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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2199 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2199

To suspend temporarily the duty on synthetic quartz or synthetic fused 
                                silica.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 7, 2000

 Mr. Moynihan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on synthetic quartz or synthetic fused 
                                silica.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON SUBSTRATES OF SYNTHETIC 
              QUARTZ OR SYNTHETIC FUSED SILICA.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.70.06 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``2001'' and 
inserting ``2004''.
    (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to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 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 enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                        CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CEO AND CFO
                       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 First McMinnville Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Charles C. Jacobs, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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




/s/ Charles C. Jacobs
------------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2003




/s/ Kenny D. Neal
------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2003
Filed by sedaredgar.com - Doral Energy Corp. - Exhibit 10.1







 





 





 





 








 

SCHEDULE “A”

FORM OF PROMISSORY NOTE

PROMISSORY NOTE

	EXECUTED BY:	DORAL ENERGY CORP. 

    (the "Borrower") 
	 	 
	 IN FAVOR OF: 	GREEN SHOE INVESTMENTS LTD 

    (the "Lender") 
	 	 
	PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: 	$87,000 (U.S.)
	 	 
	DUE DATE:	May 1, 2011
	 	 
	 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED the Borrower  hereby promises to pay to or to the order of the Lender on or before May 1,  2011, the principal sum of $87,000 (U.S.), together with interest thereon at  the rate of 5% per annum, calculated and compounded annually, both before and  after maturity from the date hereof.

The Borrower waives  presentment, demand, notice, protest and notice of dishonour and all other  demands and notices in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance,  default or enforcement of this Promissory Note.

The Borrower agrees this  Promissory Note may be negotiated, assigned, discounted, or pledged by the  Lender and in every case payment will be made to the holder of this Promissory  Note instead of the Lender upon notice being given by the holder to the  undersigned, and no holder of this Promissory Note will be affected by the  state of accounts between the undersigned and the Lender or by any equities  existing between the undersigned and the Lender and will be deemed to be a  holder in due course and for the value of the Promissory Note held by him.

 

DATED at Midland, TX  this 29th day of April, 2009.

 

DORAL ENERGY CORP.

by its authorized signatory:

 

________________________________

Everett Willard Gray, II
EXHIBIT
15








We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim
financial information of US Ecology, Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended
March 31, 2010, and 2009, as indicated in our report dated April 30, 2010;
because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information.




We are aware that our report referred to above, which is
included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2010, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-157529,
333-140419, 333-68868, 333-93105, and 333-69863 on Form S-8 and Registration
Statement No. 333-126424 on Form S-3.




We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant
to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the
Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report
prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11
of that Act.






/s/ Deloitte and Touche LLP




Boise, Idaho


April 30, 2010
Order entered February 11, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00797

- CV

IN RE JOHN THOMPSON , R elat or

O rigi nal Proceeding from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219

- 83205

- 2021

O RDER Before Justices Schenck, Nowell, and Garcia

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we D ISMISS this case for want of

jurisdiction

.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2114

To exempt certain entries of titanium disks from anti-dumping duties

retroactively applied by the United States Customs Service.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 29, 2000

Mr. WYDEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To exempt certain entries of titanium disks from anti-dumping duties retroactively applied by the United States

Customs Service.

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ENTRIES OF TITA4 NIUM DISKS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 514 of

6 the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 15144) or any other

7 provision of law, the United States Customs Service

8 shall—

9 (1) not later than 90 days after the date of the

10 enactment of this Act, liquidate or reliquidate the
2

•S 2114 IS

1 entries listed in subsection (b) as exempt from anti2 dumping duties under antidumping case number A–

3 462–103; and

4 (2) not later than 90 days after such liquida5 tion or reliquidation under paragraph (1), refund

6 any antidumping duties paid with respect to such

7 entries, including interest from the date of entry, if

8 the importer of the entries files a request therefor

9 with the Customs Service within such 90-day period.

10 (b) ENTRIES.—The entries referred to in subsection

11 (a) are as follows:

Entry Number Date of Entry

EE1–0001115–8 ...................................................... January 26, 1995

EE1–0001313–9 ...................................................... June 23, 1995

EE1–0001449–1 ...................................................... September 25, 1995

Æ
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under *

the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may

b e c ited , howev er, for its persu a siv e va lu e co nsisten t with Fed . R. Ap p. P.

32.1 (e ff. De c . 1, 2006) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1 (e ff. Jan. 1, 2007). 

