alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# FILED July 18, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON JUNE 1997 SESSI ON JERRY W. HARDIN, ) ) C.C.A. N o. 02C01-9609-C C-00303 Appellant, ) ) Henry County V. ) ) Honorab le Julian P. Guinn , Judge ) STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) (Post-Conviction) ) Appellee. )

FOR THE APPELLAN T: FOR THE APPELLEE: Jerry W. Hardin, pro se Charles W. Burson Reg. No. 136 74-076 Attorney General & Reporter F.C.I. Memphis P.O. Box 34550 Clinton J. M organ Memphis, TN 38184- 0550 Counsel for the State 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 Robert “Gus” Radford Distric t Attorney General P.O. Box 686 Huntingdon, TN 38344

OPINION FILE D: ___________________ AF FIRMED PAU L G. SUMM ERS, Judge-2- OPINION The appellant, Jerry W . Hardin, appeals pro se from a judgment ente red by the Henry County Circuit Court. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in dis missing hi s two pro se petitions for post-convi ction reli ef. Appellant alleges that

he was not fully adv ised of his ri ghts whe n he pled guil ty in May 1977 to forgery and that he was denied e ffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to file an ap peal of the appe llant’s July 1977 robbery convi ctio n. Ap pell ant f iled his pe titio ns f or po st-co nvict ion re lief in th ese t wo case s on Ma rch 2 1, 19 96. O n Apr il 16, 1996 , the trial cour t dism isse d the two petitions. The appellant arg ues that the cur rent Post-C onviction Procedure Act, which beca me e ff ecti ve in 1 995 , pro vides him wit h one year f rom t he ef fec tive date of the new ac

t in whi ch to file his petition for rel ief. The appellant c ites Carter v . State , No. 03C01-9509-CC-00270 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, July 11, 1996) in supp ort of his arg ument. The state maintai ns, however, that the appellant’s right to file post-conviction relief from his 1977 convictions expired in July 1989 unde r the previous Post-C onviction Act. We believe that the legi slative intent of the new Post-Conviction Procedure Act was to decr ease the burden of post-convic tion petitions

as noted in the dissent

in Carter . Therefore, we respectf ully disagree with the decision in Carter . The legis lature did not intend to award every prisoner a one-year period in whichto file a post- convicti on petition reg ardless of the amount of time that had passed sincehis or her convicti on. In this case, the appellant’s petitions for post-convi ction reli ef are time barred
. Therefore, this Court af firms the judgment of the trial court in accordance with Rul e 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.-3- ______________________________ PAUL G. S UMMERS, Ju dge CONCUR:

______________________________ DAVID H. W ELLES , Judge

______________________________ JOE G. RIL EY, Judge
Parrag-uirre 

J. 

(VtA 

Cherry 

2 

assuming that laches does not preclude consideration of appellant's motion 

on the merits, see Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 563-65, 1 P.3d 969, 972 

(2000) ("[C]onsideration of the equitable doctrine of laches is necessary in 

determining whether a defendant has shown 'manifest injustice' that 

would permit withdrawal of a plea after sentencing."), we conclude that he 

is not entitled to relief because his conviction became final prior to Padilla 

and he cannot benefit from its holding as Padilla does not apply 

retroactively. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. „ 133 S. Ct. 1103, 

