alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

J. R. MCFARLANE, S.P. LOGAN, T.J. STINSON

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RICARDO E. CAMACHO

NAVY DIVER SECOND CLASS (E

- 5), U.S. NAVY

NMC CA 201400256

SPECIAL COURT

- MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 1 April 2014

. Military Judge: CAPT A.H. Henderson, JAGC, USN

. Convening Authority: Commander

, Explosive Ordnance Group

ONE

, San Diego, CA

. Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LCDR M.M. Correa,

JAG C, USN

. For Appellant: CDR S abatino L eo, JAGC, USN

. For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller, Esq.

31 October 2014

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

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

After caref ul consideration of the record, submitted

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). The supplemental

court

- martial order will reflect that adjudged confinement in

excess of 30 days is suspended for six months from the date the

appellant was released from confinement and that the suspended

bad

- conduct discharge may not be “executed after final judgment ”

unless the suspension is v acated before it is remitted.

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2563 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2563

   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility 
studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and 
        Payette River systems in Idaho, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2005

  Mr. Otter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility 
studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and 
        Payette River systems in Idaho, 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. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

    The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of 
Reclamation, is authorized to conduct feasibility studies to address 
water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in 
Idaho.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 30, 2004.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta**                     (Sue Costello, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:                

*1. Gerald L. Pennington Trust, Gerald Lee Pennington as trustee, Margaret A. Pennington Trust, and Margaret Angela Pennington as trustee*, all of Osprey, Florida; to acquire additional voting shares of LandMark Financial Holding Company, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of LandMark Bank of Florida, both of Sarasota, Florida.                 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 10, 2004.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 04-27481 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
[File No. Cr. 170.]

#### STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Appellant, v. T. H. McENROE, Respondent.

(287 N. W. 817.)

Opinion filed October 9, 1939.

*Alvin O.*Strutz, Attorney General, *Milton K.*Higgins, Assist- and Attorney General, *Ralph F. Groal,*State’s Attorney, and *Odin J. Strandeness,*Assistant State’s Attorney, for appellant.

*Francis Murphy,*for respondent.

Christianson, J.

The defendant moved that the information ydiich had been filed against him be set aside. Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 10,728-10,730. The motion was granted, and the state has appealed.

The defendant moves that the appeal be dismissed-on-the ground that the state has no right to appeal from an order setting aside an information.

The motion to dismiss the appeal must be granted. The right of appeal is statutory. Myrick v. McCabe, 5 N. D. 422, 67 N. W. 143; Whitney v. Ritz, 24 N. D. 576, 140 N. W. 676; Stimson v. Stimson, 30 N. D. 78, 152 N. W. 132; Torgerson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. *446Ste. M. R. Co. 51 N. D. 745, 200 N. W. 1013; State v. Sweeney, 48 S. D. 248, 203 N. W. 460. See also State v. Fortune, 29 N. D. 289, 150 N. W. 926; State v. Stunkard, 28 S. D. 311, 133 N. W. 253. In a criminal action the state has only such right of appeal as is expressly conferred by law. 17 C. J. p. 39; United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310, 36 L. ed. 445, 12 S. Ct. 609; State v. Stunkard, 28 S. D. 311, 133 N. W. 253, and State v. Sweeney, 48 S. D. 248, 203 N. W. 460, supra; People v. Herbert, 152 App. Div. 579, 137 N. Y. S. 409; People v. Dundon, 113 App. Div. 369, 98 N. Y. S. 1048; People v. Knowles, 27 Cal. App. 498, 155 P. 140; Note in 19 L.R.A. pp. 345 et seq.

Under our laws (Comp. Laws 1913, § 10,993) the state has the right to appeal only,

“1. From a judgment for the defendant on a demurrer to the information or indictment.

“2. From an order granting a new trial.

“3. From an order arresting judgment.

“4. From an order made after judgment, affecting any substantial right of the state.

“5. From an order of the court directing the jury to find for the defendant.”

The order sought to be appealed from here is not one of those from which the state may appeal. Comp. Laws 1913, § 10,993; State v. Fortune, 29 N. D. 289, 150 N. W. 926; People v. Herbert, 152 App. Div. 579, 137 N. Y. S. 409; and People v. Knowles, 27 Cal. App. 498, 155 P. 140, supra.

Appeal dismissed.

Nuessle, Ch. J., and Burr, Burke, and Morris, JJ., concur.
#### § 312.610 Controlled substance.

