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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1108 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1108

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to extend the authority of the 
 Federal Communications Commission to grant a license or construction 
            permit through a system of competitive bidding.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF FCC AUCTION AUTHORITY.

    Section 309(j)(11) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
309(j)(11)) is amended by striking ``March 9, 2023'' and inserting 
``May 19, 2023''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 27, 2023.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1108

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to extend the authority of the 
 Federal Communications Commission to grant a license or construction 
            permit through a system of competitive bidding.
```
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

BULLETIN 1028 PLATE 29

T

51°
357,
00”

51°
32t—
30"

|

178° 52/30”
Topography and hydrography from U.S. Coast
and Geodetic Survey, 1949

50’ 00" 47/30" INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, WASHINGTON, ©. €.

GEOLOGIC MAP OF KAVALGA ISLAND, DELAROF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA

Seale 1:25,000
2Miles

Contour interval 50 feet with supplement
i eee

Datum ia mean sea level

Hydrographic contours in fathoms

jum is mean lower Low water
Shoreline is line of mean high water

Dotted line shows limit of partly exposed rock bench

178° 457 00"

Geology by G. D. Fraser and 8. H. Bieler, 1952

EXPLANATION

Ash and soil cover
UNCONFORMITY

Lavas and pyroclastic Andesite or basalt dikes
deposits

QUATERNARY

Predominantly lava and
flow breccia, but includes
‘minor tic ite,
Tul; predominantly pyro-
clastic deposite (tuff and
breccia), but includ

puinor seilimentary roc

lava, and flow breccia,

Typ; tava and pyroctas

TERTIARY

deposits undifferentiated,
vu, om untraversed coast
line
bas

Predominantly breccia

Predominantly tuff

ee
Pillow lava

Contact
Dashed where approximatel;
Tocated ” Y

Dotted where concealed; U, upthrown
side; D, downthrown side
=
‘Strike and dip of beds
E2
Generalized strike and dip of poorly
bedded rocks

es
Strike and dip of flow layers

Strike of sheared and silicified
fault zone
My
Fractured and silicified area

TRUE NORTH

APPROXIMATE MEAN
DECLINATION 1949
FILED

June 15, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

 AT JACKSON

 JUNE 1998 SESSION

EDDIE JOE MANN, ) 

) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9707-CC-00240 

Appellant, )

) Dyer County

V. )

) Honorable Lee Moore, Judge

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) (Post-Conviction) 

) 

Appellee. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Greg Alford John Knox Walkup

Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter 

108 W. Court Street, Suite 21

Dyersburg, TN 38024 Marvin E. Clements, Jr.

Assistant Attorney General

Criminal Justice Division

Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor

425 Fifth Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37243

C. Phillip Bivens

District Attorney General

115 Market Street East

Dyersburg, TN 38024

OPINION FILED: ___________________

AFFIRMED

PAUL G. SUMMERS,

Judge
-2-

O P I N I O N

The petitioner, Eddie Joe Mann, was convicted by a jury of theft under

$500. Our Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v. Eddie Joe

Mann, No. 02C01-9512-CC-00395 (filed at Jackson, January 16, 1997). He filed

a post-conviction relief petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at both

the trial and appellate levels. The hearing court denied relief. Petitioner

appealed to this Court. Oral argument was heard on June 2, 1998. 

We have reviewed this record and our opinion on direct appeal. We take

note of the lengthy and comprehensive order filed by the Honorable Lee Moore,

post-conviction judge, which details the facts and issues gleaned at the hearing. 

We take the liberty of incorporating by reference this order because of its

accuracy and thoroughness. We appreciate findings and conclusions such as

these when we review appellate records. 

To be entitled to relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel, the petitioner must show that counsel's performance was deficient and

that such deficiency prejudiced the defense. The burden rests on the petitioner

to prove his allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Unless the evidence

preponderates otherwise, the findings of the hearing court are conclusive on

appeal. This petitioner has not demonstrated that the evidence preponderates

against the hearing court's judgment.

The judgment denying relief is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

____________________________
-3-

PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge

CONCUR:

____________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, Judge

____________________________

DAVID R. FARMER, Special Judge
#### § 1150.119 Cooperative association.

*Cooperative association* means any cooperative marketing association of producers which is organized under the provisions of the Act of Congress of February 18, 1922, as amended, known as the “Capper-Volstead Act”.
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Carl Ceragno, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Communications Research,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of the annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c. presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in the annual
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 30, 2004                          By: /s/ Carl R. Ceragno
                                                  -------------------
                                                  Carl R. Ceragno
#### 9.505-3 Providing evaluation services.

Contracts for the evaluation of offers for products or services shall not be awarded to a contractor that will evaluate its own offers for products or services, or those of a competitor, without proper safeguards to ensure objectivity to protect the Government's interests.

[62 FR 12694, Mar. 17, 1997]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7992

GARY WAYNE HENDRICKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior 

District Judge. (7:13-cv-00514-JCT-RSB)

Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Wayne Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Wayne Hendricks seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order treating his motion for declaratory judgment as a 

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and dismissing it 

on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 

369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Hendricks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
3

Additionally, we construe Hendricks’ notice of appeal 

and informal brief as an application to file a second or 

successive § 2254 petition. United States v. Winestock, 340 

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization 

to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert 

claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, 

previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to 

cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, 

not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, 

but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would 

