alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

     Certification  Pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)

     Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United States Code),  each of
the undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"),  does hereby  certify,  to the best of such officer's  knowledge and
belief, that:

(1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the
     "Form 10-Q") of the Company 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  Form  10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all
     materials  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
     the Company.



Dated:  May 14, 2004                        /s/ Frank B. Manning
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Frank B. Manning
                                            Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

Certification  Pursuant  to  Section  906 of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)

     Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United States Code),  each of
the undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"),  does hereby  certify,  to the best of such officer's  knowledge and
belief, that:

(1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the
     "Form 10-Q") of the Company 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  Form  10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all
     materials  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
     the Company.

Dated:  May 14, 2004                        /s/ Robert A. Crist
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Robert A. Crist
                                            Chief Financial Officer
#### JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Respondent, v Jon Edelson et al., Defendants. C-Con Corp., Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.

Submitted March 12, 2012;

decided May 31, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Michael Baker Corporation

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Michael Baker
Corporation and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2005, management's assessment of the effectiveness of the Company's
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, and the
effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2005, and have issued our reports thereon dated August 15, 2006,
(which reports express an unqualified opinion on the consolidated financial
statements and management's assessment on the effectiveness of internal control
and an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control
over financial reporting due to material weaknesses as of December 31, 2005);
such consolidated financial statements and reports are included in your 2005
Annual Report to Shareholders and are incorporated herein by reference. Our
audit also included the consolidated financial statement schedule of the Company
for the year ended December 31, 2005 listed in Item 15. This consolidated
financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audit. In our opinion,
such consolidated financial statement schedule for the year ended December 31,
2005, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements
taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set
forth therein.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-----------------------------
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
August 15, 2006
---

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 Annual Report of Balchem Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis J. Fitzpatrick, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/ Francis J. FitzpatrickFrancis J. FitzpatrickChief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Principal Accounting Officer)February 28, 2011
 
 This certification accompanies the above-described Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 
 62
#### Ghulam MUHAMMAD, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-60052

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 7, 2006.

Harvey A Schein, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.

*479Alberto R. Gonzales, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, John Joseph Siemietkowski, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, U.S. Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration *&*Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ghulam Muhammad, a citizen of Pakistan, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying his request for withholding of removal. When, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision. *See Mikhael v. INS,*115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997). This court reviews the BIA’s factual conclusion that an alien is not eligible for withholding of removal under the substantial evidence test. *Chun v. INS,*40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994). Under this standard, “the alien must show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” *Id.*An IJ’s findings on credibility are accorded great deference. *Efe v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir.2002).

Muhammad argues that the BIA erred in denying him withholding of removal because he suffered persecution in Pakistan due to his membership in the Altai faction of the political party Muttahida Quami Movement. In denying withholding of removal, the IJ found that Muhammad’s testimony was not credible, that conditions had changed significantly in Pakistan since the events surrounding Muhammad’s 1996 departure, and that, if Muhammad felt threatened, he could safely relocate to another part of Pakistan. In affirming the IJ, the BIA noted that, even assuming arguendo that Muhammad’s testimony regarding his claimed past persecution was credible, the IJ “correctly found that the presumption that the respondent’s life or freedom would be threatened in the future had been rebutted” under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal. *See Chun,*40 F.3d at 78.

Accordingly, Muhammad’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.
NO. 07-06-0310-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D AUGUST 16, 2006

______________________________ NESHA LITTLE, IND IVIDUALLY A ND AS REPR ESENTATIVE OF THE EST ATE OF E ARNEST LEE LIT TLE, DE CEASED A ND AS NEXT

FRIEND OF VALENCIA ELISE LITTL E, A MINOR; AND KE NARD IS TORN ELL LITTL E, APPE LLANTS V. RICHARD B. MENDELSSO HN, M.D., TIMOTHY I. O SONMA, M.D ., EMANON, P. A., AND INPATIENT CONSULTANTS OF TEXAS, PLLC , APPELLEES

_________________________________ FROM THE 288th DISTRIC T COURT O F BEXAR COUNT Y; NO. 2003-CI- 13262; HONORAB LE LORI MASSEY , JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS an d CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION
On July 18, 2006, appellants f iled a Motion to Dismiss Appeal. No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion. Acc ordingly , the appeal is di smissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will iss u e forthwith. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1. James T. Campbell Justice
#### King Development Company et al., Appellants, *v.*Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees. Chatterton Club, L.P., Appellant, *v.*Franklin County Board of Revision et al., Appellees. C.O.A. Housing, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Van Wert County Board of Revision et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *King Dev. Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 483.]

*484(Nos. 96-541, 96-542 and 96-545

Submitted April 1, 1997

Decided May 21, 1997.)

*Todd W. Sleggs,*for appellants King Development Co., Crofton Partners I, Crofton Partners II, Chatterton Club, L.P., and C.O.A. Housing, Inc.

*James R. Gorry,*Assistant County Prosecutor, for appellees Franklin County Board of Revision and Franklin County Auditor and Van Wert County Board of Revision and Van Wert Auditor.

*Teaford, Rich, Coffman & Wheeler, Jeffrey A. Rich*and *Karol Cassell Fox,*for appellees Board of Education of the Reynoldsburg City School District Board of Education and the Groveport Madison Local School District Board of Education.