*Controlled substance* means a controlled substance in schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812), and as further defined by regulation at 21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2630 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2630

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

 
To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1927 Sangamon Avenue in Springfield, Illinois, as the ``J.M. Dietrich 
                           Northeast Annex''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1927 
Sangamon Avenue in Springfield, Illinois, and known as the Northeast 
Annex, shall be known and designated as the ``J.M. Dietrich Northeast 
Annex''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``J.M. Dietrich Northeast 
Annex''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
APPENDIX G: CORRESPONDENCE 

(Letter Received from US Army Corps of Engineers) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgetown University Boathouse 

Environmental Assessment 

April 2006
FHWA Home | Feedback

HomeAboutStaff DirectoryNewslettersContact

FHWA Home | Safety Home | US DOT Team Home | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway AdministrationFHWA Office of Safety, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington DC 20590

You may need the following readers or viewers to view certain documents on this site:
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 11

- 00883

- CV

IN RE THE HUFF ENERGY FUND, L.P., WRH Energy Partners, LLC, W.R. Huff Asset Management Co., LLC, William R. “ Bill ” Huff, Rick D ’ Angelo , Ed Dartley, Bryan Bloom, and Riley

- Huff Energy Group, LLC

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Rebecca S immons , Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 21, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

The court has considered relators ’ petition for writ of mandamus and motion for

temporary relief. The court is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relators ’

petition for writ of mandamus and motion for tempo rary relief are denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.

52.8(a). Relator s shall pay all costs incurred in this proceeding.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 11

- 09

- 12583

- ZCVAJA , styled Longview Energy Company v. The Huff Energy Fund, L.P., et al. , pending in the 365th Judicial District Court

, Zavala County, Texas, the Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III presiding.
#### §§ 1005.171-1005.999 [Reserved]
### §3106. Definitions

As used in this chapter—

(a) The term "State" means the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories and possessions of the United States.

(b) The term "local public bodies and agencies" includes public corporate bodies or political subdivisions; public agencies or instrumentalities of one or more States, municipalities, or political subdivisions of one or more States (including public agencies and instrumentalities of one or more municipalities or other political subdivisions of one or more States); Indian tribes; and boards or commissions established under the laws of any State to finance specific capital improvement projects.

(c) The term "development cost" means the cost of constructing the facility and of acquiring the land on which it is located, including necessary site improvements to permit its use as a site for the facility.

(Pub. L. 89–117, title VII, §706, Aug. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 492.)
exv4w8






Exhibit 4.8




Confirmation of Oral Agreement



Whereas, Mr. Qiming Xu and Mr. Hing Tuen Wong entered into two agreements in relation to Fujian
Xiniya Garments and Weaving Co., Ltd. (“Fujian Xiniya”) on January 5, 2005 and September 28, 2005,
respectively;



Whereas, Mr. Qiming Xu and Mr. Hing Tuen Wong entered into an agreement in relation to Xiniya
Holdings Limited (“Xiniya Hong Kong”) on January 3, 2009.



Mr. Qiming Xu and Mr. Hing Tuen Wong hereby confirm that:



1.     Since the incorporation of Fujian Xiniya, Mr. Qiming Xu has held all the rights regarding Fujian
Xiniya, including the right to receive dividends from and the right to transfer an equity interest
in Fujian Xiniya.



2.     Since the incorporation of Xiniya Hong Kong, Mr. Qiming Xu has held all the rights regarding
Xiniya Hong Kong, including the right to receive dividends from and the right to transfer an equity
interest in Xiniya Hong Kong.



3.     Mr. Qiming Xu had the rights to enter into certain arrangements with Tung Kwo Li and two other
investors (collectively the “Investors”) in December 2005 concerning, among others, return of
capital to the Investors, transfer of a 20% interest in Fujian Xiniya to the Investors, transfer of
Mr. Qiming Xu’s right to receive dividends to the Investors. Mr. Qiming Xu also had the right to
satisfy the terms of such arrangements through the transfer of a 20% interest in Fujian Xiniya.



4.     Mr. Hing Tuen Wong currently has no rights in Fujian Xiniya or Xiniya Hong Kong.




Dated:
October 26, 2010




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Qiming Xu 
 	 
	 	Qiming Xu 	 
	 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Hing Tuen Wong 
 	 
	 	Hing Tuen Wong
#### Ben Miller, Inc., Respondent, v Marcus Brothers Textiles, Inc., Appellant.

