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

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6074] 

The Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia has informed the Government of the United States of its interest in an extension of the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Khmer Archaeological Material which entered into force on September 19, 2003. 

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to the requirement under 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), an extension of this Memorandum of Understanding is hereby proposed. 

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(2), the views and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee regarding this proposal will be requested. 

                    A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding, the designated list of restricted categories of material, and related information can be found at the following Web site:                     *http://exchanges.state.gov/​culprop*.                 

Dated: January 25, 2008. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

 [FR Doc. E8-1957 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### Ex Parte Fred L. MaGee.

No. 24712.

January 11, 1950.

*125
      *Percy Foreman,*of Houston, for relator.

*W. C. Wiribom,*District Attorney, and *E. T. Branch,*Assistant District Attorney, Houston, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Relator was held in custody by the sheriff of Harris County, Texas, under an extradition warrant from the Governor of Texas directing the return of relator to the State of Arkansas to answer a charge of arson against relator and Joe Savage, who were alleged to be fugitives from said demanding state. Both Magee and Savage secured writs of habeas corpus from the Judge of Criminal District Court No. 2 of Harris County, upon their claim that neither of them were in Arkansas at or about the time of the alleged arson, and were not therefore fugitives from said state. Upon a hearing both Magee and Savage were remanded to the sheriff to be delivered to an agent for return to Arkansas, and from such order this appeal is prosecuted.

The recitals in the extradition warrant of the Governor of Texas as to the right of the demanding state to the return of said relators is sufficient, and the only issue at the habeas corpus hearing was one of fact as to the presence or not of relators in Arkansas at the time of the alleged arson. On this issue the evidence was conflicting; that for Magee and Savage being that they were not in Arkansas at the time of the alleged arson, and that they had never been in that state; on the other hand, evidence for the state was contradictory and to the effect that they were both in Arkansas at the time of the alleged arson. The trial judge saw and heard these witnesses, and specifically finds in the judgment, remanding relators, that they were the parties named in the Governor’s extradition warrant, and are the parties wanted for the alleged crime of arson, and that they “fled from the State of Arkansas into this State after the commission of said crime, and are fugitives from justice as stated in the Governor’s warrant.”

Under conflicting evidence, as here found, the holdings of our court are to the effect that the judgment of the trial court remanding relators will not be disturbed. See Ex parte Wood*126land, 146 Tex. Cr. R. 616, 177 S. W. 2d 62; Ex parte Lunceford, 147 Tex. Cr. R. 579, 183 S. W. 2d 461; Ex parte Barnett, 148 Tex. Cr. R. 628, 190 S. W. 2d 361; also, South Carolina v. Bailey, 289 U. S. 412, 53 Sup. Ct. 667, 77 L. Ed. 1292.

The judgment remanding relator is affirmed.
### THEA~TOFCNEY GENERAL dFTExAS **AUSTIN. TEXAS** I

Baa, D. 0, W%er, page 2

**“ ‘**  **It te**  the qda%aa of thlo DqmrtmenC, 

### thnrel'oxe,

that the Department ot Publio Sitfety may not issue a oertitloa~e of title on a motor.v%hio3*'uppon'afflQail.8 t re possession

without

antingon said oertifioate OS titlethe first lien of the ven*r OS the tires,

radio,or othera%%esaary which ie attachad

to the motorvehlala unleesth*~applloant for the new oe*lfiISate OS tit10

who io ths pur%h%s%r et the .f%reoloeur%

ealr rodu%esevldenoe before youxDaprtment ti

et suahthat lion tigainst suoh eutoboblle

aoaesmr7 has b%%n satisfied.*
YEHouse lW.1 4.07,

Aate OS the 46th Legislature, 1939, kmmn aa the Certlfioate of TitleLaw, beam% aifeaUve O&ober 1, 1939. Afterthat d&e end prl%rtto M.&y 3, 19& the efrmive **datd** 0s ~0~~0 m3.g 205, A$ts OS the 47thLeglslature,whloh am%nd%dXouaa R#.U 407 Oranp

thousands

of first liens .an~aoaeeaarl%e Worn reoordad

as sa%h Osr

the oifloi%l rsemds of the

laaaedor oarried

IerwaM on all **rr-iaaucrd** titles Mteu,onae having Been reaordod.

hen-been

interpreted

brthis DaparWt ~to AeaB that.froa

and aftsr.tk,%

%ffe%tive

dat% %f Ea&8% Bill 205 ilret l&ma on tirer,radiqs, h%atem or aher automobile aooeaaorlea may noti bd re%ard%d with thisD%ptu'Ut6nt. a@ SW& QOLt thQ &itl% Of ent metorrsbiole.