*Sua sponte,*the causes are consolidated. The orders of the Board of Tax Appeals are affirmed on the authority of *Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 479, 678 N.E.2d 932, decided today.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.1


               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements

o        Form S-8 No. 35-27317,
o        Form S-8 No. 33-21698,
o        Form S-8 No. 33-06183,
o        Form S-8 No. 333-49779,
o        Form S-8 No. 333-62037,
o        Form S-8 No. 333-97703,
o        Form S-8 No. 333-82828,
o        Form S-8 No. 333-16821,
o        Form S-8 No. 333-37297,
o        Form S-8 No. 333-70387,
o        Form S-8 No. 333-70673, and
o        Form S-8 No. 333-54158

of our report dated August 29, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of The Fairchild Corporation and subsidiaries included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended June 30, 2002.

                                                     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


McLean, Virginia
October 22, 2002
MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 288TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on October 29, 2014, the cause upon appeal to 

revise or reverse your judgment between

In the Interest of A.M.M., Appellant

V.

No. 04-14-00248-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2013-PA-01040

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order 

terminating appellant’s parental rights is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that 

no costs shall be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal because he 

qualifies as indigent.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, 

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on January 7, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 3853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-14-00248-CV

In the Interest of A.M.M.

v.

(NO. 2013-PA-01040 IN 288TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

FILING $195.00 INDIGENT

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF 

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and 

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Fourth District of Texas, this January 7, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 3853
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Entergy
Louisiana's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1996 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000060527
<NAME> ENTERGY LOUISIANA INC.
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER> 012
   <NAME> ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    3,476,719
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     87,236
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         324,302
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       391,021
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,279,278
<COMMON>                                     1,088,900
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       (2,659)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             63,764
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,250,505
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           92,500
<PREFERRED>                                    100,500
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,373,233
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              31,066
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   34,275
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     10,156
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                28,000
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,459,543
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,279,278
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,828,867
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           118,560
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,392,421
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,392,421
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        436,446
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               3,795 
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 440,241
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       130,919
<NET-INCOME>                                   190,762 
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     19,947
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  170,815 
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       179,200
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         351,671
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
97-475.

#### State ex rel. Nieves v. State.

In Mandamus. On answer of respondents. Answer treated as motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
### MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 288TH JUDICIA L DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETI NGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on October 29, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

In the Interest of A.M.M., Appellant

V.

No. 04

- 14

- 00248

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2013

- PA

- 01040

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order terminating appellan t’s parental rights is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal because he qualifies as indigent.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the orde r of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texa s, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on January 7, 2015

. KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLE RK

____________________________ Cynthia A. Ma rtinez Deputy Clerk, Ext. 3853BILL OF COSTS


### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 14

- 00248

- CV

In the Interest of A.M.M.

v.

(NO. 2013

- PA

- 01040 IN 288TH JUDIC IAL DISTRICT COURT O F BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY FILI NG $195.00 INDIGENT

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.**

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE , CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE S TATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appear s of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for the Fourth District of Texas, this January 7, 2015

.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________ Cynthia A. Martinez Deputy Clerk, Ext. 3853
#### In the Matter of M.G.M. Insulation, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Colleen C. Gardner, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Submitted December 3, 2012;

decided December 11, 2012

Motion by New York State Council of the National Electrical Contractors Association Chapters for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14196]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER06-615-000; ER07-1257-000; ER08-1113-000; ER08-1178-000; 
EL08-88-000; ER09-241-000]


California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of 
FERC Staff Attendance

June 10, 2009.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives 
notice that on June 11, 2009, members of its staff will participate in 
a market issues teleconference to be conducted by the California 
Independent System Operator (CAISO). The agenda and other documents for 
the teleconference are available on the CAISO's Web site, http://www.caiso.com.
    Sponsored by the CAISO, the teleconference is open to all market 
participants, and Commission staff's attendance is part of the 
Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The teleconference may discuss 
matters at issue in the above captioned dockets.
    For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e7d6f6b6b6a20686f7c7c6165667e6f774e686b7c6d20696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="483b292d2d2c662e293a3a272320382931082e2d3a2b662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>; (916) 294-0322 or Maury Kruth at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e131f0b0c0750150c0b0a163e181b0c1d50191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f895998d8a81d6938a8d8c90b89e9d8a9bd69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>, (916) 294-0275.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14196 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
FORM 10-Q--QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(D)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

[X] Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the period ended

 June 30, 2002

or

[  ]  Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the transition period from ______ to ___________

 

Commission File Number: 33-18089-A

 

HICKORY LENDERS, LTD.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
II 

Calendar No. 449 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3465 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Michael C. 

Rothberg Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 9, 2010 

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 29, 2010 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Michael C. Rothberg Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MICHAEL C. ROTHBERG POST OFFICE. 

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

5 Postal Service located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3465 RS

1 Massachusetts, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Mi2 chael C. Rothberg Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any references in a law, map, 

4 regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Michael C. Rothberg 

7 Post Office’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 449 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3465 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostRothberg Post Office’’. Sharon, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Michael C. al Service located at 15 South Main Street in 

JUNE 29, 2010 

Reported without amendment 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS