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

[104th Congress Public Law 306]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ306.104]

[[Page 110 STAT. 3810]]

Public Law 104-306
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To extend certain programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
   through September 30, 1997. <<NOTE: Oct. 14, 1996 -  [H.R. 4083]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT AMENDMENTS.

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended--
            (1) by amending section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246) to read as 
        follows:

                    ``authorization of appropriations

    ``Sec. 166. There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
1997 such sums as may be necessary to implement this part.'';
            (2) in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251) by striking ``June 30, 
        1996'' both places it appears and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``September 30, 1997'';
            (3) by adding at the end of section 256(h) (42 U.S.C. 
        6276(h)) ``There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
        year 1997 such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
        part.''; and
            (4) in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285) by striking ``June 30, 
        1996'' both places it appears and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``September 30, 1997''.

    Approved October 14, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4083:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104-814 (Comm. on Commerce).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):
            Sept. 24, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 3, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

616 KA 08-00858
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC J. MCGINNIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (GEOFFREY KAEUPER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered March 13, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress, inter alia, the weapon seized by the police from his vehicle. “We note at the outset that, although the court issued a bench decision with respect to [those parts of] defendant’s omnibus motion [seeking to suppress the weapon found in his vehicle and his statements to the police,] the exception set forth in CPL 710.70 (2) allowing appellate review with respect to orders that finally den[y] a motion to suppress evidence is not applicable because defendant pleaded guilty before the court issued such an order” ( People v Ellis , 73 AD3d 1433, 1433-1434, lv denied 15 NY3d 851 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Leary , 70 AD3d 1394, lv denied 14 NY3d 889). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s contention is without merit. The record of the suppression hearing establishes that the police officer who pulled over defendant’s vehicle for a traffic infraction had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, and thus he was justified in asking for defendant’s consent to search the vehicle ( see People v Lowe , 79 AD3d 1676; see also People v Simmons , 79 AD3d 431; People v Ward , 22 AD3d 368, lv denied 6 NY3d 782). At the time the police officer asked defendant for his consent, he was aware of defendant’s criminal background and had observed defendant leaving in the vehicle from a known drug location at a high rate of speed. Further,-2- 616 KA 08-00858

defendant lied about the location from where he was driving. Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the record also establishes that he voluntarily consented to the search of the vehicle ( see People v Caldwell , 221 AD2d 972, lv denied 87 NY2d 920; see generally People v Gonzalez , 39 NY2d 122, 128).

Entered: April 29, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
§ 3.54 Commission decision after review of recommended decision. ( a ) In rendering its decision, the Commission will adopt, modify, or set aside the recommended findings, recommended conclusions, and proposed rule or order contained in the recommended decision, and will include in the decision a statement of the reasons or basis for its action and any concurring and dissenting opinions.
( b ) In those cases where the Commission believes that it should have further information or additional views of the parties as to the form and content of the rule or order to be issued, the Commission, in its discretion, may withhold final action pending the receipt of such additional information or views.
( c ) The order of the Commission disposing of adjudicative hearings under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act will be published in the Federal Register and, if it contains a rule or regulation, will specify the effective date thereof, which will not be prior to the ninetieth (90th) day after its publication unless the Commission finds that emergency conditions exist necessitating an earlier effective date, in which event the Commission will specify in the order its findings as to such conditions.
[32 FR 8449, June 13, 1967, as amended at 88 FR 42877, July 5, 2023]
#### § 10.32 Substitution of parties.

Upon motion and for good cause shown the Administrative Law Judge may order a substitution of parties.
117 STAT. 840 PUBLIC LAW 108–42—JULY 1, 2003

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 519:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 108–65 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 149 (2003):

Mar. 19, considered and passed House.

June 16, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–42

108th Congress

An Act

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the San Gabriel

River Watershed, 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. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘San Gabriel River Watershed

Study Act’’.

SEC. 2. STUDY OF SAN GABRIEL RIVER WATERSHED.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior (hereafter in

this Act referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall conduct a special

resource study of the following areas:

(1) The San Gabriel River and its tributaries north of

and including the city of Santa Fe Springs.

(2) The San Gabriel Mountains within the territory of

the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains

Conservancy (as defined in section 32603(c)(1)(C) of the State

of California Public Resource Code).

(b) STUDY CONDUCT AND COMPLETION.—Section 8(c) of Public

Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)) shall apply to the conduct and

completion of the study conducted under this section.

