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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 202 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        April 13, 2005.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8) to make the repeal of the estate tax 
permanent. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if 
offered by Representative Pomeroy of North Dakota or his designee, which shall 
be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with 
or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.1



Citizens Financial Corp.



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley

Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



I, Robert J. Schoonover, President and Chief Executive Officer of Citizens Financial Corp. (the company) certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:



|1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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: 11/9/05 |  | /s/ Robert J. Schoonover                              
|              |  | Robert J. Schoonover President Chief Executive Officer
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 2 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 3 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 4 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 5 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 6 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 7 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 8 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 9 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 10 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 11 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 12 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 13 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 14 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 15 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 16 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 17 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 18 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 19 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 20 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 21 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 22 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 23 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 24 of 25
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 10-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 25 of 25
§ 1021.322 Findings of no significant impact. ( a ) DOE shall prepare a FONSI only if the related EA supports the finding that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the human environment. If a required DOE EA does not support a FONSI, DOE shall prepare an EIS and issue a ROD before taking action on the proposal addressed by the EA, except as permitted under 40 CFR 1506.1 and § 1021.211 of this part.
( b ) In addition to the requirements found at 40 CFR 1508.13, a DOE FONSI shall include the following: ( 1 ) Any commitments to mitigations that are essential to render the impacts of the proposed action not significant, beyond those mitigations that are integral elements of the proposed action, and a reference to the Mitigation Action Plan prepared under § 1021.331 of this part;
( 2 ) Any “Statement of Findings” required by 10 CFR part 1022, “Compliance with Floodplain/Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements”;
( 3 ) The date of issuance; and
( 4 ) The signature of the DOE approving official.
( c ) DOE shall make FONSIs available to the public as provided at 40 CFR 1501.4(e)(1) and 1506.6; DOE shall make copies available for inspection in the appropriate DOE public reading room(s) or other appropriate location(s) for a reasonable time.
( d ) DOE shall issue a proposed FONSI for public review and comment before making a final determination on the FONSI if required by 40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2); DOE may issue a proposed FONSI for public review and comment in other situations as well.
( e ) Upon issuance of the FONSI, DOE may proceed with the proposed action subject to any mitigation commitments expressed in the FONSI that are essential to render the impacts of the proposed action not significant.
( f ) DOE may revise a FONSI at any time, so long as the revision is supported by an existing EA. A revised FONSI is subject to all provisions of this section.
[57 FR 15144, Apr. 24, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 36239, July 9, 1996; 76 FR 63787, Oct. 13, 2011]
§ 1021.200 DOE planning. ( a ) DOE shall provide for adequate and timely NEPA review of DOE proposals, including those for programs, policies, projects, regulations, orders, or legislation, in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.2 and this section. In its planning for each proposal, DOE shall include adequate time and funding for proper NEPA review and for preparation of anticipated NEPA documents.
( b ) DOE shall begin its NEPA review as soon as possible after the time that DOE proposes an action or is presented with a proposal.
( c ) DOE shall determine the level of NEPA review required for a proposal in accordance with § 1021.300 and subpart D of this part.
( d ) During the development and consideration of a DOE proposal, DOE shall review any relevant planning and decisionmaking documents, whether prepared by DOE or another agency, to determine if the proposal or any of its alternatives are considered in a prior NEPA document. If so, DOE shall consider adopting the existing document, or any pertinent part thereof, in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.1007 Access. ( a ) ( 1 ) A system to provide electronic access to the Licensing Support Network shall be provided at the headquarters of DOE, and at all DOE Local Public Document Rooms established in the vicinity of the likely candidate site for a geologic repository, beginning in the pre-license application phase.
( 2 ) A system to provide electronic access to the Licensing Support Network shall be provided at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov ,* and/or at the NRC Public Document Room beginning in the pre-license application phase.
( 3 ) [Reserved]
( b ) Public availability of paper and electronic copies of the records of NRC and DOE, as well as duplication fees, and fee waiver for those records, is governed by the regulations of the respective agencies.
[63 FR 71738, Dec. 30, 1998, as amended at 64 FR 48949, Sept. 9, 1999]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CRIMINAL NO.: 2:06-CR-0202-WKW 

