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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 60 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States 

Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to restore service 

standards in effect as of July 1, 2012. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2019 

Mr. MCKINLEY (for himself, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. JOYCE of Ohio, Mr. TONKO, 

Mr. YOUNG, and Ms. GABBARD) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the United States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to restore service standards in effect 

as of July 1, 2012. 

Whereas, on January 5, 2015, the United States Postal Service has implemented lower ‘‘service standards’’ to virtually eliminate overnight delivery of first class mail and 

periodicals, and further delay most other mail; 

Whereas delayed mail negatively impacts businesses, hurts 

residents, rural communities and the economy, and drives 

customers away, resulting in lower revenue and worsens 

the Postal Service’s financial situation; and 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 60 IH 

Whereas robust service standards implemented by the United 

States Postal Service are essential to providing prompt 

and timely delivery of all mail: Online purchases, local 

newspapers, newsletters, bill payments, letters, invitations, packages, and medicines: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the United States Postal Service should 

3 take all appropriate measures to restore service standards 

4 in effect as of July 1, 2012. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
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 Sentry Petroleum Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Raj Rajeswaran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

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

(2)

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

Dated this 13th day of January, 2009.

| |     |                                                           
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------
| | BY: | RAJ RAJESWARANRaj Rajeswaran, 
Principal Executive Officer







1
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29717-29718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14708]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 8, 2009, Chattem 
Chemicals Inc., 3801 St. Elmo Avenue, Building 18, Chattanooga, 
Tennessee 37409, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of 
controlled substances listed in schedule II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methadone (9250)...........................  II
Methadone intermediate (9254)..............  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for distribution to its customers.
    Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently 
registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments 
or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 
21 CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in

[[Page 29718]]

quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no 
later than August 24, 2009.

    Dated: June 15, 2009.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-14708 Filed 6-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10(v)

                             ST. PAUL BANCORP, INC.



                                  AMENDMENT TO
                               1995 INCENTIVE PLAN


         The St. Paul Bancorp, Inc. 1995 Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is hereby
amended as set forth below, effective as of the date of adoption (the "Adoption
Date") of this Amendment by the Board of Directors of St. Paul Bancorp, Inc.
(the "Corporation"), subject to approval of this Amendment by the stockholders
of the Corporation, as provided below:

         1. The first sentence of Section 3(a) of the Plan is amended to read as
follows:

                "The amount of Stock which may be made subject to awards granted
                under the 1995 Plan during the term thereof shall not exceed an
                amount equal to 3,187,500 of the Company's authorized but
                unissued shares of Stock."

         2. The Plan shall otherwise be unchanged by this Amendment.

         3. This Amendment is adopted subject to approval within one year of the
Adoption Date by a majority of the votes present, in person or by proxy, and
entitled to vote at a duly held meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation
at which a quorum representing a majority of all of the outstanding voting stock
is present, in person or by proxy. If the stockholders fail to approve this
Amendment within one year of the Adoption Date, no awards may be granted under
the Plan covering shares of stock in excess of the number permitted under the
Plan as in effect before the Adoption Date.

                            *          *          *


         The foregoing Amendment to the Plan was duly adopted and approved by
the Board of Directors of the Corporation by resolution at a meeting held on
February 23, 1998, subject to approval of the Amendment by stockholders of the
Corporation.



                                              
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Secretary

         The foregoing Amendment to the Plan was duly adopted by the
shareholders of the Corporation at a meeting held on May 6, 1998.



                                              
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Secretary



                                       11
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Order No. 1624]

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

*Whereas*, Sony Electronics Inc., operator of Subone 82D, has requested an expansion of the scope of manufacturing authority approved within Subzone 82D in Dothan, Alabama, (FTZ Docket 68-2008, filed December 11, 2008);                

*Whereas*, notice inviting public comment has been given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (73 FR 78290, 12/22/2008) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,                 

*Whereas*, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest;                

*Now, therefore*, the Board hereby orders:                

                    The application to expand the scope of manufacturing authority under zone procedures within Subzone 82D, as described in the application and                     **Federal Register**                     notice, is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.                

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of June 2009.

Ronald K. Lorentzen,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce  for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-14630 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
#### Maria Auqui, as Guardian of the Property of Jose Verdugo, et al., Respondents, v Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership et al., Appellants.

Submitted April 1, 2013;

decided June 27, 2013

Motion by Make the Road New York et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the motions for reargument herein granted and the affirmation and brief are accepted as filed *[see 20*NY3d 1035 (2013)].

Judges Rivera and Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
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 LifeCare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Phillip B.
Douglas, 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 220, 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 position and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2007



/s/ PHILLIP B. DOUGLASPhillip B. DouglasChief Financial Officer
#### Thomas Cacciatore et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Defendant, and Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 111]

The prior order was properly vacated upon an adequate showing that the reason plaintiffs did not appear for oral argument of Brooklyn Union’s and defendant City’s post-note of issue motions for summary judgment, after having submitted written opposition thereto, was law office failure, and that plaintiffs had been otherwise diligent in prosecuting this then-eight-year-old action (CPLR 2005; *see White v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead,*41 AD3d 709, 710 [2007]). While plaintiffs’ showing of merit was sufficient for the purpose of vacating a minor, nonprejudicial default, they failed to raise an issue of fact in response to Brooklyn Union’s prima facie showing that it never performed any work on the west side of the street where the injured *272plaintiff fell, only the east side where the gas main is located. Plaintiffs’ engineer asserts that some of Brooklyn Union’s frequent and admitted work on the east side of the street was such as to require excavations on the west side, but he does not claim to have ever personally visited the site, much less inspected it or taken any measurements, and his affidavit is otherwise speculative and conclusory *(see Murphy v Conner,*84 NY2d 969, 972 [1994]; *Haberman v Cheesecake Factory Rests., Inc.,*43 AD3d 392 [2007]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

July 14, 2015 

V No. 321113 

Saginaw Circuit Court 

JOHN HENRY GRANDERSON, LC No. 13-038964-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: O’CONNELL, P.J., and OWENS and M. J. KELLY, JJ. 

