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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1221 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1221

    To withdraw certain Bureau of Land Management land from mineral 
                              development.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2023

   Ms. Stansbury (for herself, Ms. Leger Fernandez, and Mr. Huffman) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To withdraw certain Bureau of Land Management land from mineral 
                              development.

    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 ``Buffalo Tract Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL.

    (a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, the Federal land 
described in subsection (b) is withdrawn from all forms of--
            (1) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
            (2) disposition under the mineral leasing, mineral 
        materials, and geothermal leasing laws.
    (b) Description.--The Federal land referred to in subsections (a) 
and (c) is the approximately 4,288 acres of land administered by the 
Director of the Bureau of Land Management and generally depicted as 
``Tract A'', ``Tract B'', ``Tract C'', and ``Tract D'' on the map 
entitled ``Placitas, New Mexico Area Map'' and dated November 13, 2019.
    (c) Surface Estate.--
            (1) In general.--Subject to the reservation of the mineral 
        estate under paragraph (2), nothing in this Act prohibits the 
        Secretary of the Interior from conveying the surface estate of 
        the Federal land described in subsection (b) in accordance 
        with--
                    (A) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
                1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); or
                    (B) the Act of June 14, 1926 (commonly known as the 
                ``Recreation and Public Purposes Act'') (43 U.S.C. 869 
                et seq.).
            (2) Mineral estate.--Any conveyance of the surface estate 
        of the Federal land described in subsection (b) shall require a 
        reservation of the mineral estate to the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit No. 32.1
Form 10-KSB
American Ammunition, Inc.
File No. 0-32379


          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  American  Ammunition,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form  10-KSB/A for the year ended  December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Andres F.  Fernandez,  Chief  Executive  and  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:

     (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.


Dated: October 19, 2007      By:  /s/ Andres F. Fernandez
      ------------------      -------------------------
                                  Andres F. Fernandez
                                  Chief Executive and
                              Chief Financial Officer





-------------------
A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  American  Ammunition,  Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by  American
Ammunition,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 32-4

Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Exelon Generation Company, LLC for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, that (i) the report 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 the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Exelon
Generation Company, LLC.



/s/    John F. YoungJohn F. YoungExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: October 26, 2007



192
#### Fidelio Rodriguez et al., Respondents, v Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant.

[776 NYS2d 868]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated August 5, 2003, as denied that branch of its motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

*776The defendant issued an auto insurance policy to the plaintiff Fidelio Rodriguez (hereinafter Rodriguez) which, inter alia, provided uninsured, underinsured, and supplemental (hereinafter SUM) insurance coverage. When Rodriguez was injured in an accident in 1999, he brought an action against the other driver and notified the defendant of his intent to make a claim for SUM benefits under the defendant’s policy. Pursuant to the terms of the SUM clause therein, the defendant demanded, inter alia, that the plaintiffs provide documentation regarding the settlement of their claim against the other driver and that tortfeasor’s insurance coverage. In addition, the defendant demanded that Rodriguez undergo a physical examination by a doctor chosen by the defendant and an examination under oath. Without complying with the defendant’s demands, Rodriguez settled the underlying tort action and demanded that the defendant pay the full policy amount under the SUM coverage. When the defendant insisted on compliance with its demands, the plaintiffs commenced this action.

An insurer’s duty to pay SUM coverage begins when the insured demonstrates that the limit of his or her bodily injury coverage exceeds the same coverage in the tortfeasor’s policy *(see Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso,*93 NY2d 487, 493 [1999]; *Allstate Ins. Co. v DeMorato,*262 AD2d 557 [1999]). The plaintiffs failed to provide the documentation to establish that their bodily injury coverage exceeded the policy limits available to the tortfeasor. Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to meet several conditions precedent to payment of the SUM claim by declining to provide the documentation and. undergo the medical examination demanded by the defendant *(see White v City of New York,*81 NY2d 955 [1993]; *Matter of Integon Ins. Co. v Battaglia,*292 AD2d 527 [2002]). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Altman, J.P., Florio, Smith and Rivera, JJ., concur.
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



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Midway Gold Corp. (the Company) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) 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 the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



August 14, 2008

| | /s/ Alan D. Branham                                                             | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | Alan D. Branham                                                                 | 
| | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director  
(Principal Executive Officer)
| |                                                                                 | 





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.





---
##### 



Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
of CNA Financial Corporation
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
(As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of CNA Financial Corporation (the
Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:  
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. Dated: August 2, 2004 /s/ Stephen W. LilienthalStephen W. LilienthalChief Executive Officer The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
#### § 1206.75 Personal liability.

No member or employee of the Board shall be held personally responsible, either individually or jointly with others, in any way whatsoever, to any person for errors in judgment, mistakes, or other acts, either of commission or omission, as such member or employee, except for acts of dishonesty or willful misconduct.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Page 10 of 25

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(b)


                        KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2000-B
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE


Bank One, National Association              Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
One Bank One Plaza, Suite 0126              fka, Bankers Trust Company
Chicago, IL 60670                           280 Park Avenue 9th Floor
Attn: Corporate Trust Administration        New York, NY 10017
Phone: (312) 407-0192                       Attn: Corporate Trust & Agency Group
Fax:   (312) 407-1708                       Structured Finance
                                            Phone: (212) 454-4298
                                            Fax:   (212) 454-2331

Key Bank USA, National Association          MBIA Insurance Corporation.
800 Superior Ave, 4th Floor                 113 King Street
Cleveland, OH 44114                         Armonk, NY 10504
ATTN: Senior Vice President                 ATTN: Data Administration
Key Education Resources                     Phone (914) 765-3772
Phone: (216) 828-9342                       Fax:  (914) 765-3810
Fax:   (216) 828-9417


Pursuant to Section 3.08 of the Subservicing Agreement between Key Bank USA,
National Association as Master Servicer and Pennsylvania Higher Education
Assistance Agency, as Subservicer, dated as of September 1, 2000 (the
"Agreement"), the undersigned hereby certifies that (i) a review of the
activities of PHEAA as Subservicer from January 1, 2002, through December 31,
2002, and of its performance under the Agreement has been made, and (ii) to the
best of the undersigned's knowledge, based on the review, PHEAA as Subservicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period.

