 

Order 

 

June 23, 2009 

137674 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137674 

 COA: 284697 

Wayne CC: 00-004818-FH 

JOHNNIE JASPER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Bernave MORENO-CARASCO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10289.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

JESSICA ELIZABETH THOMAS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 4:12-CV-73 

)

RYAN C. FRENCH, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich, filed on

December 18, 2014 (DE #39). Judge Rodovich has recommended that

this matter be dismissed because Plaintiff, Jessica Elizabeth

Thomas, has displayed continuous contumacious conduct as described

more fully in the body of the Report and Recommendation. In

essence, Thomas has disregarded and failed to comply with this

Court’s orders despite repeated warnings of possible sanctions. 

The Report and Recommendation itself explains that the failure to

file a timely objection to its contents will result in the waiver

of the right to challenge it before this Court or the Court of

Appeals. See Willis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904

(1999). Neither party has filed an objection to date, and the time

period for doing so has passed. 
Therefore, upon due consideration, the Court hereby ADOPTS the

Report and Recommendation (DE #39). Accordingly, this matter is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this

case. 

DATED: January 6, 2015 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

2
Steven Scott SAMUELSON, petitioner, v. MINNESOTA.

No. 12-9822.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

WILLIAM BOGAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-256

)

KAWASAKI MOTORS CORPORATION, )

USA, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case was filed by Plaintiff William Bogan based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 1.) Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

alleging that “[a]t all relevant times, Plaintiff William Bogan was a resident of Huntington

County, Indiana, and is a citizen of the United States.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, however, is inadequate for purposes of establishing

diversity jurisdiction. As explained in this Court’s Order dated August 28, 2013 (Docket # 4),

the “residency” of the Plaintiff is meaningless for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, as state

“citizenship is what matters.” Guar. Nat’l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th

Cir. 1996) (explaining that statements concerning a party’s “residency” are not proper

allegations of citizenship as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332)

An individual’s state of citizenship “is the state of the individual’s domicile.” Galva

Foundry Co. v. Heiden, 924 F.2d 729, 730 (7th Cir. 1991); see Dausch v. Rykse, 9 F.3d 1244,

1245 (7th Cir. 1993) (“For natural persons, state citizenship is determined by one’s domicile.”);

see also Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (“But residence

1

case 1:13-cv-00256-WCL-RBC document 7 filed 08/30/13 page 1 of 2
may or may not demonstrate citizenship, which depends on domicile—that is to say, the state in

which a person intends to live over the long run.”); Am.’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene,

L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992) (“In federal law citizenship means domicile, not

residence.”). 

For this reason, Plaintiff is ORDERED to filed an amended complaint forthwith that

properly articulates each party’s state of citizenship.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 30th day of August, 2013.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

2

case 1:13-cv-00256-WCL-RBC document 7 filed 08/30/13 page 2 of 2