alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2327. Definition of rehabilitation for inland waterway projects

For purposes of laws relating to navigation on inland and intracoastal waterways of the United States, the term "rehabilitation" means—

(1) major project feature restoration—

(A) which consists of structural work on an inland navigation facility operated and maintained by the Corps of Engineers;

(B) which will significantly extend the physical life of the feature;

(C) which is economically justified by a benefit-cost analysis;

(D) which will take at least 2 years to complete; and

(E)(i) which is initially funded before October 1, 1994, and will require at least $5,000,000 in capital outlays; or

(ii) which is initially funded on or after such date and will require at least $20,000,000 in capital outlays; and

(2) structural modification of a major project component (not exhibiting reliability problems)—

(A) which will enhance the operational efficiency of such component or any other major component of the project by increasing benefits beyond the original project design; and

(B) which will require at least $1,000,000 in capital outlays.

Such term does not include routine or deferred maintenance. The dollar amounts referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be adjusted annually according to the economic assumption published each year as guidance in the Annual Program and Budget Request for Civil Works Activities of the Corps of Engineers.

(Pub. L. 102–580, title II, §205, Oct. 31, 1992, 106 Stat. 4827; Pub. L. 113–121, title II, §2006(a)(4), June 10, 2014, 128 Stat. 1268.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, and not as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

2014—Par. (1)(E)(ii). Pub. L. 113–121 substituted "$20,000,000" for "$8,000,000".
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 3, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00997-CR

NO. 14-14-00999-CR

GARY LEE MOUNT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1449195 & 1449196

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual assault and 

aggravated kidnapping. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she 

concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the 

requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable 

grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 
2

1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’s request, the 

record was provided to him. On November 3, 2015, appellant filed a pro se 

response to counsel’s brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s 

response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we 

find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing 

to the jurisprudence of the state. We are not to address the merits of each claim 

raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are 

no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Donovan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1335. JOE NEIL GLENN, JR. v. THE STATE. 

In 2013, a jury convicted Joe Neil Glenn, Jr. of two counts of child molestation.

This Court subsequently affirmed his convictions in an unpublished opinion. See

Case No. A16A0109 (July 13, 2016). In 2021, Glenn filed a pro se extraordinary

motion for new trial, which the trial court denied on January 20, 2022, and Glenn

filed this appeal. We lack jurisdiction. 

As an initial matter, OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (7) requires a discretionary application

to appeal from the denial of an extraordinary motion for new trial. Glenn actually

filed an application for discretionary review in this Court, but it was dismissed

because his application was untimely. See Case No. A22D0325 (Apr. 18, 2022). 

But even if Glenn was entitled to a direct appeal from the denial of his

extraordinary motion for new trial, his direct appeal is also untimely. A notice of

appeal must be filed within 30 days of the entry of an appealable judgment. OCGA

§ 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute

May 11, 2022
requirement to confer appellate jurisdiction on this Court. Rowland v. State, 264 Ga.

872, 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Glenn’s notice of appeal was filed on February

24, 2022, 35 days after entry of the order sought to be appealed.

For these reasons, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/11/2022
#### W. Heller and Sons, Appellees, v. Illinois Traction Company et al., Appellants.

Gen. No. 5,844.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county, the Hon. Leslie D. Putebbauoh, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 15, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by W. Heller & Sons against Illinois Traction Company et al. to recover a certain amount of overpayments made on the purchase of a carload of junk from the defendants. Plaintiffs had verdict and judgment for $305.82. To reverse the judgment, defendants appeal.

James A. Knowlton, for appellants; George W. Burton, of counsel.

Sheen & Galbraith, for appellees.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Dibell

delivered the opinion of the court.

*328Abstract of the Decision.

Sales, § *352*
      ***
      *—when purchaser may recover overpayments resulting from shortage in weights.*In an action to recover overpayments made on a carload of junk purchased by plaintiffs of defendants at a certain price a pound, it appeared that an agent of defendants represented in a memorandum that there was a certain number of pounds of different kinds of metal consisting of, brass, copper, white borings, yellow borings, brass and iron, and copper and iron, and that one of the plaintiffs inquired what the white borings were and was told to go to investigate the same at the place they were loaded in the car, which he did, and it appeared that the plaintiffs after receiving the car found there was a shortage in weight on several items and very much less “brass” than the memorandum called for, and a very much greater weight of the item of “brass and iron.” The defense to the action was that defendants did not warrant the brass to be free from iron and that plaintiffs could not recover the shortage because one of them inspected the car. *Held,*that the inspection was to ascertain what was meant by “white borings,” that the plaintiffs had no opportunity to ascertain the weights of each kind of metals in the car and that a verdict for plaintiffs was proper.
### EFAHrt^lfikW ^ GENERA L O FTEXA S 

