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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5566 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5566

 To amend the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 to provide for a temporary 
    increase in the maximum loan guaranty amount for housing loans 
            guaranteed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 2008

Mrs. Capito (for herself, Mrs. Biggert, and Mr. Bachus) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 to provide for a temporary 
    increase in the maximum loan guaranty amount for housing loans 
            guaranteed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN MAXIMUM LOAN GUARANTY AMOUNT FOR 
              HOUSING LOANS GUARANTEED BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS.

    Section 201(a) of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (Public Law 
110-185; 122 Stat. 613) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new paragraph:
            ``(3) VA guaranteed housing loans.--Notwithstanding 
        subparagraph (C) of section 3703(a)(1) of title 38, United 
        States Code, for purposes of any loan described in that section 
        for which the mortgagee issues a loan commitment during the 
        period beginning on February 13, 2008, and ending at the end of 
        December 31, 2008, the term `maximum guaranty amount' means the 
        dollar amount that is equal to 25 percent of the amount 
        determined under paragraph (2) of this subsection for a 
        residence of the applicable size located in the area in which 
        the residence for which the loan is made is located.''.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2016297EN.01000901.xml

| 4.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 297/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 297/9

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1920

of 19 October 2016

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Hånnlamb (PDO))

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, Sweden's application to register the name ‘Hånnlamb’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Sweden's application to register the name ‘Hånnlamb’ 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 ‘Hånnlamb’ 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 ‘Hånnlamb’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Hånnlamb’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.1. Fresh meat (and offal), 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, 19 October 2016.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

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

1

(2)  
  OJ C 239, 1.7.2016, p. 22.

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

---
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2013 (the Report) of APOLLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION (the Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, JAMES C. ZELTER, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Registrant.



| |  |                       |  | 
| |  | --------------------- |  | 
| |  |                      
| |  | /s/ JAMES C. ZELTER   |  | 
| |  | Name: James C. Zelter |  | 
| |  | Date: August 8, 2013  |  | 



72
STATE of North Carolina v. John Edward McCOLLUM.

No. 39P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2005.

John Edward McCollum, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kenneth W. Honeycutt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 29th day of November 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2005."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5520 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5520

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on ceiling fans for 
                        permanent installation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 2008

  Mr. Cohen introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on ceiling fans for 
                        permanent installation.

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

SECTION 1. CEILING FANS FOR PERMANENT INSTALLATION.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.84.14 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking the date in the 
effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
H. R. 5472 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2650 Dr. 

Martin Luther King Jr. Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ‘‘Julia M. Carson 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JULIA M. CARSON POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 2650 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Julia M. 

Carson 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 ‘‘Julia M. Carson Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
STATE v. Milton Leroy LAWRENCE.

No. 122P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Seth Edwards, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of August 2005 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review Under G.S. 7A-31(c)":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 18th day of August 2005."
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY RAY HANNA.

No. COA05-517

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed December 6, 2005

This case not for publication

Mecklenburg County Nos. 03 CRS 15630; 03 CRS 209648.

*Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Thomas J. Pitman, for the State.*

*Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Matthew D. Wunsche, for defendant.*

TYSON, Judge.

Larry Ray Hanna ("defendant") appeals judgment sentencing him to 116 to 149 months imprisonment for possession of marijuana and having obtained habitual felon status. We find no error.

**I. Background**

On 10 March 2003, defendant was charged with: (1) possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana; (2) maintaining a place to keep controlled substances; (3) trafficking in cocaine; (4) possession of drug paraphernalia; (5) secretly peeping into a room occupied by a female person; and (6) being an habitual felon.

On 19 July 2004, the Mecklenburg County grand jury returned a superceding indictment for the charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana. On 26 July 2004, pursuant to a plea arrangement, defendant pled guilty to felony possession of marijuana and admitted his habitual felon status. The State dismissed the remaining charges. Defendant stipulated to a prior record level III for sentencing purposes and to the factual basis for the plea as summarized by the State. The trial court sentenced defendant to a presumptive term of 116 to 149 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals.

**II. *Anders* Brief**

Defense counsel brings forward one question on appeal but presents no arguments in defendant's brief. Defense counsel states, "after repeated and close examination of the record and review of relevant law, counsel is unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal" and asks this Court to "conduct a full examination of the record on appeal for possible error to determine whether any justiciable issue has been overlooked by counsel."

By letter dated 6 June 2005, defense counsel informed defendant that in his opinion there was no error in his trial and that he could file his own arguments with this Court, if he so desired. Copies of the transcript, record, and the brief filed by counsel were sent to defendant. Defendant has filed no arguments in this Court.

