alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commission Meeting Scheduled for February 11, 2015","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"BfCmo3PsbW\"><a href=\"\/commission-meeting-scheduled-for-february-11-2015\/\">Commission Meeting Scheduled for February 11, 2015<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commission-meeting-scheduled-for-february-11-2015\/embed\/#?secret=BfCmo3PsbW\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commission Meeting Scheduled for February 11, 2015” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"BfCmo3PsbW\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2845 

To extend the authorization of each of the National Coal Heritage Area 

and the Wheeling National Heritage Area in the State of West Virginia, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2021 

Mr. MCKINLEY (for himself and Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia) introduced 

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

A BILL 

To extend the authorization of each of the National Coal 

Heritage Area and the Wheeling National Heritage Area 

in the State of West Virginia, 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. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA AU4 THORIZATIONS. 

5 (a) NATIONAL COAL HERITAGE AREA.—Section 107 

6 of Division II of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 

7 Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–333; 110 Stat. 

8 4244; 127 Stat. 420; 128 Stat. 314; 128 Stat. 3801) is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘2021’’ and inserting ‘‘2036’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2845 IH

1 (b) WHEELING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.—Sec2 tion 157(i) of the Department of the Interior and Related 

3 Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106–291; 

4 114 Stat. 967; 128 Stat. 3802), is amended by striking 

5 ‘‘2021’’ and inserting ‘‘2036’’. 

6 (c) EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO COMPLETE CER7 TAIN MANAGEMENT PLANS.—Section 6001(c)(1) of the 

8 John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and 

9 Recreation Act (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 116– 

10 9; 133 Stat. 772) is amended by striking ‘‘3’’ and insert11 ing ‘‘4’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
FLRA NEWS

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY - WASHINGTON, DC 20424

Contact: Eric Prag FLRA.gov FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 771-444-5859 July 10, 2023

The FLRA Revises Its Regulations to Enable Parties to Request Email Service of 

Documents Issued in Cases Before the Authority Members, and Invites Comments.

Today, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (the FLRA) issued a Federal Register notice

implementing an interim final rule that amends 5 C.F.R. § 2429.12 to allow parties using the 

FLRA’s eFiling system to request email service of decisions, notices, and orders issued by the 

FLRA’s three-Member, decisional component (the Authority) in individual cases. 

The amendment applies only to documents issued by the FLRA’s Office of Case Intake and 

Publication in cases pending before the FLRA’s Members. It does not apply to documents 

issued in cases pending before other FLRA offices or components, such as the Office of 

Administrative Law Judges or the Office of the General Counsel.

Although the interim final rule is effective July 11, 2023, the FLRA welcomes comments on the 

rule. Any written comments must be received on or before August 10, 2023. The Notice

includes the instructions for submitting comments. 

For more information on the Authority, click here.

###

The FLRA administers the labor-management relations program for 2.1 million non-Postal federal 

employees worldwide, approximately 1.2 million of whom are represented in 2,200 bargaining 

units. It is charged with providing leadership in establishing policies and guidance related to 

federal sector labor-management relations and with resolving disputes under, and ensuring 

compliance with, the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                |                                   |   |   |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                |                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| By:                                 | /s/                Hui Xiaobing        |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                | Hui                Xiaobing            |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                | Chief                Executive Officer |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                |                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Date:                April 22, 2008 |                                   |   |   |   |   |   |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Terri A. PAYSENO, Appellant.

No. 07-2646.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 6, 2008.

Filed: May 12, 2008.

Douglas Richard Semisch, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.

James Edward Reisinger, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.

Before BYE, M. SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Terri Payseno appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after revoking her supervised release. The court sentenced her to 23 months in prison to run consecutively to a sentence she was serving in Idaho. For reversal, Payseno argues that her sentence is unreasonable because the court ordered a consecutive sentence and failed to give her credit for time served in federal custody.

We conclude that Payseno’s 23-month revocation sentence is reasonable, as it is within the statutory maximum and resulted from the district court’s consideration of appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (upon revoking supervised release, court may require defendant to serve in prison all or part of supervised release term authorized for offense, maximum prison sentence is 2 years if offense underlying supervised release was Class C felony); *United States v. Nelson,*453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir.2006) (appellate court reviews revocation sentence to determine whether it is unreasonable in relation to, inter alia, advisory Guidelines range and other § 3553(a) factors). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that Payseno’s revocation sentence run consecutively to her Idaho sentence. *See*U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(i) (“any term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of ... supervised release shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving”); *United States v. Caves,*73 F.3d 823, 824-25 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (Chapter 7 policy statements are advisory, rather than binding; court did not abuse discretion by imposing consecutive sentence for serious violation of supervised-release conditions). Last, the court properly declined to give Payseno credit for time served in federal custody, because authority to give such credit is left to the Attorney General. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (defendant shall be given credit toward service of term of imprisonment for *645any time spent in official detention prior to date sentence commences that has not been credited against another sentence); *United States v. Wilson,*503 U.S. 329, 333-37, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992) (Attorney General computes amount of credit after defendant begins sentence; ■ district court cannot apply § 3585(b) at sentencing).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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 reportof Freestone Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March  31, 2014 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities andon the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2.           theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationof the Company.