but that U%ns on t&tie,h%at%ra and other autmae&e aoisesisoxbs l~ay k reload UP-. Hem. D. 0. Qew, pagO 3
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6113 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit employers 

from inquiring about vaccination status, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2021 

Mr. MAST (for himself, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. POSEY, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. DUNCAN, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. GOOD

of Virginia, Mr. HICE of Georgia, and Mr. BABIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit 

employers from inquiring about vaccination status, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Employee Privacy 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6113 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION RELATING TO VACCINATION STATUS 

2 INQUIRIES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Fair Labor Standards Act of 

4 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by inserting 

5 after section 7 the following new section: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 8. PROHIBITION RELATING TO VACCINATION STATUS 

7 INQUIRIES. 

8 ‘‘It shall be an unlawful practice for an employer to 

9 inquire about the vaccination status of any current or pro10 spective employee.’’. 

11 (b) PENALTIES.—Section 16 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 

12 216) is amended by adding at the end the following new 

13 subsection: 

14 ‘‘(f) Any person who violates the provisions of section 

15 8 shall— 

16 ‘‘(1) be subject to a civil penalty of $5,000 for 

17 a first offense, increased by an additional $1,000 for 

18 each subsequent offense, not to exceed $10,000; and 

19 ‘‘(2) be liable to each employee or prospective 

20 employee who was the subject of the violation for 

21 special damages not to exceed $10,000 plus attor22 neys’ fees, and shall be subject to such injunctive re23 lief as may be appropriate.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
|   **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 of MASS Petroleum Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Vitaly Melnikov, Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge:

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.

By: */s/ Vitaly Melnikov*Vitaly MelnikovChief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting OfficerJuly 19, 2011

                               |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       280,018
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                10,013
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,601,691
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,915,036
<PP&E>                                       2,135,056
<DEPRECIATION>                               532,597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,553178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,206,516
<BONDS>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     352,936
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,332,763
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,553,178
<SALES>                                      2,530,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,530,906
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,367,298
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           89,736
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,240,016
<INCOME-TAX>                                 353,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          886,216
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0

</TABLE>
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.
 Department of Defense Office of the Secretary
 AGENCY: Department of Defense.
 ACTION: Notice of meeting; Amendment.
 SUMMARY: On August 11, 2008 (73 FR 46605), the Department of Defense announced a closed meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System Comprehensive Review Advisory Committee. This notice is being published to announce changes in the time, location and agenda of the meeting.
 DATES: September 3, 2008 (0830-1700) and September 4, 2008 (0800-1730).
 ADDRESSES: U.S. Strategic Command Headquarters Conference Room, Offutt AFB, NB.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William L. Jones, (703) 681-8681, U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System Support Staff (NSS), Skyline 3, 5201 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500, Falls Church, VA 22041.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Agenda: Sep 3, 2008: Offutt AFB/HQ USSTRATCOM—Force Execution Time
Topic
Presenter8:30 a.m.
NMCS Capabilities Brief
Joint Staff9:30 a.m.
NMCS Roadmap
Joint Staff/USAF10 a.m.
Nuclear Forces Connectivity (DC2N concept, Thin-line funding and projected capabilities)
OASD (NII)/DISA10:30 a.m.
Oversight of NCCS Assets
OASD (NII)11:30 a.m.
Lunch
Club1 p.m.
Tour GOC, Air Room
STRATCOM2 p.m.
Briefing on OPLAN
USSTRATCOM3 p.m.
DOD Exercise Results
JS/STRATCOM4 p.m.
Executive Session5 p.m.
Adjourn
 Agenda: Sep 4, 2008: Offutt AFB/HQ USSTRATCOM—Force Execution Time
Topic
Presenter8 a.m.
Tour NMCS aircraft,  get capabilities brief
Crew9 a.m.
NATO NC2 Capabilities & Procedures
EUCOM10:30 a.m.
Integrated Tactical Warning/Attack Assessment (Modernization Plans, C2 Plans, issues, capabilities gaps)
AFSPC11:30 a.m.
Communication Satellite Transition Plans
Air Staff12 p.m.
Lunch1 p.m.
Nuclear Technical Performance  Criteria (NTPC)
J Staff by VTC3 p.m.
National Military Command System
J Staff by VTC24 p.m.
POLO Hat Program (results/trends)
J Staff by VTC5 p.m.
Executive Session5:30 p.m.
Adjourn
 Dated: August 13, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.