### •^^^NSPORTAIJ ' :;:::• • OPERA ! GABBOT T 

# DECEIVE D

•^ N - 6 ;oi i 

# ARIN G DOCKE T Januarys , 201 1 

### iCi

l M 1 1 P 2 : 0 2 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwi n ADMINISTRATIV E LA WJUDG E OFFIC E O FHEARINGS , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E Eas t Bldg . Groun dFir. , Rm . El2-32 0 Washingto n D C 2059 0 Ph : (202 ) 366-213 9 /

Fax : (202 ) 366-753 6 Re : U.S . Dep' t

o f Trans. , Offic e o f

Hearings , Washingto n D.C. ; I n th e matte r o f th e Executiv e Office o f th e Stat e o f

Texas ; FA A Docke t

No . CP09SO0014 ; DM S No . FAA-2009-104 5 Dear Judg e Goodwin : Thi s lette r

brie f i s submitte dwith respec t t o th e applicability o f

Appendi x A t o thi s case , a s addresse db y counse l yesterday durin g argument . Th e Guar doffere dAppendi x A a s authority an d guidanc e for

calculatin g civi l penalties . Th e FA A argue dthat Appendi x A relate dt o pipelin e safety . Th e Appendi x begin s at

p . 4 3 o f th e cop y tendere dt o th e court . Th e to p o f th e pag e i s title dPipelin e an dHazardou s Material s - Safet y Administratio n (emphasi s added) . Mor e importantly , th e rule s referre dt o i n th e Appendi x ar e FA A rules , mos t o f whic h ar e foun da t

4 9 CF R§ § 171.001 , e/

seq , an d172.001 , e t

seq . Ever

y regulatio n tha t

th e FA A claim s th e Guar dviolate di s foun di n th e Appendix . Clearl y i t

i s relevan t

t o calculatio n o f

th e penalty . Th e FA A shoul dno t

b e permitte dt o charg e violatio n o f it s regulation s an dthe n disclai mthei r applicability whe n th e penalty i s determined .

ASSISTAN T ATTORNE Y GENERA L ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N & ADMIN . LA W DIV . Ph : (512 ) 475-420 8 /

Fax : (512 ) 320-016 7 michael.crowleyfgjoag.state.tx.u s cc : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 60 0 Independenc e Ave , S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Bldg , St e 2W100 0 Washingto n D C 2059 1 Vi aFedE x 79662614198 7 Geral dA . Elli s Vi aFacsimile : (404 ) 305-522 3 Majo r Sony aBatchelo r ViaFacsimile : (202 ) 366-753 6

POS T OFFIC EBo x 12548 , AUSTIN , TEXA S 78711-254 8 TEL : (512)463-210 0 WEB : WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.U S A nEqua l Employment

Opportunity Employe r

Printe donRecycle dPape r
§ 337.101 Rating applicants. ( a ) OPM shall prescribe the relative weights to be given subjects in an examination, and shall assign numerical ratings on a scale of 100. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, each applicant who meets the minimum requirements for entrance to an examination and is rated 70 or more in the examination is eligible for appointment.
( b ) OPM shall add to the earned numerical ratings of applicants who make a passing grade: ( 1 ) Five points for applicants who are preference eligibles under section 2108(3)(A) and (B) of title 5, United States Code; and
( 2 ) Ten points for applicants who are preference eligibles under section 2108(3)(C)-(G) of that title.
( c ) When experience is a factor in determining eligibility, OPM shall credit a preference eligible with: ( 1 ) Time spent in the military service ( i ) as an extension of time spent in the position in which he was employed immediately before his entrance into the military service, or
( ii ) on the basis of actual duties performed in the military service, or
( iii ) as a combination of both methods. OPM shall credit time spent in the military service according to the method that will be of most benefit to the preference eligible.
( 2 ) All valuable experience, including experience gained in religious, civic, welfare, service, and organizational activities, regardless of whether pay was received therefor.
[33 FR 12423, Sept. 4, 1968, as amended at 72 FR 12954, Mar. 20, 2007]
### §2804. Report to Congress

On September 30 of each other year beginning in 1993, the Administrator and the Under Secretary shall jointly submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives a report describing the condition of the Nation's coastal ecosystems, including the following:

(1) an assessment of the status and health of the Nation's coastal ecosystems;

(2) an evaluation of environmental trends in coastal ecosystems;

(3) identification of sources of enironmental 1 degradation affecting coastal ecosystems;

(4) an assessment of the extent to which floatables degrade coastal ecosystems, including trends in the accumulation of floatables and the threat posed by floatables to aquatic life;

(5) an assessment of the impact of government programs designed to abate the degradation of coastal ecosystems: 2

(6) an evaluation of the adequacy of monitoring programs and identification of any additional program elements which may be needed; and

(7) a summary of monitoring results in areas monitored under subsection 3 2803(d) of this title.

(Pub. L. 92–532, title V, §504, as added Pub. L. 102–567, title V, §501, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4299.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Committee on Public Works and Transportation of House of Representatives treated as referring to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of House of Representatives by section 1(a) of Pub. L. 104–14, set out as a note preceding section 21 of Title 2, The Congress.