We hold that defendant's counsel has substantially complied with the holdings in *Anders v. California,* 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and *State v. Kinch,* 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985). Pursuant to *Anders* and *Kinch,* we must determine from a full examination of all the proceedings whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.

**III. Conclusion**

Upon review of the entire record and of the assignment of error noted in the record, we find the appeal to be wholly frivolous. *Id.*

No error.

Judges MCCULLOUGH and ELMORE concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).
AUSTIN 

January 20, 1939 

Hon. &!aurlos Bulloak 

Oounty Attorney 

Fort Stockton, Texas 

Dear Mr. Bullock: 

three queatioas a8 

thla ofiiae. Tour 

que8tioa8 are aa fo 

ourisr for the 

Otity to pay part 

floor alao ,m~loyed by 

in their mm8 

to the aboto, I em annwerlng your queatlom 

1. Seotion 741 of the Postal Lawn and Regulations 

of 1913, proTlde0: 

Vhat a rural mall oarrler ahall not hold any 

atate, ootznty, munioipal or a tomahip offioe.” 
Hon. hkurloe Bulloak, January 20, 1939, Pqe 2 

The ease of Groves YB. Borden, 84 SB 1042, Xiolde: 

"A rural mall oarrler appointed by the Poatmaster Ganeral, a member of the oablnet and head 

of his department I8 an offloer.w 

The oases, Murray vs. State, 6Cr SW (2nd) 274; State 

vs. Brooks, 42 Texas 62 and Travis vs. Harris, 13 Texas SOT, 

hold that a deputy sheriff la a puE1110 ofiioer. 

ArtIole 14, Seotlon 2 of the Unltad States Conrtltutlon and Artlole 16, SeotIOn 40 Of the State QOnstIfutfOn 

prohibits a person from holding two lnoompatlble offioer. 

In view of tha foregoing authorities, your s&St 

question must be aummred in the negative. 

2. The Oomal86Ionera* Oourt may employ nndfieor 

or the alty to perform servlo&s whloh are not raqulred of 

him by law and may oontraot to pay hti additional oarpenution tharefor. H0wever. thm COmmIsalonarsl Oourt'har no 

authority to pay ruoh oifloer for duties performed wbloh ara 

FWq;gd~ a? him by law. httimore ~8. Tarrant OounBy 184 

. Tekne Jarisprudenoe~, Vol. 34, page bJJ, Se&a l19. 

You are re8peotfully adrlmd that It Is onlaw?ul 

for the oounty to pay a poaoe orfloor of ths Ulty of tprt 

Stooktoo iOr rrerrloei! rendered by hint for the oounty Other 

than those not raqulrad OS him by law. 

3. Artiole SJ39S authorizes the Commfssloner8' OtMWt 

to allow an orfioer oompaaaatI0n ror 6x orri010 8ervloe8 provided that suoh oompenaation, together with fees retained b7 

him, %oes not amount tcimore than the maximum tee allowed by 

law. 

On November 9, 1928, tha Hon. H. Grady Chandler, 

Aselbtant.Attorney General, rendered en opinion hold1 

arreot that Justfoaa of the Peaoe may be paid ex off10 Y o itI oo1- 

penaatlon. 

You are reepsotfully advised that the &numi ehrr8* 

Court my pay ex orrlolo salaries to Justloes 0f the se 

provided that euoh oompeasatlone together with the is?* ra- 
Hon. Yaurloe Bullook, January 20, 1939, Page 3 

talned by them does not exoeed the maximum fee allowed by 

law. 

Trustlne that the foregoing answers your lnqulrlee, 

' I remain 

Very truly your8 

ATTORN!i!!'GERERAL OF TEXAS 

AWrAW 

.
EXHIBIT 21

MARKWEST HYDROCARBON, INC.
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                         |  | TYPE OF ENTITY                     |  | RELATION               
|------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|MarkWest Michigan, Inc.                    |  | Colorado Corporation               |  | Wholly-owned subsidiary
|West Shore Processing Company, LLC         |  | Michigan Limited Liability Company |  | Wholly-owned subsidiary
|Basin Pipeline, LLC                        |  | Michigan Limited Liability Company |  | Wholly-owned subsidiary
|MarkWest Resources, Inc.                   |  | Colorado Corporation               |  | Wholly-owned subsidiary
|Matrex, LLC                                |  | Michigan Limited Liability Company |  | Wholly-owned subsidiary
|MarkWest Resources Canada Corporation      |  | Alberta Canada Corporation         |  | Wholly-owned subsidiary
|MarkWest Canadian Midstream Services, Inc. |  | Alberta Canada Corporation         |  | Wholly-owned subsidiary
|MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P.             |  | Delaware Limited Partnership       |  | Wholly-owned subsidiary
|MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C.                 |  | Delaware Limited Liability Company |  | Wholly-owned subsidiary
|MarkWest Energy Operating Company, L.L.C.  |  | Delaware Limited Liability Company |  | Wholly-owned subsidiary
|MarkWest Energy Appalachia, L.L.C.         |  | Delaware Limited Liability Company |  | Wholly-owned subsidiary