1113 (2013). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err by 

denying appellant's motion, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

/ 

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District C -Ourt 

Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge 

Don P. Chairez 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A
§ 90.100 What role does the Bureau of India Affairs (BIA) play in the Osage Minerals Council's elections? ( a ) The Superintendent of the Osage Agency must compile, at the request of the Chair of the Osage Minerals Council, a list of the voters of Osage descent who will be 18 years of age or over on the election day designated by the Osage Minerals Council and whose names appear on the March quarterly annuity roll at the Osage Agency as of the March quarterly payment immediately preceding the date of the election. Such list must set forth only the name and last known address of each voter.
( b ) For purposes of calculating votes, the Superintendent must furnish to the Osage Minerals Council designee charged with carrying out Osage Minerals Council elections a separate list containing the name and last known address of each eligible voter and including the voter's headright interest shown on the last March quarterly annuity roll.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 613 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       October 6, 2000.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3244) to combat 
trafficking of persons, especially into the sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like 
conditions, in the United States and countries around the world through 
prevention, through prosecution and enforcement against traffickers, and through 
protection and assistance to victims of trafficking. All points of order against 
the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
120 STAT. 2690 PUBLIC LAW 109–389—DEC. 12, 2006

Public Law 109–389

109th Congress

An Act

To provide for the conveyance of the former Konnarock Lutheran Girls School

in Smyth County, Virginia, which is currently owned by the United States and

administered by the Forest Service, to facilitate the restoration and reuse of

the property, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORMER KONNAROCK LUTHERAN

GIRLS SCHOOL, JEFFERSON NATIONAL FOREST, SMYTH

COUNTY, VIRGINIA.

(a) CONVEYANCE REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall

convey, without consideration, to the Evangelical Lutheran Coalition for Mission in Appalachia (in this section referred to as the

‘‘recipient’’) all right, title, and interest of the United States in

and to a parcel of real property in the Mount Rogers National

Recreation Area, Smyth County, Virginia, located in the vicinity

of the junction of Virginia Routes 600 and 603, consisting of not

more than six acres, and containing the former Konnarock Lutheran

Girls School and its outbuildings, as depicted on the map entitled

‘‘Proposed Area for New Legislation or Sale–Konnarock School–

Being a Portion of USA Tract J–935’’.

(b) CONDITION OF CONVEYANCE.—The conveyance under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the recipient

accept the real property described in such subsection in its condition

at the time of the conveyance, commonly known as conveyance

‘‘as is’’.

(c) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—Subject to the acreage limitation specified in subsection (a), the exact acreage and legal description of the real property to be conveyed under such subsection

shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The

cost of the survey shall be borne by the recipient.

(d) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may

require such additional terms and conditions in connection with

Evangelical

Lutheran

Coalition for

Mission in

Appalachia.

Dec. 12, 2006

[H.R. 5103]

PUBLIC LAW 109–389—DEC. 12, 2006 120 STAT. 2691

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5103:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Sept. 26, considered and passed House.

Nov. 16, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary considers

appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

Approved December 12, 2006.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Workers & Retirees 
-  Online Transactions: My Pension Benefit Access (MyPBA) FAQs 
-  Forms For Workers and Retirees 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Forms for Workers and Retirees

PBGC may ask workers and retirees to provide additional required information, as appropriate. Some of these forms may be submitted electronically via My Pension Benefits Access (MyPBA), an online service for participants to complete transactions with PBGC. For more information, see Online Transactions: My MyPBA FAQs.

 

* Some PBGC forms are appropriate for certain situations and are listed as ‘limited circulation’. These forms are not accessible on PBGC’s website. If you think that you may need such a form, please call PBGC’s Customer Contact Center so that a PBGC specialist may determine if the form is appropriate for you.

Information about viewing PDF files

January 16, 2024

##           MyPBA      

Participants in PBGC-trusteed plans can use PBGC's fast, free, and secure online service tool to apply for pension benefits, update contact information, adjust federal income tax withholding, and more.

Log In to MyPBA

##           Contact Us      

Visit our Contact Us page for more information.
July 9 , 2012

By Email

Esta Rosenberg, Chief

U.S. Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Spirit Airlines Application for an Exemption, DFW

- CUN

(DOT

- OST

- 2012

- 0 106 )

Dear Ms. Rosenb erg

,

Spirit Airlines has completed its poll of the U.S. carrier s served with its application of

July 2 , 2012 for a n exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40109 for service between Dallas/Ft.

Worth, Texas (DFW) and Cancun , Mexico ( CUN ).