#### Abolition of House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of House of Representatives abolished and its jurisdiction transferred by House Resolution No. 6, One Hundred Fourth Congress, Jan. 4, 1995. For treatment of references to Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, see section 1(b)(3) of Pub. L. 104–14, set out as a note preceding section 21 of Title 2, The Congress.

1 So in original. Probably should be "environmental".

2 So in original. Probably should be a semicolon.

3 So in original. Probably should be "section".
**Shopping list: **View my list**Shopping Picks   mySimon Newsletter   Feedback   Site Map   HelpElectronicsComputersBooksMusicMoviesHomeApparelGamesSportsStudents             **Search:** All DepartmentsApparel and AccessoriesBabies and KidsBeauty and HealthBooks Music and MoviesComputer SystemsConsumer ElectronicsDigital Photography and VideoFlowers and GiftsFood and WineHome EntertainmentHome and GardenMobile Connectivity and EntertainmentOffice EquipmentRegistrationSoftwareSportsTech Consumer GoodsToys and GamesTravel and leisure                                     Home Consumer Electronics Digital Photography and Video Digital Cameras **Canon Digital Cameras at mySimon****Your Search:****Min Price:****Max Price:****
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q OF FIRSTWAVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND 
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,926
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,235<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,468
<PP&E>                                           1,185<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,841
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,970
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,861
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,841
<SALES>                                          1,171
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,462
<CGS>                                              205
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,234
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,082
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   201
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (836)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (4)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (840)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (840)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.16)
<FN>
<F1>A/R AND PPE ASSET VALUES REPRESENT NET AMOUNTS
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7790

DON LOUIS BARKER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versusROBERT SPANGLER, Acting Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00- 2625-MJG) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 17, 2001 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Don Louis Barker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,Attorney General, Celia Anderson Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Don Louis Barker, Jr., 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. Barker v. Spangler , No. CA00-2625-MJG (D. Md. Nov. 27, 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
### §1018. Data from Federal agencies

Upon request of the Secretary, other Federal departments and agencies shall furnish him with any relevant data then in their possession or knowledge concerning or having bearing upon fair and adequate charges to be made for geothermal steam produced or to be produced for conversion to electric power or other purposes. Data given to any department or agency as confidential under law shall not be furnished in any fashion which identifies or tends to identify the business entity whose activities are the subject of such data or the person or persons who furnished such information.

(Pub. L. 91–581, §19, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1572; Pub. L. 109–58, title II, §236(18), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 673.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2005—Pub. L. 109–58 inserted section catchline.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-04-033 May 13, 2004

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC TO MEET WITH NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY 

TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE OF MONTICELLO NUCLEAR PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Nuclear

Management Company on Thursday, May 20, to discuss the results of the agency’s assessment of

safety performance at the Monticello Nuclear Power Plant during 2003. The facility is located at

Monticello, Minnesota.

The meeting will be held at 10 a.m. at the Monticello Community Center, Suite 4, 505 Walnut

Street, Monticello. The public is invited to observe the meeting, and NRC officials will be available

before the conclusion of the meeting to answer questions from the public. In addition, the NRC staff

will provide an overview of how the agency’s Reactor Oversight Process works.

The NRC concluded that the plant operated safely last year. Plant performance does not

require additional inspections beyond the normal inspection program.

Routine inspections are performed by the two NRC resident inspectors assigned to the plant

and by inspection specialists from Region III office in Lisle, Illinois. 

A March 4 letter from the NRC to Nuclear Management Company officials addresses the

performance of the plant during 2003 and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is

available at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/mont_2003q4.pdf

With regard to security issues, the NRC has issued several orders and threat advisories to

enhance security capabilities and improve guard force readiness since the terrorist attacks on

September 11, 2001. The agency has also conducted inspections to review the implementation of these

requirements and has monitored the action of plant operators in response to changing threat conditions. 

The NRC will continue security inspections during 2004.

Current performance indicators and inspection findings for Monticello are available on the

NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/MONT/mont_chart.html

# # # # #
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of FIRST ADVANTAGE CORPORATION (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 15, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ JOHN LONG          
|                      |  |  |  | John Long              
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa.

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. I-05-009 February 28, 2005

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 Email: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NOTE TO EDITORS: NRC/CONSTELLATION MEETING POSTPONED

A planned meeting between officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and

Constellation Energy Group to discuss a license renewal inspection conducted at Nine Mile Point has

been postponed. A new date has not been set. 

The meeting had been scheduled for March 3 to discuss the NRC’s inspection of the aging

management program for Units 1 and 2 of the Nine Mile Point nuclear power plant. The inspection is

part of the NRC review of a license renewal application for the plant, which is located in Scriba, N.Y. 

The meeting is postponed because the NRC has not completed its inspection activities.

###