The undersigned also hereby certifies that the Subservicer has disclosed to the
Master Servicer and to the Trust's certified public accountants all significant
deficiencies relating to the Subservicer's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards in accordance with a review conducted in compliance with the Uniform
Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar standard as set forth
in the Agreement.



                                            PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION
                                            ASSISTANCE AGENCY, Subservicer


Date: March 14, 2003                        By: /S/  RICHARD E. WILLEY
                                               ------------------------
                                            Name: Richard E. Willey
                                            Title: President and CEO
**Exhibit 32-7**
**Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code**
     The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Exelon Generation Company, LLC for the quarterly period endedJune 30, 2004, that (i) the report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) theinformation contained in the report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of ExelonGeneration Company, LLC.   Date: July 28, 2004 /s/ Oliver D. Kingsley Jr.   Oliver D. Kingsley Jr. Chief Executive Officer and President
#### In the Matter of Yusef Sow, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[775 NYS2d 919]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled *904substance after his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. The positive test results and testimony at the hearing, including that from the syva representative indicating that the medications that petitioner was taking would not cause a false positive based upon prior testing of the medication or the chemical compounds thereof, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Harris v Goord,*273 AD2d 599, 600 [2000], *lv dismissed*95 NY2d 917 [2000]; *Matter of Bacchic v Lacy,*267 AD2d 524 [1999]).

Petitioner’s argument that the hearing was not completed within the 14-day limit is incorrect, as the Hearing Officer received an extension within that time period and completed the hearing within that extended period *(see Matter of Carina v Goord,*270 AD2d 663 [2000]). Finally, the Hearing Officer properly considered petitioner’s prior disciplinary history in determining the appropriate disposition.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### § 1051.50 Class prices, component prices, and advanced pricing factors.

See § 1000.50.
#### Adeline Cassano on Behalf of Philip Cassano and Others, Appellant, v. Dominick Cassano, Respondent.

Order, entered on March 4,1964, reducing support payments, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of denying respondent’s application for a reduction of support payments and reinstating the order of July 11, 1962 requiring respondent to pay $75 weekly for the support of petitioner wife and the four minor children of the marriage, together with $10 weekly on account of arrears, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. On. October 10, 1963 we affirmed the support order entered July 11, 1962. *(Cassano*v. *Cassano,*19 A D 2d 861.) The record fails to support a change in circumstances since the date of our affirmance which would warrant a reduction of the support heretofore directed. Concur—Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Stener, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
RELATED FORM 10-Q FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000352049
<NAME> THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,912,658
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    146,486
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         316,453
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       959,807
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,335,404
<COMMON>                                       195,687
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      602,113
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             10,083
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 807,883
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,355
<PREFERRED>                                    210,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,003,055
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   41,700
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        1,665
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     41,699
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                35,105
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,190,942
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                3,335,404
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      217,060
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             8,212
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     176,491
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     184,703
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         32,357
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               (320)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  32,037
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        23,197
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,840
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      4,194
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    4,646
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       70,129
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          45,124
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harry Verrios, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered January 27, 1978, resentencing defendant upon his guilty plea of robbery in the third degree to an intermittent term to be served on weekends for 10 months, modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce the sentence to an intermittent term to be served on weekends for three months, with appropriate credit for whatever time defendant may have already served, and otherwise affirmed. In October, 1974, the defendant was sentenced to five years’ probation and a $2,000 fine following his plea of guilty to robbery in the third degree. Thereafter, in October, 1976, defendant pleaded guilty to violating a probation condition by failing to inform his probation officer of an arrest that ultimately resulted in his acquittal. Defendant’s probation was revoked and he was resentenced to a term of 60 days and five years’ probation. On appeal this court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentence. *(People v Verrios,*60 AD2d 536.) We held that a sentence including probation may not lawfully be imposed following revocation of probation. On remand, the trial court *895resentenced the defendant to an intermittent term to be served on weekends for 10 months. Preliminarily, defendant urges that the sentence here appealed from is also unauthorized, arguing that a sentence following revocation of probation must be pursuant to subdivisions 3 or 4 of section 60.01 of the Penal Law, and that an intermittent sentence is not authorized by either of those subdivisions. Although the issue is not free from doubt, we are of the view that subdivision 4 of section 60.01 of the Penal Law permits a sentence of intermittent imprisonment following revocation of probation. However, we agree with defendant’s further contention that the sentence imposed on remand was excessive. We note that the Probation Department had been encouraged by the defendant’s constructive response to his period of probation notwithstanding the violation noted above. Under all the circumstances we believe the sentence imposed is excessive and should be reduced to an intermittent term to be served on weekends for a period of three months, giving appropriate credit to whatever time defendant may have already served. Concur — Birns, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan and Silverman, JJ.