---
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 Annual Report of Internet Infinity, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George P. Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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)           Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  July 14, 2011


/s/ George MorrisGeorge MorrisChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Internet Infinity, Inc. and will be retained by Internet Infinity, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 42162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14975]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability of Record of Decision for the Point Mugu 
Sea Range Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 
Statement

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Department of the Navy, after carefully 
weighing the strategic, operational, and environmental consequences of 
the Proposed Action (Point Mugu Sea Range Final Environmental Impact 
Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS), published 
in the Federal Register on January 7, 2022), is announcing its decision 
to continue military readiness activities and increase research, 
development, acquisition, testing, evaluation, and training activities 
in the Point Mugu Sea Range as identified under Alternative 1 in the 
Point Mugu Sea Range Final EIS/OEIS.

ADDRESSES: The complete text of the Record of Decision (ROD) is 
available on the project website at www.pmsr-eis.com, along with the 
January 2022 Final EIS/OEIS and supporting documents. Single copies of 
the ROD are available upon request by contacting: Commander, Naval Air 
Warfare Center Weapons Division, Range Sustainability Office/
Environmental, Code EB2R00M, 575 I Ave., Suite 1, PM53A, First Floor 
Room 101 (M/S0460), Point Mugu, CA 93042-5049, Attention: Point Mugu 
Sea Range EIS/OEIS Project Manager.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Implementation of Alternative 1 (Preferred 
Alternative) will enable the Navy, other U.S. military services, and 
its allies to meet their respective missions. The Navy's mission, under 
Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 5062, is to maintain, 
train, and equip combat-ready military forces capable of winning wars, 
deterring aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas. Alternative 
1 includes activities that are the same or similar to those currently 
occurring, but that would occur at a more frequent level. Alternative 1 
is based on increasing requirements to meet the current geopolitical 
environment, and supports the full spectrum of potential testing and 
training necessary to respond to a national emergency or crisis. The 
Navy will continue to implement the full suite of mitigation measures 
detailed in Chapter 5 (Standard Operating Procedures and Mitigation 
Measures) of the Point Mugu Sea Range Final EIS/OEIS to avoid or reduce 
potential environmental impacts during testing and training activities.

    Dated: July 8, 2022.
J.M. Pike,
Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 
Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-14975 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
*District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by

designation.

**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

November 11, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 03-50037

ANDRE J. BREAUX; VIRGINIA BREAUX

Plaintiffs - Appellants

VERSUS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; HEALTHSOUTH TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

doing business as Healthsouth Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation

Center; CHAD R. MALESICH, Physical Therapist

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas, San Antonio

SA-00-CV-1483-EP 

Before DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges and LITTLE*,

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:**

The only question presented in this case is whether the

district court abused its discretion in refusing to accept a
2

supplemental affidavit of an expert filed in support of a motion

for reconsideration of the court’s order granting summary judgment

in favor of the defendant. At the time the district court ruled on

the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff had not submitted

summary judgment evidence establishing the requisite standard of

care in this action alleging failure to properly treat and care for

the plaintiff. After the court ruled on the motion, the plaintiff

then moved for reconsideration and for the first time attached an

affidavit purporting to establish the requisite standard of care.

At the time the affidavit was filed, the time allotted for

discovery had passed and the trial was imminent. Under these

circumstances we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in refusing to accept the plaintiff’s new evidence filed

in support of the motion for reconsideration.

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jackie Ray CEARLEY.

No. 490P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Michelle D. Reingold, Fred Crumpler, Winston-Salem, for Cearley.

Kelly L. Sandling, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd day of September 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
Keith KEGLEY, and Kimber Kegley, Cecil Hammonds, and Maggie Hammonds, and Chadwick J. McKeon v. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, a North Carolina Municipality.

No. 342P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

Robert E. Hornick, Jr., for Keith Kegley, et al.

Karen M. McDonald, City Attorney, Anthony Fox, Charlotte, for City of Fayetteville.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of July 2005 by Petitioners (Keith Kegley and Kimber Kegley, Cecil Hammonds and Maggie Hammonds, and Chadwick J. McKeown) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th day of August 2005."

Justice BRADY recused.