)

EUGENE L. CLECKLER, )

)

 Defendant )

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE

Comes now the United States of America, by and through Leura G. Canary, United

States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and respectfully requests a 10-day

extension of time in which to file a response in the above-styled action. In support of said

motion plaintiff provides the following:

1. The United States has communicated with the defendant in an effort to

resolve the subject matter of his Motion to Suspend Execution of Forfeiture. Given

defendant’s status, such communication was in writing and was most likely not received

by the defendant before sometime on or after Tuesday, July 22, 2008. The defendant has,

therefore, not had ample to time to respond to the United States’ offer to resolve the

pending motion. 

2. It is respectfully requested that the United States be given an extension of

time of 10 days in which to respond to the defendant’s motion.

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 127 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 1 of 2
Respectfully submitted this 25 day of July, 2008. th

LEURA G. CANARY

United States Attorney

 By: s/R. Randolph Neeley 

R. Randolph Neeley

Assistant United States Attorney

Bar Number: #9083-E56R

Attorney for Plaintiff/Garnishor

United States Attorney’s Office

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, AL 36101-0197

Telephone: (334) 223-7280

Facsimile: (334) 223-7418

E-mail: rand.neeley@usdoj.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 25, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, and I hereby certify that I have mailed, by

United States Postal Service, a copy of same to the following non-CM/ECF participant(s):

Eugene Cleckler

Reg. No.: # 12009-002

LSCI Butner

P.O. Box 999

Butner, NC 27509

s/R. Randolph Neeley 

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 127 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 2 of 2
§ 1017.9 Nuclear material determinations. ( a ) The Secretary may determine that a material other than special nuclear material, byproduct material, or source material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act is included within the scope of the term “nuclear material” if it meets the following criteria: ( 1 ) The material is used in the production, testing, utilization, or assembly of nuclear weapons or components of nuclear weapons; and
( 2 ) Unauthorized acquisition of the material could reasonably be expected to result in a significant adverse effect on the health and safety of the public or the common defense and security because the specific material: ( i ) Could be used as a hazardous radioactive environmental contaminant; or
( ii ) Could be of significant assistance in the illegal production of a nuclear weapon.
( b ) Designation of a material as a nuclear material under paragraph (a) of this section does not make all information about the material UCNI. Specific information about the material must still meet each of the criteria in § 1017.7 prior to its being identified and controlled as UCNI.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Justo Richards, Appellant, v Calvin West, Respondent. In the Matter of Justo Richards, Appellant, v Calvin West, Respondent. In the Matter of Robert Ward et al., Petitioners, and Justo Richards, Appellant, v Eliot Spitzer, Respondent.

Submitted June 18, 2007;

decided September 18, 2007

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the orders appealed from do not finally determine the proceedings within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the proceedings within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
ENCORE COMPUTER CORPORATION
Computation of Loss per Share       Exhibit 11
                                                                     
(in thousands except per share data)
                                                    Three Months Ended
                                                    March 30,  March 31,
Primary                                                 1997      1996
Net Loss                                            ($20,023) ($16,897)

Series B, D, E, F and G Preferred
 Stock Dividends                                           0    (5,954)

Series B, D, E, F, G and H Accumulated
 Preferred Stock Dividends                            (6,860)        0

Net loss attributable to
 common shareholders                                ($26,883) ($22,851)

Weighted average common
 shares outstanding                                   37,276    36,350

Loss per common share                                 ($0.72)   ($0.63)

Assuming Full Dilution

Net loss                                            ($20,023) ($16,897)

Wghtd avg common shares outstand                      37,276    36,350
Series A assumed converted                             7,364     7,364
Series B assumed converted                            23,392    21,242
Series D assumed converted                            35,794    32,503
Series E assumed converted                            36,587    33,223
Series F assumed converted                            17,120    12,437
Series G assumed converted                            18,370     6,388
Series H assumed converted                            11,235         0
Series I assumed converted                             1,659         0
Exercise of options reduced by the number
 of shares purchased
 with proceeds                                         2,786     3,709
Weighted avg shares outstand                         191,583   153,216

Net loss per common share                             ($0.10)   ($0.11)
#### § 966.92 Amendments.