(c) CONSULTATION WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.—In conducting the study under this section, the Secretary

shall consult with the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers

and Mountains Conservancy and other appropriate Federal, State,

and local governmental entities.

(d) CONSIDERATIONS.—In conducting the study under this section, the Secretary shall consider regional flood control and drainage

needs and publicly owned infrastructure such as wastewater treatment facilities.

SEC. 3. REPORT.

Not later than 3 years after funds are made available for

this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy

and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on

Resources of the House of Representatives a report on the findings,

conclusions, and recommendations of the study.

Approved July 1, 2003.

Deadline.

Applicability.

San Gabriel

River Watershed

Study Act.

California.

July 1, 2003

[H.R. 519]
### §1395ss–1. Clarification

Any health insurance policy that provides reimbursement for expenses incurred for items and services for which payment may be made under title XVIII of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.] but which are not reimbursable by reason of the applicability of deductibles, coinsurance, copayments or other limitations imposed by a Medicare Advantage plan (including a Medicare Advantage private fee-for-service plan) under part C of such title [42 U.S.C. 1395w–21 et seq.] shall comply with the requirements of section 1882(o) of the such 1 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ss(o)).

(Pub. L. 110–275, title I, §104(c), July 15, 2008, 122 Stat. 2502.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Social Security Act, referred to in text, is act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620. Title XVIII of the Act is classified generally to this subchapter. Part C of title XVIII of the Act is classified to section 1395w–21 et seq. of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1305 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, and not as part of the Social Security Act which comprises this chapter.

1 So in original.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the filing of the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Biomass Processing
Technology, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Robert F. Kendall, CPA,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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. Dated:
    
    /s/ Robert F. KendallMay 20, 2005
    
    Name: Robert F. Kendall, CPATitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-87,755-01

EX PARTE DAVID RAY BRATCHER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 17-11167-W1 IN THE 278TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM MADISON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

robbery and sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Bratcher v. State, No. 10-08-00107-CR (Tex. App.—Waco Dec. 9, 2009).

Applicant states that appellate counsel represented him regarding his petition for

discretionary review. Applicant contends that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance

because counsel never told him that the petition for discretionary review was dismissed as untimely

filed and that counsel deprived him of his right to seek discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson,
2

956 S.W.2d 25, 26-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). .

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984). In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte

Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for

findings of fact. The trial court shall order appellate counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. The trial court may use any means set out in TEX.CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant’s

appellate counsel deprived Applicant of the opportunity to seek discretionary review. The trial court

shall also make findings regarding laches. Ex Parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206, 215 (Tex. Crim. App.

2013).The trial court may also make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems

relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.
3

Filed: December 20, 2017

Do not publish
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RALSTON BROWN a/k/a RALSTON SAMUEL BROWN, JR., and

SHEMAE BROWN a/k/a SHEMAE JOHNSON a/k/a SHEMAE

SOLANGE JOHNSON
, Appellant s ,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 1680

[ September 6 , 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Susan R. Lubitz , Judge; L.T. Case No.

2012CA017961XXXXMB

.

Anthony E. Saurini of The Ticktin Law Group, PLLC, Deerfield Beach, for appellants.

Andrea K. Alles and Brandon S. Vesely of Albertelli Law, Tampa, for appellee Federal National Mortgage Association.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

C ONNER

, F ORST and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 23.23 Disclosure of treatments to pearls and cultured pearls. It is unfair or deceptive to fail to disclose that a pearl or cultured pearl has been treated if: ( a ) The treatment is not permanent. The seller should disclose that the pearl or cultured pearl has been treated and that the treatment is or may not be permanent;
( b ) The treatment creates special care requirements for the pearl or cultured pearl. The seller should disclose that the pearl or cultured pearl has been treated and has special care requirements. It is also recommended that the seller disclose the special care requirements to the purchaser; or
( c ) The treatment has a significant effect on the product's value. The seller should disclose that the pearl or cultured pearl has been treated.
Note to § 23.23 :
The disclosures outlined in this section are applicable to sellers at every level of trade, as defined in § 23.0(b) of these guides, and they may be made at the point of sale prior to sale, except that where a product can be purchased without personally viewing the product (e.g., direct mail catalogs, online services, televised shopping programs), disclosure should be made in the solicitation for, or description of, the product.
BOEM Seeks Public Involvement in Preparing an Environmental Assessment for the TGS Geophysical 2013 2D Seismic Survey in the US Chukchi Sea and International Waters The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for a proposed two