have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(2) (2012). Hendricks’ claims do not satisfy either of 

these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2254 petition.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
#### § 1124.75 Plant location adjustments for producer milk and nonpool milk.

For purposes of making payments for producer milk and nonpool milk, a plant location adjustment shall be determined by subtracting the Class I price specified in § 1124.51 from the Class I price at the plant's location. The difference, plus or minus as the case may be, shall be used to adjust the payments required pursuant to §§ 1124.73 and 1000.76.
§ 1.338 Appeal to the judicial officer. ( a ) Any respondent who has filed a timely answer and who is determined in an initial decision to be liable for a civil penalty or assessment may appeal such decision to the Secretary by filing a notice of appeal with the judicial officer in accordance with this section. The judicial officer of USDA shall consider all appeals to the Secretary under this subpart and render a decision on behalf of the Secretary.
( b ) ( 1 ) A notice of appeal may be filed at any time within 30 days after the ALJ issues an initial decision. However, if another party files a motion for reconsideration under § 1.337 of this part, consideration of the appeal shall be stayed automatically pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration.
( 2 ) If a motion for reconsideration is timely filed, a notice of appeal may be filed within 30 days after the ALJ denies the motion or issues a revised initial decision, whichever applies.
( c ) The judicial officer may extend the initial 30-day period during which a notice of appeal may be filed for an additional 30 days if the respondent files a request for an extension within the initial 30-day period and shows good cause.
( d ) If the respondent timely files a notice of appeal with the judicial officer and the time for filing motions for reconsideration under § 1.337 of this part has expired, the ALJ will forward the record of the proceeding to the judicial officer.
( e ) A notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a written brief specifying exceptions to the initial decision and reasons supporting the exceptions.
( f ) The representative for USDA may file a brief in opposition to exceptions within 30 days of receiving the brief proposing exceptions.
( g ) There is no right to appear personally before the judicial officer.
( h ) There is no right to interlocutory appeal of rulings by the ALJ.
( i ) The judicial officer, in reviewing the decision, shall not consider any objection that was not raised before the ALJ unless a demonstration is made that extraordinary circumstances caused the failure to raise the objection.
( j ) If any party demonstrates to the satisfaction of the judicial officer that additional evidence not presented to the ALJ is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to present such evidence to the ALJ, the judicial officer shall remand the matter to the ALJ for consideration of such additional evidence.
( k ) The judicial officer may affirm, reduce, reverse, compromise, remand or settle any penalty or assessment determined by the ALJ.
( l ) The judicial officer shall promptly serve each party to the appeal with a copy of the decision of the judicial officer and a statement describing the respondent's right to seek judicial review.
( m ) Unless a petition for review is filed as provided in 31 U.S.C. 3805 after a respondent has exhausted all administrative remedies under this part and within 60 days after the date on which the judicial officer serves the respondent with a copy of the judicial officer's decision, a determination that a respondent is liable under § 1.303 of this part is final and is not subject to judicial review.
**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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Regenesis Centers, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, I, Anne Invernale, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Regenesis Centers, Inc. hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 

 
| 1.     | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Regenesis Centers, Inc. |

 

 

 
| By:    | */s/*   Anne Invernale

Anne InvernaleChief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dated: May 8, 2006
#### ELLIOTT, Respondent, v. WINTERSTEIN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 28, 1906.)

Action by Frank Elliott against George Winterstein.

PER CURIAM.

Order modified, by striking out that part which imposes costs upon the defendant as a condition of permitting him to serve a supplemental answer, and inserting in lieu thereof, and as a condition of serving such answer, the payment of all costs after service of notice of trial herein, such answer to be served and said costs paid within 10 days after service of a copy of this order and notice of entry hereof, and by permitting the plaintiff to discontinue his action, without costs, if so advised by counsel, within 10 days after service of such supplemental answer and the payment of said costs, and as so modified, said order is affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.

WILLIAMS, J.,

dissents.
**Exhibit 32-3** **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 Commonwealth Edison Company for the quarterly period ended    September 30, 2006, 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    Commonwealth Edison Company. /s/  Frank    M. Clark    Frank M. Clark    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer     Date: October 27, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.1




SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sono Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"), I, Peter Wilson, Chief Executive Officer/President and William Thomas/Chief Financial Officer, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: April 13, 2011
By:
/s/ PETER WILSONPeter WilsonChief Executive Officer/President


Date: April 13, 2011
By:
/s/ WILLIAM THOMASWilliam ThomasChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from the
Company's  consolidated  balance  sheet  at  March  31,  1997 and Consolidated
Statement  of  Operations  for  the  three months ended March 31, 1997, and is
qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference  to  such  financial  statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         3071
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   476
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3547
<PP&E>                                         4470
<DEPRECIATION>                                  803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2081
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                        171
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     4961
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7214
<SALES>                                         156
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                176
<CGS>                                            49
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   412
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               29
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (266)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (266)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (266)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.01)
        



</TABLE>