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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 897 

Recognizing the importance of teaching elementary and secondary school 

students about the sacrifices that veterans have made throughout the 

history of the Nation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 6, 2009 

Mr. GUTHRIE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance of teaching elementary and secondary school students about the sacrifices that veterans 

have made throughout the history of the Nation. 

Whereas veterans have made innumerable sacrifices for the 

freedom and welfare of the United States and people 

worldwide; 

Whereas in 2008 there were over 23,000,000 veterans in the 

United States, but many elementary and secondary 

school students are not aware of the efforts veterans have 

made to protect our freedoms; 

Whereas many elementary and secondary schools and teachers have held drives in recent years to collect items to 

send to veterans, members of the Armed Forces, and 

families of such members; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 897 IH 

Whereas fewer than half of the Nation’s high school seniors 

have a basic knowledge of American history and the contributions veterans have made to the Nation’s safety and 

security; 

Whereas it is important for elementary and secondary school 

students to learn about the history of the Nation and the 

wars and missions veterans have participated in and sacrificed for; and 

Whereas elementary and secondary schools across the Nation 

host Veterans Day programs to honor and educate students about the sacrifices veterans have made: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the importance of teaching ele3 mentary and secondary school students, on Veterans 

4 Day and throughout the school year, about the sac5 rifices that veterans have made throughout the his6 tory of the Nation; and 

7 (2) encourages elementary and secondary 

8 schools to engage students in learning about, and 

9 honoring, veterans and the sacrifices they have 

10 made. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14668]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM96-6-32-000]


Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

June 5, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 31, 1996, Colorado Interstate Gas Company 
(CIG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1, Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 11.
    CIG states that the tariff sheet is being filed to reflect an 
increase in the fuel reimbursement percentage for Lost, Unaccounted-For 
and Other Fuel Gas from 0.11% to 0.58% effective July 1, 1996.
    CIG states that copies of this filing have been served on CIG's 
jurisdictional customers and public bodies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR Sections 385.214 and 385.211). All 
such petitions or protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 
of the Commission's Regulations. 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. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14668 Filed 6-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d), as      applicable, 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      at the dates and for the periodsindicated. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                        |   |                                                        |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: August      16, 2010   | By:    | /s/ Darrell      W. Cain                               |   |
|                                        |   | Darrell      W. Cain                                        |   |
|                                        |   | Chief      Executive Officer,                               |   |
|                                        |   | III      to I International Maritime Solutions Cayman, Inc. |   |

----
Summary of compensation arrangements for independent directors of tw telecom inc



 Exhibit 10.19 
 tw telecom inc. 
 INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS COMPENSATION 
 Effective January 1, 2009 
  

	 Annual Retainer 
	$75,000 (payable quarterly) 

  

	 Annual fee Audit Committee Chair 
	$25,000 

  

	 Annual fee Compensation Committee Chair 
	$25,000 

  

	 Annual fee Nominating and Governance Chair 
	$15,000 

  

	 Restricted Stock 
	10,000 shares of Restricted Stock granted to each sitting independent director under Company’s amended 2000 Employee Stock Plan at the first regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors in each
calendar year, of which 75% vest on the anniversary date of the grant date (provided that the director is still serving on the Board at that time) and the balance vest upon the resignation or retirement of the Director from the Company’s Board
of Directors; or upon the effective date of resignation if his or her resignation is requested by the Company or the majority of its Board of Directors provided that such Director has served a term of one year or greater from the date of such grant.


 If the Director serves on the Board for less than one year from the grant date or is removed from the Board for cause, the
shares covered by the grant will be forfeited on the effective date of the resignation, retirement or removal. Any director who joins the board after the first regularly scheduled meeting will receive a pro-rated grant on the effective date of his
or her board service. 
  

	 New Director Grants and January 28, 2009 Retention Grants to Incumbent Directors 
	(i) 25,000 options with a strike price equal to the closing price of the Company’s stock on the Nasdaq Stock Market on the first day of the director’s term, vesting annually over a three year
period on the anniversary dates of the grant date in equal parts provided that the director is still serving on the Company’s Board of Directors on the vesting date, and terminating 10 years from the grant date, and (ii) 25,000 shares of
Restricted Stock that will vest annually over a three year period on the anniversary dates of the grant date in equal parts provided that the director is still serving on the Company’s Board of Directors on the vesting date.