Spirit received no n

- objections from each of the U.S. carrier s served. We request

expedited approval of our application

.

Respectfully submitted

,

David M. Kirstein

cc: Service List
§ 584.6 When will the hearing be held? ( a ) The Commission shall designate a presiding official who shall commence a hearing within 30 days after the Commission receives a timely notice of appeal. At the request of the appellant, the presiding official may waive the 30-day hearing requirement upon designation.
( b ) If the subject of an appeal is whether an order of temporary closure should be made permanent or dissolved, the presiding official shall be designated within 7 days of the timely filing of the notice of appeal, and the hearing shall be concluded within 30 days after the Commission receives a timely notice of appeal, unless the appellant waives this right. Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the presiding official shall conduct such hearing in a manner that will enable him or her to conclude the hearing within the period required by this paragraph and consistent with any due process rights of the parties, including any period that the record is kept open following the hearing.
Exhibit 99.6





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 Pembina Pipeline Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended
December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
 H. Dilger, President & 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 to the best of 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 represents, in all material
                                                               respects, the financial condition and results of the operations
                                                               of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Date:	February
26, 2014





|/s/
    M. H. Dilger                   
|---------------------------------------
|M.
    H. Dilger                       
|President
    & Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.221 What happens next? ( a ) If the parties do not agree on a settlement, the awarding official will issue a written decision on the claim.
( b ) The awarding official shall always give a copy of the decision to the Indian tribe or tribal organization by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by any other method which provides a receipt.
J. 

imprisonment). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion at sentencing, and we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge 

Washoe County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Graham Packaging Holdings Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David W. Bullock, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 results of operations of Graham Packaging Holdings
Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 3, 2010

|    |  |                                         
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ David W. Bullock                    
|    |  | David W. Bullock Chief
Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
# C_2006326EN.01008201.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/82

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Kat and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T -530/93, T-531/93, T-533/93, T-1/94, T-3/94, T-4/94, T-11/94, T-53/94, T-71/94, T-73/94, T-87/94, T-91/94, T-102/94, T-103/94, T-106/94, T-120/94, T-121/94, T-123/94, T-124/94, T-253/94 and T-372/94) (1)

1

(2006/C 326/166)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 334, 9.12.2003.

1

---
#### In the Matter of Dennis Watkins, Petitioner, v Edward McLaughlin et al., Respondents.

[823 NYS2d 751]

