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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 318 

To extend the authority for the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory 

Commission. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2009 

Mr. DELAHUNT (for himself and Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To extend the authority for the Cape Cod National Seashore 

Advisory Commission. 

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 ‘‘Cape Cod National 

5 Seashore Advisory Commission Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF ADVISORY COMMISSION. 

7 Section 8(a) of Public Law 87–126 (16 U.S.C. 459b– 

8 7(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘2008.’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘2019.’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
**Exhibit
      32.1**








DUTCH
      GOLD RESOURCES, INC.;





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
        connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Dutch Gold Resources,
        Inc..
        (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        "Report"),




(1)   The
      Company’s Annual Report on Form 10–KSB for the year ended June 30, 2005, as
      filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.





This
      Certification is signed on December 14, 2007.








/s/Daniel
                W. HollisDaniel
                W. HollisChief
                Executive and FinancialOfficerDutch
                Gold Resources, Inc.
#### Andrew G. HARVEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 09-15905.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*733Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Andrew G. Harvey, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Steven Grant Warner, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Andrew G. Harvey appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

Harvey contends that the Board’s 2004 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. *See Hayward v. Marshall,*603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme Court has held that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. *See Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011). Because Harvey raises no procedural ehallenges, a COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit-23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTER PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



To the Board of Directors
AMCON Distributing Company
Omaha, Nebraska

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-45338 on form S-8 of our report on the consolidated financial statements
dated November 7, 2008, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial
statements, and the financial statement schedules, included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of AMCON Distributing Company and subsidiaries for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2008.



/s/ McGladrey & Pullen LLP
Omaha, Nebraska
November 7, 2008
**EXHIBIT
31.2**
 
 **SECTION
302 CERTIFICATION FOR FORM 10-K**
 **CERTIFICATIONS**
 
 I, Thomas
B. Specketer, certify that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MidAmerican Energy
      Company;2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report;3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
      report;4.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
      and we have:a)
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;b)
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures
      and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
      covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent
      fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and5.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
      the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of
      directors (or persons performing the equivalent
  function):a)
    All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control
      over financial reporting.Date:
      February 28, 2005/s/
      Thomas B. SpecketerThomas
      B. SpecketerVice
      President and Controller(chief
      financial officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6108

SYLVESTER MOORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE HINKLE, Warden, Haynesville Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-00-1139-AM)

Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Shapiro, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Eugene Paul

Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Sylvester Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Moore v. Hinkle, No. CA-00-1139-

AM (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 19, 2000; entered Dec. 20, 2000). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                        Subsidiaries of the Registrant
                        ------------------------------
                             (Direct and Indirect)

       Name of Subsidiary                          Jurisdiction of Incorporation
       ------------------                          -----------------------------
U.S. Foodservice, Inc.                                      Delaware

   JP Foodservice Distributors, Inc.                        Delaware
     JPFD Funding Company                                   Delaware
     Illinois Fruit & Produce Corp.                         Illinois
     Westlund Provisions, Inc.                              Minnesota
     Squeri Cash & Carry, Inc.                              Ohio
     Squeri Food Service, Inc.                              Ohio
     E&H Distributing Co.                                   Nevada
        Nevada Baking Company, Inc.                         Nevada
        Harrison's Prime Meats & Provisions, Inc.           Nevada
        Outwest Meat Company                                Nevada
     U.S. FoodService of Buffalo, Inc.                      New York
     John Sexton & Co.                                      Delaware
        U.S. Foodservice of Illinois, Inc.                  Delaware
        J.H. Haar & Sons L.L.C.                             New Jersey
        Duke Associates (Partnership) (1)
     Sofco, Inc.                                            New York
        SQP, Inc.                                           New York
        S. & O. Property Corporation                        New York
        Sofco-Mead Internal Management Corp.                New York
     Trans-Porte, Inc.                                      Delaware
   RS Funding, Inc.                                         Nevada
   Targeted Specialty Services, Inc.                        Delaware
   BRB Holdings, Inc.                                       Delaware
     White Swan, Inc.                                       Delaware
        U.S. Systems Distribution, Inc.                     Texas
     Biggers Brothers, Inc.                                 Delaware
        King's Foodservice, Inc.                            Kentucky
        U.S. Foodservice of Atlanta, Inc.                   Delaware
     Roanoke Restaurant Service, Inc.                       Virginia
     F.H. Bevevino & Company, Inc.                          Pennsylvania
   Joseph Webb Foods, Inc.                                  Delaware

____________________
(1) 97% owned by John Sexton & Co.; 3% owned by U.S. Foodservice, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND BALANCE SHEETS FOUND ON PAGES 26 AND 27 OF THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                             518
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,650
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     64,002
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,200
<PP&E>                                          50,708
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,286
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,078
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,477
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,078
<SALES>                                        221,828
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               221,828
<CGS>                                          163,198
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  163,198
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                59,548
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,598
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,268)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (470)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,798)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,798)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.44)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Michael Marx, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Nano Mask, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: February 10, 2010  /S/ Michael Marx Michael Marx Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Friday, November 17, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gretchen Swayzer at 1-888-912-1227 or 469-801-0769.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Friday, November 17, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information please contact: Gretchen Swayzer at 1-888-912-1227 or 469-801-0769, TAP Office, 4050 Alpha Rd., Farmers Branch, TX 75244, or contact us at the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. The public input is welcomed.

Dated: October 11, 2017.

Antoinette Ross,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2017-22403 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

ANNUAL SERVICER’S CERTIFICATE 

 

CIRCUIT CITY CREDIT CARD MASTER TRUST 

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Chase Bank USA, National Association (“Chase USA”), as Servicer (the “Servicer”),pursuant to the Circuit City Credit Card Master Trust Second Amended and Restated Master Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 25, 2004 (as such agreement may have been, or may, from time to time be, amended, supplemented or otherwisemodified, the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”), among Chase USA (formerly known as Bank One, Delaware, National Association), as Transferor and Servicer and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (formerly known as Bankers Trust Company),as Trustee, does hereby certify to the best of his or her knowledge after reasonable investigation that: 

 

1. Capitalized terms used in this certificate have their respective meanings set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. 

 

2. Chase USA is as of the date hereof the Servicer under the Pooling andServicing Agreement. 

 

3. The undersigned is a ServicingOfficer. 

 

4. This certificate is delivered pursuant to Section3.5 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. 

 

5. A review of theactivities of Chase USA during the Fiscal Year ended February 28, 2005 for which it was the Servicer and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement was made under the supervision of the undersigned. 

 

6. Based on such review, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge,Chase USA has fully performed all its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout such Fiscal Year for which it was the Servicer and no event which, with the giving of notice or passage of time or both, would constitute aServicer Default has occurred or is continuing except as set forth in paragraph 7 below. 

 

7. The following is a description of each Servicer Default under the provisions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement known to the undersigned to have occurred during the Fiscal Year ended February 28, 2005, whichsets forth in detail the (i) nature of each such Servicer Default, (ii) the action taken by the Servicer, if any, to remedy each such Servicer Default and (iii) the current status of each such Servicer Default: NOT APPLICABLE. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized Servicing Officer, has duly executed thiscertificate this 31st day of May, 2005. 

 
**CIRCUIT CITY CREDIT CARD MASTER TRUST**
**CHASE BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION**

as Servicer
By: 
/s/ Patricia M. Garvey
Name: Patricia M. GarveyTitle: Vice President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne Altwan LANGFORD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7426.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 5, 2011.

Dwayne Altwan Langford, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Altwan Langford seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion and denying his subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district *266court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Langford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*