M. J. KELLY, J. (concurring). 

 I concur in the result only. 

/s/ Michael J. Kelly
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daryl Hamm, Appellant.

Submitted October 9, 2012;

decided October 18, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and David C. Schopp, Esq., The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., 237 Main Street, Suite 1602, Buffalo, New York 14203 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00834-CR

BOOKER NEWSOME, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 179th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1410219).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on October 

8, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly 

raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible 

error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered July 16, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale. Opinion 

delivered by Justice Higley.
Exhibit 99.2

BLACK HILLS POWER, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report
of Black Hills Power, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Mark T. Thies, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ Mark T. Thies

Mark T. ThiesSenior Vice
President and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 31, 2003

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Black Hills Power, Inc. and will
be retained by Black Hills Power, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 15, 2015

No. 04-15-00183-CR

Richard LARES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006CR10110

Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On July 6, 2015, Appellant filed a motion requesting a copy of his Pre-Sentence 

Investigation Report. In his motion, Appellant recites the attempts he has made to obtain a copy. 

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel on appeal states he does not have a copy of the report, and 

the report is not part of the appellate record.

Appellant’s motion for a copy of the report is DENIED.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 15th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 24.1



                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


     KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that each individual whose signature
appears below constitutes and appoints Myles M. Kranzler and Edward J.
Klinsport, and each of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents
with full power of substitution, for him and in his name, place and stead in any
and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Base Ten Systems,
Inc. for the fiscal year ended October 31, 1995 and any amendments thereto, and
to file same, with all exhibits thereto, and all documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 13
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done to
comply with the provisions of the Securities Act of 1934, and all requirements
of the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them, or their or his
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.



                                        /S/ MYLES M. KRANZLER
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Myles M. Kranzler


                                        /S/ JAMES A. EBY
                                        ------------------------------
                                        James A. Eby


                                        /S/ EDWARD J. KLINSPORT
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Edward J. Klinsport


                                        /S/ ALAN J. EISENBERG
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Alan J. Eisenberg


                                        /S/ DONALD M. DANIELS
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Donald M. Daniels


                                        /S/ ALEXANDER M. ADELSON
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Alexander M. Adelson


                                        /S/ ALAN S. POOLE
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Alan S. Poole


                                        /S/ SUSAN M. KLINSPORT
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Susan M. Klinsport
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Russell Francis, Appellant.

[826 NYS2d 291]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rings County (Marras, J.), rendered September 14, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reduc*934ing the conviction of murder in the second degree to manslaughter in the second degree, and vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for sentencing on the conviction of manslaughter in the second degree.

The defendant killed the decedent, allegedly during a struggle for a gun. The defendant was charged with, inter alia, two counts of murder in the second degree (intentional murder and depraved indifference murder). The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree under Penal Law § 125.25 (2) (depraved indifference murder) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly refused to charge the jury on the defense of justification *(see People v Reynoso,*73 NY2d 816, 818 [1988]; *People v Watts,*57 NY2d 299, 301 [1982]; *People v Varughese,*21 AD3d 1126, 1127-1128 [2005]; *People v Plowden,*5 AD3d 609, 609-610 [2004]; *People v Battee,*308 AD2d 596 [2003]; *People v Brathwaite,*276 AD2d 707 [2000]).

Nevertheless, we find that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction of murder in the second degree. The evidence failed to demonstrate the degree of depravity and indifference to human life required for depraved indifference murder *(see People v Feingold,*7 NY3d 288, 293-294 [2006]; *People v Suarez,*6 NY3d 202, 208-215 [2005]; *People v Payne,*3 NY3d 266, 270-272 [2004]; *People v McMillon,*31 AD3d 136 [2006]). The evidence was legally sufficient, however, to establish the lesser-included offense of manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15 [1]; *see People v Atkinson,*7 NY3d 765, 766-767 [2006]; *People v McMillon, supra).*

Accordingly, we modify the judgment by reducing the conviction of murder in the second degree to manslaughter in the second degree and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for sentencing on the conviction of manslaughter in the second degree.

The defendant’s remaining contentions raised in his supplemental brief have been rendered academic in light of the above determination. Miller, J.P, Crane, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Growth in Gaming Revenues in Past 

($ in Billions)

$26.7 $26.1 $24.9

$22.6

$19.5

$16.8

$14.7

$26.5 

$0.0$5.0

$10.0$15.0$20.0$25.0$30.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Dreams, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ross Tannenbaum, Principal 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, 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; and



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



|    |  |                            
|--- |  | ---------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Ross Tannenbaum        
|    |  | Ross Tannenbaum            
|    |  | Principal Financial Officer
|    |  | January 28, 2005