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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3422 

To amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to exempt small public 

housing agencies from the requirement of preparing an annual public 

housing agency plan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2005 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to exempt 

small public housing agencies from the requirement of 

preparing an annual public housing agency plan. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Public Housing 

5 Authority Act’’. 
2 

•HR 3422 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY PLANS FOR CERTAIN 

2 SMALL PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCIES. 

3 Section 5A(b) of the United States Housing Act of 

4 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437c–1(b)) is amended by adding at 

5 the end the following new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(3) EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN SMALL PHAS

7 FROM FILING REQUIREMENT.— 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding para9 graph (1) or any other provision of this Act— 

10 ‘‘(i) the requirement under paragraph 

11 (1) shall not apply to any qualified small 

12 public housing agency; and 

13 ‘‘(ii) any reference in this section or 

14 any other provision of law to a ‘public 

15 housing agency’ shall not be considered to 

16 refer to any qualified small public housing 

17 agency, to the extent such reference ap18 plies to the requirement to submit a public 

19 housing agency plan under this subsection. 

20 ‘‘(B) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this 

21 paragraph, the term ‘qualified small public 

22 housing agency’ means a public housing agency 

23 that meets all of the following requirements: 

24 ‘‘(i) The sum of (I) the number of 

25 public housing dwelling units administered 

26 by the agency, and (II) the number of 
3 

•HR 3422 IH 

1 vouchers under section 8(o) of the United 

2 States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 

3 1437f(o)) administered by the agency, is 

4 250 or fewer. 

5 ‘‘(ii) The agency is not designated 

6 pursuant to section 6(j)(2) as a troubled 

7 public housing agency. 

8 ‘‘(iii) The agency provides assurances 

9 satisfactory to the Secretary that notwith10 standing the inapplicability of the require11 ments under this section relating to resi12 dent advisory boards and public hearings 

13 and notice, residents of public housing ad14 ministered by the agency will have an ade15 quate and comparable opportunity for par16 ticipation and notice regarding establish17 ment of the goals, objectives, and policies 

18 of the public housing agency.’’. 

Æ
### §46317. Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air transportation without an airman's certificate

(a) General Criminal Penalty.—An individual shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both, if that individual—

(1) knowingly and willfully serves or attempts to serve in any capacity as an airman operating an aircraft in air transportation without an airman's certificate authorizing the individual to serve in that capacity; or

(2) knowingly and willfully employs for service or uses in any capacity as an airman to operate an aircraft in air transportation an individual who does not have an airman's certificate authorizing the individual to serve in that capacity.

(b) Controlled Substance Criminal Penalty.—

(1) Controlled substances defined.—In this subsection, the term "controlled substance" has the meaning given that term in section 102 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 802).

(2) Criminal penalty.—An individual violating subsection (a) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, if the violation is related to transporting a controlled substance by aircraft or aiding or facilitating a controlled substance violation and that transporting, aiding, or facilitating—

(A) is punishable by death or imprisonment of more than 1 year under a Federal or State law; or

(B) is related to an act punishable by death or imprisonment for more than 1 year under a Federal or State law related to a controlled substance (except a law related to simple possession (as that term is used in section 46306(c)) of a controlled substance).

(3) Terms of imprisonment.—A term of imprisonment imposed under paragraph (2) shall be served in addition to, and not concurrently with, any other term of imprisonment imposed on the individual subject to the imprisonment.

(Added Pub. L. 106–181, title V, §509(a), Apr. 5, 2000, 114 Stat. 141.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable only to fiscal years beginning after Sept. 30, 1999, see section 3 of Pub. L. 106–181, set out as an Effective Date of 2000 Amendments note under section 106 of this title.
# The Attorney General of Texas April 8, 1980 MARK WHITE Attorney General
Honorable Philip D.Creer, FAIA Executive Director Texas Board ofArchitectural Examiners 5555N.Lamar Boulevard Austin, Texas 78’751 Opinion No. m-16 4 Re: Reinstatement of landscape architects whose licenses have lapsed.
Dear Mr. Creer: You inquire about the proper procedure for reinstating the license ofa landscape architect for failure to renew annually. Your board is now charged with the administration of the landscape architects law governing registration of landscape architects following the abolition of the Board of Landscape Architects by the 66th session ofthe legislature. Acts 1979,66th Leg., ch. 619,S9,at 1393.

