alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §6503. Training and monitoring

(a) In General.—The head of each executive agency shall ensure that—

(1) an interactive telework training program is provided to—

(A) employees eligible to participate in the telework program of the agency; and

(B) all managers of teleworkers;

(2) except as provided under subsection (b), an employee has successfully completed the interactive telework training program before that employee enters into a written agreement to telework described under section 6502(b)(2);

(3) teleworkers and nonteleworkers are treated the same for purposes of—

(A) periodic appraisals of job performance of employees;

(B) training, rewarding, reassigning, promoting, reducing in grade, retaining, and removing employees;

(C) work requirements; or

(D) other acts involving managerial discretion; and

(4) when determining what constitutes diminished employee performance, the agency shall consult the performance management guidelines of the Office of Personnel Management.

(b) Training Requirement Exemptions.—The head of an executive agency may provide for an exemption from the training requirements under subsection (a), if the head of that agency determines that the training would be unnecessary because the employee is already teleworking under a work arrangement in effect before the date of enactment of this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 111–292, §2(a), Dec. 9, 2010, 124 Stat. 3166.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The date of enactment of this chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 111–292, which was approved Dec. 9, 2010.
### §1361. Application of subpart

This subpart shall apply to the publication and review of farm marketing quotas established for corn, wheat, cotton, and rice, established under part B of this subchapter.

(Feb. 16, 1938, ch. 30, title III, §361, 52 Stat. 62; Apr. 3, 1941, ch. 39, §4, 55 Stat. 92; Pub. L. 107–171, title I, §1309(h)(1), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 181; Pub. L. 108–357, title VI, §611(h), Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1522.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–357 struck out "tobacco," after "established for".

2002—Pub. L. 107–171 struck out "peanuts," after "cotton,".

1941—Act Apr. 3, 1941, inserted "peanuts," after "cotton,".

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

#### Effective Date of 2004 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 108–357 applicable to the 2005 and subsequent crops of tobacco, see section 643 of Pub. L. 108–357, set out as an Effective Date note under section 518 of this title.

#### Savings Provision

Amendment by sections 611 to 614 of Pub. L. 108–357 not to affect the liability of any person under any provision of law so amended with respect to the 2004 or an earlier crop of tobacco, see section 614 of Pub. L. 108–357, set out as a note under section 515 of this title.
Exhibit 32.1
       Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
             Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this quarterly report of Espey Mfg. & Electronics  Corp. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September  30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof,  I, Howard  Pinsley,
President and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

      2.    The  information  contained in this report fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Date: November 12, 2004

                                                   /s/ Howard Pinsley
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Howard Pinsley
                                                   President and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


                                       15
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08704**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 08704\08704_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08704\08704_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 08704\08704_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 08704\08704_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08704\08704_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08704\08704_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08704\08704_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08704\08704_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

08704\Certification Statement Plant ID 08704.pdf Plant certification statement 08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Bed ash AESWarriorRun 8704.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Bed ash2 AESWarriorRun 8704.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Flyash AESWarriorRun 8704.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Flyash2 AESWarriorRun 8704.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Follow up Email.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Follow Up Questions.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Follow Up Response Ash Disposal Cost.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_Follow Up Response Outfall Data.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08704\Supplemental Documents\08704_WaterBalance AESWarriorRun 8704.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
### Part A—Dairy
#### Lincoln Snacks Holding Co., Inc., Respondent, v Brynwood Partners III, L.P., et al., Defendants, and Brynwood Management III, L.P., Appellant.

[832 NYS2d 433]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about December 5, 2005, unanimously withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the stipulation of the parties *325hereto. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Buckley and McGuire, JJ.
### §1990a. Refinancing of certain rural hospital debt

Assistance under section 1926(a) of this title for a community facility, or under section 1932 of this title, may include the refinancing of a debt obligation of a rural hospital as an eligible loan or loan guarantee purpose if the assistance would help preserve access to a health service in a rural community, meaningfully improve the financial position of the hospital, and otherwise meet the financial feasibility and adequacy of security requirements of the Rural Development Agency.

(Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §342, as added Pub. L. 115–334, title VI, §6103, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4728.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Another section 342 of Pub. L. 87–128 amended section 1013a of this title.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Quarterly
Report of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Rogers,
Chief Executive Officer of Duke Energy Carolinas, 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 results of operations of Duke Energy Carolinas.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/    JAMES E. ROGERS                              
|James E. Rogers Chief
Executive Officer May 14, 2007
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50821

Conference Calendar

 

DON RAY WHITE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROBERT O’CONNOR,

U.S. Magistrate,

United States Magistrate Judge,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-96-CA-821

- - - - - - - - - -

February 21, 1997

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Don Ray White, Texas prisoner # 512713, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his action. White argues that Magistrate

Judge O’Connor and Judge Prado are liable for damages under

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 because they improperly conspired to

deny White’s second federal habeas petition. White’s claim calls

into question the validity of his conviction and sentence and may

not be considered in a § 1983 action under Heck v. Humphrey, 114 
No. 96-50821

- 2 -

S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994) because White has not demonstrated that

his conviction and sentence have been invalidated.

Even though this complaint is subject to dismissal under

Heck, “it remains appropriate for district courts to consider the

possible applicability of the doctrine of absolute immunity.” 

Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). Defendants,

Magistrate Judge O’Connor and Judge Prado, are entitled to

absolute immunity from suit for damages in § 1983 actions arising 

out of acts performed in the exercise of their judicial

functions. Graves v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1993).

White’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th

Cir. R. 42.2. We previously warned White that frivolous appeals

could result in sanctions against him. See White v. Scott,

No. 96-40394 (5th Cir. Aug. 1, 1996). Accordingly, White is

BARRED from filing any pro se, in forma pauperis, civil appeal in

this court without the prior written approval of a judge of this

court in active service. Further, he is BARRED from filing any

pro se, in forma pauperis, initial civil pleading in any court

which is subject to this court’s jurisdiction, without advance

written permission of a judge of the forum court. The clerk of

this court and the clerks of all federal district courts subject

to the jurisdiction of this court are directed to return to

White, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this

bar. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED   BALANCE  SHEETS  OF  UNIQUE   MOBILITY,   INC.  AND  CONSOLIDATED
SUBSIDIARIES AS OF MARCH 31, 2000, AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                      0000315449
<NAME>                          Unique Mobility, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                         2,085,115
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,821,894
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                    3,449,390
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8,948,959
<PP&E>                                        13,906,997
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,365,304
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                24,257,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,276,400
<BONDS>                                        4,394,582
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                      49,554,819
<OTHER-SE>                                   (32,408,901)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  17,145,918
<SALES>                                       18,894,923
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              20,597,860
<CGS>                                         16,133,891
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 26,286,634
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 360,993
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               483,298
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (6,471,807)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (6,471,807)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (6,471,807)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.39)


</TABLE>
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

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Annual Report of Matrix Energy Services Corporation (the "Company"), on Form
10-K, as amended, for the period ending September, 30, 2003 (the "Report"), I,
Joe Bill Bennett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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





/s/Joe Bill Bennett
------------------------------------------
Joe Bill Bennett, Chief Executive Officer



December 23, 2004
































<PAGE>


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Annual Report of Matrix Energy Services Corporation (the "Company"), on Form
10-K, as amended, for the period ending September, 30, 2003 (the "Report"), I,
Mark S. Zouvas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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





/s/Mark S. Zouvas
-----------------------------------
Mark S. Zouvas, Chief Financial Officer



December 23, 2004
### §204. Bond and suspension of registrants

On and after July 12, 1943, the Secretary may require reasonable bonds from every market agency (as defined in this subchapter), every packer (as defined in subchapter II of this chapter) in connection with its livestock purchasing operations (except that those packers whose average annual purchases do not exceed $500,000 will be exempt from the provisions of this paragraph), and every other person operating as a dealer (as defined in this subchapter) under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, to secure the performance of their obligations, and whenever, after due notice and hearing, the Secretary finds any registrant is insolvent or has violated any provisions of this chapter he may issue an order suspending such registrant for a reasonable specified period. Such order of suspension shall take effect within not less than five days, unless suspended or modified or set aside by the Secretary or a court of competent jurisdiction. If the Secretary finds any packer is insolvent, he may after notice and hearing issue an order under the provisions of section 193 of this title requiring such packer to cease and desist from purchasing livestock while insolvent, or while insolvent purchasing livestock except under such conditions as the Secretary may prescribe to effectuate the purposes of this chapter.