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 18, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT O F APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH C I RC U I T

JEFFR EY T. M ILTON,

Pe titione r-Appe llant,

v.

R . WILEY ,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-1340

(D.C. No. 06-CV-946-ZLW )

(D . Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGM E NT

*

Before B RISCOE, O’B RIE N and M cC ONNELL, Circuit Judg es.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the

brie fs without ora l a rg ument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G ). The c a se is the re fore ord e red submitted without ora l a rg ument. 

The petitioner appeals the dismissal by the United States District

Court for the District of Colorado of his petition for writ of habeas corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We a ffirm. 
-2-

In the petition filed in the district court, the petitioner challenged the

sentence impos ed by the United States District Court for the Middle District

of Pennsylvania following his conviction for assaulting a correctional

office r with a dange rous we apon. He alleged tha t the enhanc ement of his

sentence for being a career offender was invalid becaus e two of the prior

convictions were subs equently vacated. The district court dismissed.

Normally, “‘[a] petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution

of a sen tenc e ra ther than its validity an d must be filed in the district where

the prisoner is confined. A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition attacks the legality of

detention, and must be filed in the district that impos ed the sentence.’” 

Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1149 (10th Cir.2000) (quoting Bradshaw

v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.1996)). Section 2241 “is not an

additio na l, a lte rn a tive , or supplementa l remedy to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”

Bradshaw, 86 F.3d a t 166. Only if the pe titione r sh ows tha t § 2255 is

“inadequate or ineffective” to challenge the validity of a judgment or

sentence may a prisoner petition for such a remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Id. “Failure to obtain relief under § 2255 does not establish that the remedy

so provided is either inadequate or ineffective.” Id. (q uota tion omitted). 

The petitioner has not established the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of

28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

According ly the judgment of the d istrict cou rt is AFFIR M E D . The
-3-

manda te sha ll issue forthwith. 

Enter ed for the Court 

PER CU RIA M
Exhibit 31.2
I, Javed Latif, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of En Pointe Technologies, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: December 27, 2004
Javed Latif, Vice President and
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30992 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROMULO NAVARETTE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CR-100-L

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1998

Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Romulo Navarette appeals from his sentence for possession

with intent to distribute cocaine and from the denial of his

postjudgment motion to reduce his offense level by two levels for

his role in the offense. Navarette contends solely that the

district court should have reduced his offense level for his role

in the offense.

Because no objections were made to the presentence report or

at sentencing, our review of the district court’s actions at
No. 97-30992

-2-

sentencing is under the plain-error standard. United States v.

Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). 

Navarette’s offense level was based on the amount of cocaine

taken from him. The district court therefore did not err by

denying him an adjustment for his role in the offense. United

States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
II

Calendar No. 753

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1972

[Report No. 106–375]

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the town of Dolores,

Colorado, the current site of the Joe Rowell Park.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 19, 1999

Mr. ALLARD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

AUGUST 25, 2000

Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of July 26, 2000, by Mr.

MURKOWSKI, with amendments

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the town

of Dolores, Colorado, the current site of the Joe Rowell

Park.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF JOE ROWELL PARK.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall

5 convey to the town of Dolores, Colorado, for no consider-
2

S 1972 RS

1 ation, all right, title, and interest of the United States in

2 and to the parcel of real property described in subsection

3 (b), for open space, park, and recreational purposes.

4 (b) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—The property referred to in

6 subsection (a) is a parcel of approximately 25 acres

7 of land comprising the site of the Joe Rowell Park

8 (including all improvements on the land and equip9 ment and other items of personal property as agreed

10 to by the Secretary) in section 16 (Map 1), township

11 37 north, range 15 west, NMPM, Dolores, Colorado.

12 depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Joe Rowell Park,’’

13 dated July 12, 2000.

14 (2) SURVEY.—

15 (A) IN GENERAL.—The exact acreage and

16 legal description of the property to be conveyed

17 under subsection (a) shall be determined by a

18 survey satisfactory to the Secretary.

19 (B) COST.—As a condition of any convey20 ance under this section, the town of Dolores

21 shall pay the cost of the survey.

22 (c) POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER.—Title to any real

23 property acquired by the town of Dolores, Colorado, under

24 this section shall revert to the United States if the town—
3

S 1972 RS

1 (1) attempts to convey or otherwise transfer

2 ownership of any portion of the property to any

3 other person;

4 (2) attempts to encumber the title of the prop5 erty; or

6 (3) permits the use of any portion of the prop7 erty for any purpose incompatible with the purpose

8 described in subsection (a) for which the property is

9 conveyed.