- dimensional marine seismic survey by TGS Geophysical Company (TGS), covering approximately 9 , 600 square kilomete rs in the U.S. Chukchi Sea and I nternational waters. The project will take place during the summer and early fall of 2013 (J uly 15

- October 31). As part of BOEM's review, BOEM will prepare an EA specific to the proposed marine seismic survey activities. BOEM is inviting the public to comment on issues that should be considered by BOEM in preparing the EA.
BOEM received TGS's 20 13 Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Permit application for operations in U.S. waters on February 19, 2013. TGS's permit application and an associated area coverage map are available for review at: http://www.boem.gov/About

- BOEM/BOEM

- Regions/Alaska

- Region/R esource Evaluation/Permits/13_02/index.aspx. BOEM is only accepting and considering public comments submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). The deadline to re ceive these comments is May 10 , 2013 (12:00 midnight, EST). BOEM cautions that before including your address, phone number, e

- mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask BOEM (prominently at the beginning of your submission) to withhold your personal identifying information from public view, BOEM cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so. BOEM will not consider anonymous com ments.
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

April 13, 2016 

MEMORANDUM TO: Victor M. McCree 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – COMSECY-16-0006 – REVISION TO 

THE AGENCY’S LONG-TERM RESEARCH PROGRAM AND 

RELATED REPORTING TO THE COMMISSION 

The Commission has approved the staff's proposal to reconsider the Agency's Long-Term 

Research Program (LTRP) to examine how long-term research can be performed more 

effectively and efficiently. 

If the staff recommends continuing the LTRP, the staff should also develop objective measures 

for LTRP projects and establish methods to tie interim milestones more directly to user needs in 

the licensing and oversight programs. 

In examining the value of the LTRP, the staff should examine similarities and overlap between 

the LTRP and the generic issues program, including an assessment of how integration between 

the two programs could be beneficial and whether the two programs could be blended to 

accomplish the objectives of both in a more efficient manner. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OPA 

 ODs, RAs, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FREEDOM DEANTRE WHITFIELD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-3163

[July 28, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Lawrence Michael Mirman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562017CF003160A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Elijah Giuliano, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuna, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 231 (Thursday, December 2, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 70164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26567]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster <greek-i>3620]


State of Florida (Amendment <greek-i>8)

    In accordance with a notice received from the Department of 
Homeland Security--Federal Emergency Management Agency--effective 
November 3, 2004, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to 
extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a 
result of this disaster to January 3, 2005.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for economic injury is June 6, 2005.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008.)

    Dated: November 18, 2004.
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-26567 Filed 12-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors
                         -------------------------------


North American Natural Gas Inc.
580 Hornby Street, Suite 210, Vancouver, BC V6C 3B6, Canada


We do hereby consent to the use of our audit report on the financial statements
of North American Natural Gas Inc. as of and for the year ended April 30, 2003
contained in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10KSB for its fiscal year ended
April 30, 2003.


Dated this 24th day of June, 2003

MANNING ELLIOTT
Chartered Accountants
Vancouver, BC, Canada

/s/ "Manning Elliott "
__________________________


<PAGE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL**

**FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY**

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

 

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Bekem Metals, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhassulan Bitenov, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

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

 

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

 

 

| Date:  July 30, 2009 | By: | /s/ Zhassulan Bitenov |  
 

Zhassulan Bitenov

 

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

  |
|----------------------|-----|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
§ 1028.123 Early termination of research support: Evaluation of applications and proposals. ( a ) The department or agency head may require that Federal department or agency support for any project be terminated or suspended in the manner prescribed in applicable program requirements, when the department or agency head finds an institution has materially failed to comply with the terms of this policy.
( b ) In making decisions about supporting or approving applications or proposals covered by this policy the department or agency head may take into account, in addition to all other eligibility requirements and program criteria, factors such as whether the applicant has been subject to a termination or suspension under paragraph (a) of this section and whether the applicant or the person or persons who would direct or has/have directed the scientific and technical aspects of an activity has/have, in the judgment of the department or agency head, materially failed to discharge responsibility for the protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects (whether or not the research was subject to federal regulation).