 The options will be exercisable for a period of one year from the effective date of termination of board service, unless
the termination was for cause, 
 The Board of Directors will periodically consider retention grants for incumbent directors. 
  

	 Expense Reimbursement 
	For Board and Committee meetings in accordance with the Board of Directors Travel Policy.
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                       |  |                  |  |                              
|---------------------- |  | ---------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                       |  | Percentage Owned |  | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation
|Heritage Bank          |  | 100%             |  | United States                
|HopFed Capital Trust I |  | 100%             |  | Delaware                     

SUBSIDIARIES OF HERITAGE BANK



|                            |  |                  |  |                              
|--------------------------- |  | ---------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                            |  | Percentage Owned |  | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation
|Fall & Fall Insurance, Inc. |  | 100%             |  | Kentucky
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6220

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RUSHAUN NECKO PARKER, a/k/a Duke, a/k/a Rushuan Nekoe Parker, a/k/a Rushuan Nikoe Parker , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. ( 7:10

- cr
- 00011

- H

- 1 )

Submitted : August 25, 2020 Decided: August 27, 2020

Before KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD , Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Rushaun Necko Parker , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Rushaun Necko Parker appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction in his sentence under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat.
5194. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingl y, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Parker , No. 7:10

- cr
- 00011

- H

1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 2020) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. David L. WOOD, Respondent.

No. 94-SC-1017-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

March 23, 1995.

Bruce K. Davis, Executive Director, David B. Pearce, Kentucky Bar Ass’n, Frankfort, for complainant.

David.L. Wood, Louisville, pro se.

ORDER

The Inquiry Tribunal of the Kentucky Bar Association charged that respondent, David L. Wood, after having been appointed by the court to represent Michael Page concerning certain traffic violations pending in the Jefferson District Court, failed to appear on his client’s behalf even after the court continued the case on at least three occasions. Respondent was charged with the violation of SCR 3.130 which provides that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, and SCR 3.130-1.4 which provides that a lawyer shall keep a ehent reasonably informed about the legal matter and issue to the extent that the ehent can make informed decisions regarding the legal matter.

The Board of Governors found that respondent was appointed to represent Mr. Michael Page by the Jefferson District Court. Respondent failed to appear at a scheduled court appearance on April 1, 1993. The court continued the matter until April 15, 1993, because of respondent’s failure to appear. The respondent failed to appear on April 15, 1993, and the matter was rescheduled to September 14,1993. Again Mr. Page appeared but the respondent failed to appear. The matter was then rescheduled for November 22, 1993, and again, respondent failed to appear. At that time, Mr. Page entered a plea of guilty to a traffic violation, paid a fine and court costs, forfeited his driver’s license, and had to complete community service.

The respondent received notice of the charges against him, having signed a return receipt dated August 23, 1994. However, respondent filed no answer to the charge and has otherwise failed to defend himself in any manner. The Board of Governors held a hearing on November 18, 1994, at which respondent made no appearance.

*577The Board found respondent guilty of the charge and a majority of its members recommended to this Court that he be given a public reprimand.

Upon consideration of the record, the respondent’s failure to attempt to defend against this charge, and the recommendation of the Board of Governors, this Court hereby publicly reprimands David L. Wood. His conduct constituted a violation of SCR 3.190 and SCR 3.130-1.4. Additionally, respondent is ordered to pay the amount of $160.34 for the costs of this action.

All concur.

ENTERED: March 23, 1995.

/s/ Robert F. Stephens Chief Justice
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

James Larkin,

Defendant.

No. CR-18-00422-002-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Defendant James Larkin’s Unopposed Motion to Amend 

Conditions of Release (Doc. 1574) and finding good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion (Doc. 1574) and Defendant’s conditions 

of release are hereby amended to remove the location monitoring technology, condition. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming all previously imposed conditions of 

release unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 

The Court finds there is no excludable delay.