(July 12, 1943, ch. 215, 57 Stat. 422; Pub. L. 94–410, §§1, 4, Sept. 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 1249.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1944, act July 12, 1943, and not as part of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–410 inserted provisions exempting market agencies and packers whose average annual purchases do not exceed $500,000 from bonding requirement and authorizing Secretary, after notice and hearing, to issue cease and desist orders to insolvent packers prohibiting the purchase of livestock except under conditions prescribed by Secretary, respectively.

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

July 22, 1942, ch. 516, 56 Stat. 689.

July 1, 1941, ch. 267, 55 Stat. 432.

June 25, 1940, ch. 421, 54 Stat. 557.

June 30, 1939, ch. 253, title I, 53 Stat. 970.

June 16, 1938, ch. 464, title I, 52 Stat. 721.

June 29, 1937, ch. 404, 50 Stat. 406.

June 4, 1936, ch. 489, 49 Stat. 1432.

May 17, 1935, ch. 131, title I, 49 Stat. 257.

Mar. 26, 1934, ch. 89, 48 Stat. 477.

Mar. 3, 1933, ch. 203, 47 Stat. 1441.

July 7, 1932, ch. 443, 47 Stat. 620.

Feb. 23, 1931, ch. 278, 46 Stat. 1252.

May 27, 1930, ch. 341, 46 Stat. 402.

Feb. 16, 1929, ch. 227, 45 Stat. 1198.

May 16, 1928, ch. 572, 45 Stat. 547.

Jan. 18, 1927, ch. 39, 44 Stat. 1002.

May 11, 1926, ch. 286, 44 Stat. 527.

Feb. 10, 1925, ch. 200, 43 Stat. 851.

June 5, 1924, ch. 266, 43 Stat. 460.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 22, 2024

NO. 03-23-00490-CV

Ken Paxton, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas, and Jane Nelson, in her 

Official Capacity as Texas Secretary of State, Appellants

v.

Harris County, Texas; and Clifford Tatum, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

DISMISSED ON APPELLANTS’ MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on August 14, 2023. Appellants have

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the 

motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal. The 

appellants shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
### §2009bb–1a. Interstate cooperation for economic opportunity and efficiency

#### (a) In general

The Authority shall provide assistance to States in developing regional plans to address multistate economic issues, including plans—

(1) to develop a regional transmission system for movement of renewable energy to markets outside the region;

(2) to address regional transportation concerns, including the establishment of a Northern Great Plains Regional Transportation Working Group;

(3) to encourage and support interstate collaboration on federally-funded research that is in the national interest; and

(4) to establish a Regional Working Group on Agriculture Development and Transportation.

#### (b) Economic issues

The multistate economic issues referred to in subsection (a) shall include—

(1) renewable energy development and transmission;

(2) transportation planning and economic development;

(3) information technology;

(4) movement of freight and individuals within the region;

(5) federally-funded research at institutions of higher education; and

(6) conservation land management.

(Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §383C, as added Pub. L. 110–234, title VI, §6026(c)(1)(B), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1178, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VI, §6026(c)(1)(B), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1940.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 enacted identical sections. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 383C of Pub. L. 87–128, title III, was renumbered section 383D and is classified to section 2009bb–2 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Enactment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as a note under section 8701 of this title.
#### DUNSCOMB et al., Respondents, v. POOLE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by Godfrey Dunscomb and others against John H. Poole.

J. J. Adams, for appellant. A. H. Mosle, for respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.