Motion to vacate an order of Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 17, 1978, staying an arbitration pending an appeal to the Court of Appeals from an order of this court, which directed the arbitration to proceed forthwith, after reversing an order of the Supreme Court staying the arbitration. The stay sought to be vacated on this motion was granted pursuant to CPLR 5519 (subd [c]) which vests such power in the "court from or to which an appeal is taken or the court of original instance”. When a stay is granted by the court of original instance, and an appeal is pending in a higher court, the provisions of CPLR 5519 (subd [c]) are not clear as to the procedure, if any, for correcting a stay that has been improvidently granted. It is suggested that an appeal from the order granting the stay would be the remedy (7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, § 5519.01). No such appeal has been taken herein, and it is doubtful whether the stay may be vacated by this court upon motion in the present state of the proceedings. Since an appeal is pending in the Court of Appeals, any motion for vacatur of the stay granted by the Supreme Court, if motion be the proper remedy, should be addressed to the Court of Appeals. The motion is therefore denied, without prejudice, if movant is so advised, to an application to the Court of Appeals. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Evans and Lane, JJ.
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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer
of ERF Wireless, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2013 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



November 14, 2013





/s/H. Dean Cubley
H. Dean Cubley
Chief Executive Officer
[EXHIBIT 99.2]


      Written Statement of the [Chief Financial Officer]
                Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,
I, the undersigned, Vice President of Finance of BEVsystems
International, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my
knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for
the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.


/s/Victor M. Corral
------------------------
Victor M. Corral
August 14, 2002
#### In the Matter of Lion Insurance Company, Respondent, v Michael Reilly, Respondent, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.

In a proceeding to stay the arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 29, 1977, which, after a hearing, and upon a determination that the application should be granted, *inter alia,*determined that the notice of cancellation of its policy had been invalid. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs payable jointly to respondents. As the result of a collision on September 13, 1976 between respondent Reilly’s motorcycle and a van owned by Joseph H. Guidera and operated by Leonard La Grua, Reilly sought arbitration of his claim for injuries by serving a demand upon his insurer, Lion Insurance Company. Lion thereupon petitioned for a stay, asserting that, at the time of the accident, the van had been insured by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The stay was granted pending a hearing on the issue of coverage. At the hearing, Liberty conceded that the notice of cancellation of its policy had been mailed to Guidera on June 17, 1976 by a finance company upon Guidera’s default in payment of the finance company’s loan. Liberty also conceded that the notice of cancellation did not conform to the statutory requirement contained in section 313 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in that it was in five and one-half point type. It argued, however, that the purposes of the statute had been fulfilled since Mr. Guidera, in his *pro se*answer in the negligence action brought by Reilly against him and La Grua dated November 15, 1976, as amended on November 20, 1976, admitted that his vehicle had not been insured on the date of the accident. Where it has been conceded that the notice of cancellation did not conform to the statutory provisions with respect to type size, it is immaterial whether the notice was sent by the insurer or by the finance company. Since the statute was designed to permit persons injured by uninsured motorists to recover for their injuries, it must be strictly construed to effectuate that legislative purpose. With respect to *1048the added contention that the insured (Guidera) admitted in his answer that his car had not been insured, we observe that the *pro se*answer and amended answer spoke as of the dates they were signed (November 15 and 20, 1976), and were not probative of the question whether the insured had been aware of his noncoverage on the accident date. We further observe that the notice was mailed to Guidera at the address of a friend, and not to his home address. Under these circumstances, our determination that the notice was ineffective is doubly enhanced. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Draft Power Project Financing Assumptions For The Fifth Power Plan https://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/5/2003-9/

1 of 6 8/29/17, 4:40 PM
Draft Power Project Financing Assumptions For The Fifth Power Plan https://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/5/2003-9/

2 of 6 8/29/17, 4:40 PM
Draft Power Project Financing Assumptions For The Fifth Power Plan https://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/5/2003-9/

3 of 6 8/29/17, 4:40 PM
Draft Power Project Financing Assumptions For The Fifth Power Plan https://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/5/2003-9/

4 of 6 8/29/17, 4:40 PM
►

►

Draft Power Project Financing Assumptions For The Fifth Power Plan https://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/5/2003-9/

5 of 6 8/29/17, 4:40 PM
Draft Power Project Financing Assumptions For The Fifth Power Plan https://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/5/2003-9/

6 of 6 8/29/17, 4:40 PM
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Monster Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Timothy T. Yates, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.
|        | By:    | /s/ Timothy T. Yates |
|--------|--------|----------------------|
|   |   |                 |  Timothy T.  Yates  Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: August 9, 2007 |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to Monster Worldwide, Inc. and willbe retained by Monster Worldwide, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----