[FR Doc. E8-19498 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except underthe limited circumstancesset forth inLocalRule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20502

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ANGEL SOCRATES MAKRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(CR-H-93-107-1)

May 22, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Makris timely appeals his convictions and sentences for wire fraud and for

transporting counterfeit securities in international and interstate commerce, in violation of

18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2314. He contends that the district court erred, inter alia, in denying

his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. That motion was based on the grounds that at the

time of entry of the plea, Makris was mentally incompetent. A close review of the record,

with particular focus on the hearing on Makris’ post-conviction motion, reflects the very
 

1United States v. Makris, No. CR-H-93-107 (S.D.Tex. Sept. 22, 1994).

 

2See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct.

1266 (1995).

 

3United States v. Noe, 634 F.2d 860 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 876 (1981).

2

careful handling of this matter by the trial judge, and discloses no reversible error in the

finding and conclusion that Makris was mentally competent at the time he entered his guilty

plea.1 For the first time on appeal, Makris maintains that his guilty plea was entered

involuntarily. The record is devoid of plain error on this claim and it is rejected.2 Makris’

further contention that hissecurities offense was not cognizable under 18 U.S.C. § 2314 also

lacks merit.3 We find no error in the convictions and sentences and they are AFFIRMED.

Makris’ pro se “Motion to Include Supplemental Brief or to Dismiss the Appeal

Motion” is DENIED.
#### BAUER v. EFURD.

No. 4812.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 2, 1934.

Eraser & Carroll, of Many, for appellant.

Edwin M. Eraser, of Many, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

Plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of one Union Tool Ideal mud pump, 12x6%xl2, purchased from J. P. Scully by written contract dated August 2, 1933; that defendant is in actual possession of the pump without right or title and refuses to give up same to plaintiff. He alleged the value of the pump to be $300, and, after making the proper allegations, alleged a writ of sequestration was necessary. He prayed for a writ of sequestration to issue and, after hearing had, that he be decreed to be the owner of the pump and same ordered delivered to him.

Defendant in answer admitted possession of the pump, its value, and denied the other allegations of plaintiff’s petition. He further alleged he was the true and lawful owner of the pump by purchase from J. P. Scully on May 1, 1933, for the sum of $280; he alleged he had been damaged because of the illegal issuance of the writ of sequestration in the sum of $100, which damage he itemized and prayed for in reconvention; and prayed that plaintiff’s demands be rejected at his costs.

The lower court rendered judgment rejecting plaintiff’s demands, at his cost, and was silent as to the reconventional demand. Plaintiff has appealed. Defendant neither appealed nor answered the appeal; therefore, his reconventional demand for damages is not 'before us.

There is only one question to decide in the case, and that is: Who is the owner of the pump? It is purely and simply a question of fact. The testimony is conflicting and, unless we can say the finding of the lower court is clearly erroneous, we will not disturb its finding. The lower court was in a much better position to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses than we are and, after all is said and done, the disposition of the case rests entirely upon the credibility of the witnesses. We therefore cannot say the judgment is erroneous. A discussion of the conflicting testimony in the case could help no one. It therefore follows that the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


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





In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009 of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P (the “Partnership”), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Randall
H. Breitenbach, Co-Chief Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLC, the general
partner of the Partnership, 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
my knowledge:





(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
Partnership.





/s/ RANDALL H.
  BREITENBACHRandall
      H. BreitenbachCo-Chief
      Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLCDated:
      March 11, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000915901
<NAME> SELFCARE, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       9,199,630
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,037,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,937,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,949,347
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,816,512
<PP&E>                                      13,904,283
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,702,419
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             115,077,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       34,708,332
<BONDS>                                     50,409,484
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        3,718,251
<PREFERRED>                                 10,538,235
<COMMON>                                        15,852
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,993,011
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               115,077,477
<SALES>                                    114,081,599
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           117,983,618
<CGS>                                       77,080,920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               43,669,755
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,542,083
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,565,235
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (18,233,492)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   544,232
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (18,777,724)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (18,777,724)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.55)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors 

Sonic Solutions.:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements(No. 333-103624, No. 333-102396, No. 333-73412, No. 333-66187 and No. 333-112523) on Forms S-8 and S-3 of Sonic Solutions of our reports dated June 29, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Sonic Solutions and subsidiaries as ofMarch 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2005, and the related financialstatement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2005, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2005, which reports appear inthe March 31, 2005, annual report on Form 10-K of Sonic Solutions. 

 

Our reportdated June 29, 2005, on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2005, expresses our opinion that SonicSolutions did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2005 because of the effect of material weaknesses on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria and includes an explanatory paragraph thatstates that certain controls were not effective. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

San Francisco, California 

June 29, 2005