Dated this 18th day of April, 2023.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1575 Filed 04/18/23 Page 1 of 1
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Richard Shupe, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Lewis & Lewis Insurance Agency 

Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00159-TUC-DCB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 On January 29, 2019, a Rule 16, case management scheduling conference was set 

by Order of this Court. (Order (Doc. 28). Pursuant to the directive of this Court the 

Plaintiffs, who are appearing pro se, were responsible for initiating the conference call, and 

the parties were directed to file a Joint Case Management Plan not less than 5 days before 

the scheduling conference. Plaintiffs failed to appear; the Court attempted to contact the 

Plaintiffs but they have not provided a contact telephone number on any pleading or in the 

docket. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall have 14 days from the filing date of this 

Order to show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed for failing to comply 

with directives of this Court, especially those directives necessary to prosecute this case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the show cause filing shall include a contact 

telephone number for Plaintiffs, which shall be entered into the record. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall be dismissed without further 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

notice to the Plaintiffs in the event they fail to comply with this Order. 

 Dated this 5th day of February, 2019.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,180,925
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  236,663
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,821,083
<PP&E>                                      30,447,668
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,758,795
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,107,382
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                    20,684,660
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,758,795
<SALES>                                     12,992,714
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,115,986
<CGS>                                        3,878,123
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,737,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,243,778
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (537,546)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (188,141)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (349,405)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             46,724,052
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                46,374,647
<EPS-BASIC>                                   502.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   502.46



</TABLE>
#### Delbert Edwin WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56793.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 27, 1990.

Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Breek K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Delbert Edwin White, appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of involuntary manslaughter on October 25, 1985, and was sentenced to two consecutive seven year terms of imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in *State v. White,*722 S.W.2d 92 (Mo.App., E.D.1986).

Appellant’s sole point on appeal is his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to present evidence regarding the interaction between his heart medication and alcohol. We have reviewed this allegation and the record upon which it is based and we do not find the court’s findings and conclusions to be clearly erroneous. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989). We also find that an extended opinion would have no precedential value and, therefore, we affirm the motion court’s denial pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

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

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2021 (the “Report”) of PennantPark Investment Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Richard Cheung, Chief Financial 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/ Richard Cheung |
| Name:              |   | Richard Cheung          |
| Title:             |   | Chief Financial Officer |
| Date:              |   | February 9, 2022        |

 

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

**Section 1350 Certification**

**In connection with this quarterly report of ML APM GlobalCommodity FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof(this “Report”), I, Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of Merrill LynchAlternative Investments LLC, the manager of ML APM Global CommodityFuturesAccess LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  August 14, 2007                   |                  |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
|                                          |                  |   |
| By                                            | /s/ BARBRA E.  KOCSIS |   |
| Barbra E. Kocsis                              |
| Chief Financial  Officer                      |
| (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|                                               |                       |  |  |

 

----
Exhibit
32.2





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 on Form 10-Q of SmartHeat Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Zhijuan Guo, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.




Dated:
      June 23, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/
      Zhijuan GuoZhijuan
      GuoChief
      Financial Officer
                    (Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)





This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 120 (Thursday, June 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15811]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for 
Hispanic Americans; Amendment to Notice of an Open Meeting

SUMMARY: This amends the notice of an open meeting of the President's 
Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans 
published on June 10, 1996 in Vol. 61, No. 112 page 29362. The start 
time of the meeting scheduled to take place on June 20, 1996 has 
changed from 1:30 p.m. (est) to 8:00 a.m. (est). The meeting dates and 
agenda are unchanged.

    Dated: June 17, 1996.
Henry Smith,
Senior Director.
[FR Doc. 96-15811 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
#### Mueller *v.*The State of Ohio.

(No. 22971

Decided June 17, 1931.)

*Mr. Eldon H. Young,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Gerald P. Openlander, Mr. Gilbert Bettman,*attorney general, *Mr. Isadore Topper*and *Mr. William 8. Evatt,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkape and Robinson, JJ., concur.