 

 

Dated:  October 30, 2015

 

/s/ Clayton Carter

 

Name: Clayton Carter

Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer

 

Dated:  October 30, 2015

 

/s/ James F. Carroll                                                       

 

James F. Carroll                                           

Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1



     CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), the undersigned hereby certify that this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

         TELECOMUNICACIONES DE PUERTO RICO, INC.


                                             By: /s/ Jon E. Slater
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Name:  Jon E. Slater
                                                 Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Date:  November 14, 2003


                                             By:  /s/ Walter C. Forwood
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Name:  Walter C. Forwood
                                                 Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                                 Date:  November 14, 2003



This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Telecomunicaciones de Puerto
Rico, Inc. for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc. and will be retained by
Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 51213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23972]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-047-2017]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 52--Suffolk County, New York; 
Authorization of Production Activity; Estee Lauder Inc. (Skin Care, 
Fragrance, and Cosmetic Products); Melville, New York

    On June 16, 2017, Estee Lauder Inc. submitted a notification of 
proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within 
FTZ 52, Site 4, in Melville, New York.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400), including notice in the Federal Register 
inviting public comment (82 FR 32167, July 12, 2017). On October 14, 
2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no 
further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The 
production activity described in the notification was authorized, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including 
Section 400.14.

    Dated: October 30, 2017.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23972 Filed 11-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Jesse GARCIA, Appellant, v. Marty C. ANDERSON, Warden; Dr. T. Tran; Dr. S. Stanton; Jane Doe; and John Doe, sued in their individual/official capacities, Appellees.

No. 10-2221.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 2, 2010.

Filed: Nov. 17, 2010.

Jesse Garcia, Rochester, MN, pro se.

Lonnie Frank Bryan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellees.

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Jesse Garcia appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act. Having conducted de novo review, we conclude that summary judgment was warranted. *See Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc.,*559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir.2009) (summary judgment standard of review); *see also Mel-ford Olsen Honey, Inc. v. Adee,*452 F.3d 956, 966 (8th Cir.2006) (reviewing de novo district court’s application of state law). We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Garcia’s motion to alter or amend judgment. *See Christensen v. Qwest Pension Plan,*462 F.3d 913, 920 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeanne J. Graham, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
#### Nicolas Maroscia, Respondent, v Philip Pastore, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[666 NYS2d 405]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered September 10, 1996, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*3There is no merit to defendant’s claim that the default judgment should be vacated because of plaintiffs fraud or misrepresentation. While plaintiffs affidavit of merit on his motion for a default judgment did erroneously state that payments on the subject promissory note were to commence on June 1, 1991 instead of February 1, 1990, defendant failed to establish that this error was intentional. The note had been issued on May 1, 1991 but called for monthly payments beginning on February 1, 1990 when the debt was apparently incurred. More importantly, defendant failed to show how he was harmed by this error. The statement in the affidavit of merit that defendant was obligated to pay $2,000 a month in interest was not error, since 16% of $150,000 computed annually but paid in monthly installments is $2,000. Nor were defendant’s conclusory statements sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to jurisdiction. We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             924
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,286
<INVENTORY>                                     63,688
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,411
<PP&E>                                          94,162
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,501
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,461
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,612
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209,501
<SALES>                                        487,783
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               487,783
<CGS>                                          419,412
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  419,412
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,293
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,653
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,425
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,603
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,822
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,822
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.31


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Chairman Cordero Participated in 2013 CONECT Round Table","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"B6MR6NJHXZ\"><a href=\"\/chairman-cordero-participated-in-2013-conect-round-table\/\">Chairman Cordero Participated in 2013 CONECT Round Table<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/chairman-cordero-participated-in-2013-conect-round-table\/embed\/#?secret=B6MR6NJHXZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Chairman Cordero Participated in 2013 CONECT Round Table” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"B6MR6NJHXZ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131058 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131058 

 COA: 268728 
 Wayne CC: 77-009456-01

ANGELO TYRONE ANDREWS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 31, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0918 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 26, 2006 

 Clerk