alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Edmonds
1, Inc. for the quarter ending January 31, 2005, I, Richard Neussler, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Edmonds 1, Inc. hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending January
          31, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the quarter ending January 31, 2005, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Edmonds 1, Inc.

Dated:  March 17, 2005

EDMONDS 1, INC.

By: /s/ Richard Neussler
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



Kent Eikanas and Elizabeth A. Pagliarini,
do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of their knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2020, as amended by Amendment No. 1, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc.



|                   | /s/ Kent Eikanas                                    
|------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 2, 2020 | Kent Eikanas                                        
|                   | Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
|                   |                                                     
|                   | /s/ Elizabeth A. Pagliarini                         
|Date: June 2, 2020 | Elizabeth A. Pagliarini                             
|                   | Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Allen HEMPHILL, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 67405.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 26, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 30, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied Dec. 19, 1995.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7254

Omron Management Center of America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### Ronnie James MASON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. B14-86-00890-CR to B14-86-00892-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

Aug. 24, 1989.

Gerald A. Burks, Galveston, for appellant.

Jim Baggett, Galveston, for appellee.

Before PAUL PRESSLER, MURPHY and ELLIS, JJ.

OPINION ON REMAND

MURPHY, Justice.

This appeal follows appellant’s convictions of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault. On original submission, appellant raised three points of error challenging transfer of his case from juvenile to district court. We overruled appellant’s challenges to the jurisdiction of the district court and affirmed the judgment. *Mason v. State,*746 S.W.2d 13 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1988). On appellant’s petition for discretionary review, the court of criminal appeals remanded the case to this court with instructions to reevaluate our decision in light of *Richardson v. State,*770 S.W.2d 797 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). We reverse the judgments of the district court and remand the causes to the juvenile court.

In his petition for discretionary review before the court of criminal appeals, appellant raised the same issue he argued in his point of error to this court: the district court never acquired jurisdiction over his case because he was a juvenile at the time he committed the offense and because the juvenile court retained jurisdiction over another offense arising out of the same transaction.

The record shows that on December 6, 1985, the State filed a petition with the juvenile court for waiver of jurisdiction and discretionary transfer to the district court. The State’s petition requested transfer for the following offenses: two counts of aggravated robbery; one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault; and one count of felony theft. By an order signed Febru*488
      *ary*6, 1986, the juvenile court transferred both aggravated robbery counts and the attempted aggravated sexual assault count to the district court. The order did not encompass the felony theft count.

*Richardson*holds that the juvenile court must expressly dispose of each offense alleged when the State requests transfer of multiple offenses. *Richardson,*770, S.W.2d at 799. Because the juvenile court’s transfer in this case made no mention of the felony theft offense alleged in the State’s petition for transfer, the juvenile court retained jurisdiction over *all*offenses alleged in the petition pursuant to Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 54.02(g) (Vernon 1966). *Richardson,*at 799.

We therefore reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand appellant’s causes to the juvenile court.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of the Chief Executive Officer**

**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 WMG Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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. 

Dated: August 6, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000897795
<NAME> INNOVATIVE GAMING
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             140
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      947
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,576
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,318
<PP&E>                                             707
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,738
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            90
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,099
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,058
<SALES>                                          4,026
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,026
<CGS>                                            8,631
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,124
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 147
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,876)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,876)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,876)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.80)


</TABLE>
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 28, 2015

No. 04-15-00530-CR

Abelardo Gerardo GONZALEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CRR000662-D1

Honorable David Peeples, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

The Court has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing En Banc, and the motion 

is DENIED.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of December, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reginald Rogers, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mazzei, J.), both rendered July 27, 1989, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 71/89, and forgery in the second degree under S.C.I. No. W-362/89, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7357

Hartland Controls, LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Fifth Review)]

## Determinations

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on barium chloride from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission instituted this review on October 1, 2020 (85 FR 61984) and determined on January 4, 2021 that it would conduct an expedited review (86 FR 24412, May 6, 2021).

                    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination for this review on June 1, 2021. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5203 (June 2021), entitled                     *Barium Chloride from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Fifth Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: June 1, 2021.

Lisa Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2021-11794 Filed 6-4-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8330]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,815]

Tobin-Hamilton Company, Inc., New Balance for Kids Division, West 
Bridgewater, Massachusetts; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on March 20, 1995 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on behalf of workers at Tobin-Hamilton Company, Inc., New 
Balance for Kids Division, West Bridgewater, Massachusetts.
    An active certification covering the petitioning group of workers 
remains in effect (TA-W-30,345). Consequently, further investigation in 
this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been 
terminated.

    Signed in Washington, D.C. this 27th day of March, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-8330 Filed 4-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9912]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications Systems; 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name and Committee Code: Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical 
and Communications Systems.
    Date and Time: May 9-10, 1995, 8:30 am-5 pm.
    Place: Rooms 675 and 680, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Deborah Crawford, Program Director, Solid State 
and Microstructures, Division of Electrical and Communications 
Systems, room 675, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1339.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Fort Monmouth-EPSD proposals as 
part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 18, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-9912 Filed 4-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5538 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5538

To amend title 5 of the United States Code to provide special overtime 
     pay for certain border patrol agents, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2023

  Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 5 of the United States Code to provide special overtime 
     pay for certain border patrol agents, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF HIGHER RATES OF REGULARLY SCHEDULED 
              OVERTIME PAY FOR UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL AGENTS 
              CLASSIFIED AT GS-12.

    Section 5550 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(h) Special Overtime Pay for GS-12 Border Patrol Agents.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1)(F), 
        (2)(C), and (3)(C) of subsection (b), a border patrol agent 
        encumbering a position at grade GS-12 shall receive a special 
        overtime payment under this subsection for hours of regularly 
        scheduled work described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii) or (3)(A)(ii) 
        of subsection (b), as applicable, that are credited to the 
        agent through actual performance of work, crediting under rules 
        for canine agents under subsection (b)(1)(F), or substitution 
        of overtime hours in the same work period under subsection 
        (f)(2)(A), except that no such payment may be made for periods 
        of absence resulting in an hours obligation under paragraph (3) 
        or (4) of subsection (f).
            ``(2) Computation.--The special overtime payment authorized 
        under paragraph (1) shall be computed by multiplying the 
        credited hours by 50 percent of the border patrol agent's 
        hourly rate of basic pay, rounded to the nearest cent.
            ``(3) Limitations.--The special overtime payment authorized 
        under paragraph (1)--
                    ``(A) is not considered basic pay for retirement 
                under section 8331(3) or 8401(4) or for any other 
                purpose;
                    ``(B) is not payable during periods of paid leave 
                or other paid time off; and
                    ``(C) is not considered in computing an agent's 
                lump-sum annual leave payment under sections 5551 and 
                5552.''.
                                 <all>
```