Application for an order pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. All concur. No opinion. Order filed. Concur— Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.
§ 700.711 Grazing permits. ( a ) All livestock grazed on the New Lands must be covered by a grazing permit authorized and issued by the Commissioner on Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation.
( b ) Permit holders must: ( 1 ) Be enrolled Navajo Tribal members,
( 2 ) Be over 18 years of age,
( 3 ) Maintain a permanent residency on the New Lands Range Unit of permit issue, and
( 4 ) Own livestock which graze on the range unit of permit issue.
( c ) Permits will be issued for a base of 80 SUYL (20 AU) and may not be divided or transferred for less than 80 SUYL.
( d ) ( 1 ) Temporary seasonal grazing permits for periods not to exceed one year may be issued to permittees: ( i ) To use extra forage made available under rotation grazing management as regulated by a range unit management plan,
( ii ) To use forage created by unusually favorable climatic conditions,
( iii ) To allow use of range while term permits are held in suspension under § 700.715(d).
( 2 ) These temporary permits may be reissued prior to termination provided: ( i ) The permittee is managing grazing in compliance with grazing regulations,
( ii ) Livestock grazing is in compliance with the cooperative range unit range management plan, and
( iii ) Forage is available on the range to sustain the livestock authorized under the temporary permit.
§ 273.111 How do the requirements for Tribal organizations differ from those for other eligible entities? ( a ) States, public school districts, or Indian corporations must comply with the requirements in this part.
( b ) The requirements of this part apply to Tribal organizations (including but not limited to provisions regarding how funds can be used under the Johnson-O'Malley Act and reporting requirements), except that Tribal organizations do not need to comply with: ( 1 ) Sections 273.120—273.121, regarding approval of an education plan by the Director;
( 2 ) Section 273.125, regarding entering into a contract as a new contracting party;
( 3 ) Sections 273.132—273.135, regarding review, approval, and negotiation of the contract;
( 4 ) Section 273.142, regarding advance payments;
( 5 ) Any section in subpart H (other than the following sections, which still apply: § 273.170, regarding special program provisions to be included in a contract, § 273.172, regarding State employees' access to Tribal lands, reservations or allotments, and § 273.182, regarding penalties for misusing funds or property);
( 6 ) Any section in subpart I (other than § 273.194, regarding the Indian Education Committee's authority to recommend cancellation or suspension of contracts, which still applies);
( 7 ) Any section in subpart K (other than § 273.208).
( c ) The contract proposal submitted by the Tribal organization must meet the requirements in part 900 or 1000 of this chapter, in addition to those in § 273.130 except that education plans must be submitted to the BIE Director for approval in accordance with § 273.170. The requirements in part 900 or 1000 of this chapter apply to contracts and compacts with Tribal organizations, except for the provisions in §§ 900.240 through 900.256, 1000.300, and 1000.330 of this chapter concerning retrocession and reassumption of programs. If a Tribal organization retrocedes a contract, the Bureau will then contract with a State, public school district, or Indian corporation for the supplemental programs or operational support. Redesign and reallocation under either Title I contracts or Title IV compacts must be done with approval in accordance with § 900.8(g)(6) of this chapter.
### SUBCHAPTER V—CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS
§ 36.51 Standard XVIII—Office of Indian Education Programs and Agency monitoring and evaluation responsibilities. ( a ) The Office of Indian Education Programs shall monitor and evaluate the conformance of each Agency or Area, as appropriate, and its schools with the requirements of this part. In addition, it shall annually conduct onsite monitoring at one-third of the Agencies and Areas, thereby monitoring onsite each Agency and/or Area at least once every three (3) years. Within 45 days of the onsite visit, the Director shall issue to each Agency Superintendent for Education or Area Education Programs Administrator, as appropriate, a written report summarizing the monitoring findings and ordering, as necessary, required actions to correct noted deficiencies.
( b ) Each Agency or Area, as appropriate, in conjunction with its school board shall monitor and evaluate the conformance of its school with the requirements of this part through an annual onsite evaluation involving one-third of the schools annually, thereby monitoring onsite each school at least once every three (3) years. Within 30 days of the onsite visit, the Agency Superintendent for Education or Area Education Programs Administrator, as appropriate, shall issue to the local school supervisor and local school board a written report summarizing the findings and ordering, as necessary, required actions to correct noted deficiencies.
( c ) Schools, Agencies, and Areas shall keep such records and submit to the responsible official or designee accurate reports at such times, in such form, and containing such information as determined by that official to be necessary to ascertain conformance with the requirements of this part.
( d ) Schools, Agencies, and Areas shall permit access for examination purposes by the responsible official, or any duly authorized designee, to any school records and other sources of information which are related or pertinent to the requirements of this part.
( e ) The Office of Indian Education Programs, Agency Superintendent for Education, or Area Education Programs Administrator, as appropriate, shall annually conduct a summative evaluation to assess the degree to which each Bureau educational policy and administrative procedure assists or hinders schools in complying with the requirements of this part. This will include, but not be limited to, the following actions: ( 1 ) Evaluate current policies and practices not related to this part and the effects thereof on the amount of time and resources required which otherwise would be available for these standards;
( 2 ) Modify any policies and practices which interfere with or compromise a school's capability to achieve and maintain these standards;
( 3 ) Invite non-Federal agencies to evaluate the effects current policies and procedures have had on complying with the requirements of this part; and
( 4 ) Submit annually to the Director a copy of the summative evaluation.