. Section 7 of article 249c, V.T.C S., prov&s that all certificates of registration shall expire each year on t’hedate set by the board aspart of a staggered renewal system and shall become invalid unless renewed. This section makes the following provision for failure to renew bythe deadline:

... Failure to renew a certificate of registration by the expiration date established by the board shall result in an increase of the renewal fee by $20. If failure to renew shall continue for more than 90 days after the date of expiration of the certificate of registration, the applicant must reapply for registration and must qualify under Section 5ofthis Act. All renewal certificates shall carry the same registration number asthe original certificate. This provision makes it clear that failure to renew for up to 90 days results in a $20 increase in the renewal fee. If failure to renew continues for more than 90 days, the applicant must qualify under section 5of article 249c, V.T.C.S., which requires that he (1)be at least 18years of age, (2)hold a degree in landscape architecture or have seven years of experience in the field, and (3)take an examination. We believe that persons who fail to renew within 90 days are required to take the examination provided for in

p.525Honorable Philip D.Creer - Page Two (NW-164)

section 5. Having previously been licensed, they will already meet the requirements as to age and study. Thus, if the requirement that they qualify under section 5 is to mean anything at all, they must retake the examination. SUMMARY Alandscape architect who fails to renew his license within 90days of its expiration must take the examination required bysection 5of article 249c, V.T.C.S.

MARK WHITE Attorney General ofTexas JOHN W.FAINTER, JR. First Assistant Attorney General TEDL.HARTLEY Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared bySusan Garrison Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE C.Robert Heath, Chairman Bill Campbell Susan Garrison Rick Gilpin Bruce Youngblood

P. 526
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

(Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the foregoing Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed by August 14, 2007 for the quarter ended
June 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the registrant.



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Date: August 8, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Ronald Leon Moore                        
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Ronald Leon Moore                            
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: August 8, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ J. Alan Dickerson                        
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | J. Alan Dickerson                            
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM VERITAS DGC
INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 1998 (NINE MONTHS ENDED
APRIL 30, 1997 RESTATED FOR SFAS NO. 128) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          71,177
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  120,946
<ALLOWANCES>                                       646
<INVENTORY>                                      2,333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               205,435
<PP&E>                                         240,758
<DEPRECIATION>                                 108,004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 381,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,038
<BONDS>                                         75,588
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           200
<OTHER-SE>                                     221,101
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   381,261
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               253,939
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  189,646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,007
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,286
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,260
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,761
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,761
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .93
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32


                            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 eNucleus, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I John C. Paulsen, Chief
Executive Officer and I Harley Luplow Principal Financial and Accounting 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:


      (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.


                                         /s/  RANDY EDGERTON
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                              Randy Edgerton
                                              Chief Executive Officer


                                         /s/  JOHN PAULSEN
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                              John Paulsen
                                              Principal Financial and
                                              Accounting Officer


May 18, 2006
#### SCHROTH, Respondent, v. ROCHESTER RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 13, 1903.)

Action by Jacob Schroth against the Rochester Railway Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### § 57.12048 Communication conductors on power poles.

Telegraph, telephone, or signal wires shall not be installed on the same crossarm with power conductors. When carried on poles supporting powerlines, they shall be installed as specified by the National Electrical Code.
#### Wolf Stahl, Respondent, v. Ilbert Stahl et al., Appellants.

Motion to consolidate appeals denied. No appeal lies from the oral decision and from the order denying appellants’ motion to vacate it, both of which may be reviewed on the appeal from the interlocutory judgment. Motion for a stay, pending appeal, granted on condition that appellants be ready to argue or submit the appeal at the November 1960 Term, beginning October 31, 1960, for which term the appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar. The record and appellants’ brief must be served and filed on or before October 14, 1980.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DAVID JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 96-7867 MICHAEL MOORE, Director; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge; Margaret B. Seymour, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-187-4-20BE) Submitted: August 29, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELDavid Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: David Johnson appeals from the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his request for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). Johnson also appeals the denial of his motion forreconsideration. The district court found that Johnson's petition contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The court dismissed the unexhausted claim without prejudice and denied the exhausted claims on the merits. When, however, a habeas petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims the district court must dismiss the entire petition without prejudice. Rose v. Lundy , 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). The petitioner may then either resubmit a petition containing only the exhausted claims or exhaust all claims in state court and then file a new petition. Id. at 520. Accordingly, the district court's order is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We grant a certificate of probable cause to appeal. We dispense with oralargument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

March 15, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-30543 Summary Calendar

DARLENE TAYLOR DALLEO, Individually and as the Surviving

Wife of Salvadore Dalleo, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RIVER CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., ET AL.,

Defendants,

RIVER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC.,

Defendant - Third Party Plaintiff - Appellee - Appellant, and

LOUISIANA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee,

v.

LOUISIANA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION,

Third Party Defendant - Appellee.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CV-2397-C

--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.No. 03-30543 -2-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. PER CURIAM: *

Darlene Dalleo, surviving spouse of Salvadore Dalleo, III,

appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment and

dismissal of her c laims against River Construction Co., Inc., a

marine construction company which employed Mr. Dalleo. River

Construction contracted to do dock repair work; it provided the

barge from which its employees did the repair work; Dalleo was

injured while climbing down timbers located on the dock in order to

get to the barge. Mrs. Dalleo filed suit against River

Cons truction arguing that, as owner of the barge, River

Construction was negligent under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) for not

providing a safe ingress/egress between the barge and the dock.