10 (d) The map referenced in subsection (b)(1) shall be

11 on file for public inspection in the Office of the Chief of

12 the Forest Service at the Department of Agriculture in

13 Washington, DC.
Calendar No. 753

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1972

[Report No. 106–375]

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to

the town of Dolores, Colorado, the current site ofthe Joe Rowell Park.

AUGUST 25, 2000

Reported with amendments
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            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 XETA Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Jack R. Ingram, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

                                    /s/  Jack R. Ingram
                                    ---------------------------
                                    Jack R. Ingram
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    September 13, 2002
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 D0 06 4 . RI CHARD W

. TREADW AY v . THE STATE.

On Au g u s t 2 7
, 2 0 19
, Ri ch ard W

. Tread way fi l ed t h i s d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat i o n fro m t h e t ri al co urt ’ s J u n e 7
, 20 1 9 o rd er d en y i ng a m o t i o n t o v acat e an i l l eg al o r v o id

s en t en ce o r m o t i o n t o wi t h draw h i s 2 0 1 8 g u i l t y p l ea. W e l ack ju ri s di ct io n

. Th e den i al o f a m o t i o n t o wi t hd raw a g ui l t y p l ea m ay b e ap p eal ed d irect l y

. See
S mi th v. S t a t e , 2 8 3 Ga. 3 7 6
, 3 7 6 (6 5 9 SE2 d 38 0 ) (2 0 0 8 ). Ord i n ari ly
, i f a p art y ap p li es fo r d i s cret i on ary rev i ew o f a di rect l y ap p eal ab l e ord er, we g ran t t h e ap p l icat i o n u n d er OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j). To fal l wi t h i n t h i s g en eral ru l e, h o wev er, t he ap pl i cat i o n m u s t
b e fi l ed w i th i n 3 0 d ay s o f en t ry o f t h e o rd er t o b e ap p eal ed

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ).
Th e p ro p er an d t i m e l y f

i l in g o f an ap p l i cat i on is an ab s ol ut e req ui rem en t t o co n fer

ap p el l at e ju ri sd i ct i o n u p o n t h i s Co u rt

. See B o yl e v. S ta t e , 1 9 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 4
, 7 3 4 (3 8 0
SE2 d 5 7 ) (1 9 8 9 ). Becau s e Tread w ay ’ s ap p l icat i o n w as fi l ed 8 1 d ay s a f t e r en t ry o f

t h e o rd er h e s eek s t o ap p eal
, t h i s Co u rt l ack s ju ri s d i ct i o n t o co n si der th e ap p l i cat i o n, wh i ch i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t if y t h a t th e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. September 20, 2019

09/20/2019
# Filing Deadlines

**

----

Add Filing Deadlines to Calendar (ics)

| Date            | Reports Due                                                         |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Jan 22, 2024*   | 4th Quarter report (Oct 1 – Dec 31, 2023)                     |
| Jan 30, 2024    | LD 203 (Year End) Contributions Report (Jul 1 – Dec 31, 2023) |
| April 22, 2024* | 1st Quarter report (Jan 1 - Mar 31, 2024)                           |
| July 22, 2024*  | 2nd Quarter report (Apr 1 – Jun 30, 2024)                     |
| July 30, 2024   | LD 203 (Mid-Year) Contributions Report (Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2024)       |
| Oct 21, 2024*   | 3rd Quarter report (Jul 1 - Sep 30, 2024)                           |
| Jan 21, 2025*   | 4th Quarter report (Oct 1 – Dec 31, 2024)                     |
| Jan 30, 2025    | LD 203 (Year End) Contributions Report (Jul 1 – Dec 31, 2024) |

*The LDA provides for next business day filing.		The Public Disclosure index provides information about filing and researching lobby records.     
 

 

 

 

 

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Contact Information 

Office of Public Records232 Hart Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510-7116Main: (202) 224-0322Lobby: (202) 224-0758TDD: (202) 224-4722lobby@sec.senate.gov

Send Us Your Feedback

### Amended Lobby Law 

The Lobbying Disclosure Act compilation provides amended language from public laws 104-65, 105-166, and 110-81 and 115-418. It is current through April 1, 2019

### Registration Thresholds 

Current Thresholds