Our de novo review of the record reveals that, in its capacity

as owner of the barge, River Constructi on did not breach its (1)

turnover duty, (2) its duty to protect against hazards arising in

areas or equipment under the barge’s active control, or (3) its

duty to intervene based upon knowledge as barge owner of a serious

hazard ignored by it acting i n its capacity as stevedore. S ee

Fontenot v. United States , 89 F.3d 205, 209 (5th Cir. 1996); see

also Scindia Steam Nav. Co. v. De Los Santos , 451 U.S. 156, 166-70

(1981); Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., S.A. , 512 U.S. 92, 98

(1994); Castorina v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc. , 758 F.2d 1025,No. 03-30543 -3-

1031-33 (5th Cir. 1985). The district court was correct to dismiss

Mrs. Dalleo’s negligence claim against River Construction.

The claims subject of this suit fall within the definition of

ocean marine insurance as defined in L A

. R EV

. S TAT

. A NN

. 22:1379(9)

(West 1995), and the district court correctly dismissed River

Construction’s third-party claim against the Louisiana Insurance

Guaranty Association. S ee Blair v. Sealift, Inc. , 91 F.3d 755, 757

(5th Cir. 1996); H & B Const. Co., Inc. v. LIGA , 580 So. 2d 931,

933-34 (La. App. 1991).

AFFIRMED.
§ 57.6800 Storage facilities. When repair work which could produce a spark or flame is to be performed on a storage facility— ( a ) The explosive material shall be moved to another facility, or moved at least 50 feet from the repair activity and monitored; and
( b ) The facility shall be cleaned to prevent accidental detonation.
### **CHAPTER 22—UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE**
J.

conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

J. Hardesty J. Douglas

cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge Frederick William Adkins Nye County District Attorney Attorney General/Carson City Nye County Clerk

2 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A 

### e
### §§81 to 83. Repealed. June 19, 1934, ch. 652, §602(a), 48 Stat. 1102

Section 81, act Feb. 23, 1927, ch. 169, §1, 44 Stat. 1162, related to regulation of interstate and foreign radio communications and grant of license. See section 301 of this title.

Section 82, act Feb. 23, 1927, ch. 169, §2, 44 Stat. 1162, related to division of United States into five zones.

Section 83, acts Feb. 23, 1927, ch. 169, §3, 44 Stat. 1162; Mar. 28, 1928, ch. 263, §2, 45 Stat. 373; Mar. 4, 1929, ch. 701, §2, 45 Stat. 1559; Dec. 18, 1929, ch. 7, §2, 46 Stat. 50, related to creation of Federal Radio Commission, composition, qualifications, appointments, meetings, employees, seal, reports and compensation. See sections 151 and 154 of this title and section 5311 et seq. of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
§ 57.22207 Booster fans (I-A, II-A, III, and V-A mines). ( a ) Booster fans shall be approved by MSHA under the applicable requirements of 30 CFR part 18, and be— ( 1 ) Provided with an automatic signal device located so that it can be seen or heard by a person designated by the mine operator to give an alarm when the fan stops or when methane reaches the following levels: ( i ) 1.0 percent at the fan in Subcategory I-A, Category III, and Subcategory V-A mines; and
( ii ) 0.5 percent at the fan in Subcategory II-A mines.
( 2 ) Equipped with a device that automatically deenergizes power in affected workings should the fan stop; and
( 3 ) Equipped with starting and stopping controls located at the fan and at another accessible remote location.
( b ) Booster fan installations, except for booster fans installed in ducts, shall be— ( 1 ) Provided with doors which open automatically when all fans in the installation stop; and
( 2 ) Provided with an air lock when passage through the fan bulkhead is necessary.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by 
reference in the Prospectuses and Statements 
of Additional Information constituting 
parts of this Post-Effective Amendment No. 15 
to the registration statement on Form N-1A 
(the "Registration Statement') of our 
reports dated February 12, 1999, relating 
to the financial statements and financial 
highlights appearing in the December 31, 
1998 Annual Reports to Shareholders of The 
Berwyn Fund, Inc. and Berwyn Income Fund, 
Inc. (Subsequently reorganized as Berwyn Fund and




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Philadelphia, PA
also consent to the references to us 
under the headings "Financial Statements" 
and "General Information - Independent 
Accountants" in the Statements of Additional Information.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Philadelphia, PA
April 19, 1999
### SUBCHAPTER II—EMERGENCY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED SECURITY RISKS
#### § 56.19054 Rope guides.

Where rope guides are used in shafts other than in shaft sinking operations, the rope guides shall be a type of lock coil construction.
#### § 57.12032 Inspection and cover plates.

Inspection and cover plates on electrical equipment and junction boxes shall be kept in place at all times except during testing or repairs.
#### GOLDBERG, Respondent, v. GOLDSTEIN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 16, 1903.)

Action by Selda Goldberg against Charles Goldstein.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.