Amendments to this subpart may be proposed, from time to time, by the committee or by the Secretary.
159 So.2d 284

#### UNITED GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY v. NEW ORLEANS TERMINAL COMPANY.

No. 46989.

Jan. 20, 1964.

In re: United Gas Pipe Line Company applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 156 So.2d 297.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law as to the issues finally disposed of in the Court of Appeal. As to the matters included in the remand the judgment is not final.
§ 1005.11 What are the Secretary's obligations in interstate situations? ( a ) The Secretary is responsible for: ( 1 ) Identifying proposed federal financial assistance and direct federal development that have an impact on interstate areas;
( 2 ) Notifying appropriate officials and entities in states which have adopted a process and which select the Department's program or activity;
( 3 ) Making efforts to identify and notify the affected state, areawide, regional, and local officials and entities in those states that have not adopted a process under the Order or do not select the Department's program or activity;
( 4 ) Responding pursuant to § 1005.10 of this part if the Secretary receives a recommendation from a designated areawide agency transmitted by a single point of contact, in cases in which the review, coordination, and communication with the Department have been delegated.
( b ) The Secretary uses the procedures in § 1005.10 if a state process provides a state process recommendation to the Department through a single point of contact.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

WISLY PRENELUS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 1937

[October 4, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; William W. Haury, Jr.

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 05020589CF10A

.

Michael D. Weinstein of Michael D. Weinstein, P.A., Fort Lauderdale,

for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., G ROSS and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 11, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 133276 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan RAYMOND O’NEAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133276 COA: 274570 Wayne CC: 05-515351-NH ST. JOHN HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER and DR. RALPH DILISIO, Defendants-Appellants,

and

DR. EFSTATHIOS TAPAZOGLOU, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of March 7, 2007, this Co urt granted immediate consideration and ordered a stay of trial court proceedings. On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the February 8, 2007 order of the Co urt of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. We further ORDER that the stay entered by this Court on March 7, 2007, remains in effect until completion of this appeal. On motion of a party or on its own motion, the Court of Ap peals may modify, set aside, or place conditions on the stay if it appears that the appeal is not being vigorously prosecuted or if other appropriate grounds appear.

W EAVER , J., would deny leave to appeal as she is not persuaded of the need for immediate appellate review.

d0404 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 11, 2007

Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

SIGNET BANKING CORPORATION 

AND 

AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0805-95-2 PER CURIAM 

 SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 

DEBORAH MEADE-CROMER 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Lynne Jones Blain; Michelle P. Wiltshire; Morris and 

Morris, on briefs), for appellants. 

 (Deborah Meade-Cromer, pro se, on brief). 

 Signet Banking Corporation and its insurer (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding that the employer was 

responsible for the cost of certain treatment rendered to Deborah 

Meade-Cromer by Dr. Terry Whipple, an orthopedic surgeon. Upon 

reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude 

that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily 

affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prevailing party below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). 

"Whether the employer is responsible for medical expenses . . . 

depends upon: (1) whether the medical service was causally 
 2 

related to the industrial injury; (2) whether such other medical 

attention was necessary; and (3) whether the treating physician 

made a referral . . . [of] the patient." Volvo White Truck Corp. 

v. Hedge, 1 Va. App. 195, 199, 336 S.E.2d 903, 906 (1985). 

 The parties do not dispute that Dr. Whipple's treatment was 

causally related to Meade-Cromer's industrial accident and that 

it was necessary. Addressing the referral, the commission found 

as follows: 

 We consider Dr. [Forrest] Jessee's 

September 2, 1994 letter a valid referral. 

 It is clear that in Dr. Jessee's opinion, 

Meade-Cromer was in need of surgical 

intervention that Dr. Whipple could 

provide. While Meade-Cromer may have 

initially treated with Dr. Whipple on her 

own initiative, on September 2, 1994, her 

treating physician, Dr. Jessee, officially 

referred her to Dr. Whipple. 

 Dr. Jessee's September 2, 1994 letter provides credible 

evidence to support the commission's finding that he made a valid 

referral of Meade-Cromer to Dr. Whipple. We find no merit in 

employer's argument that because Meade-Cromer had previously 

sought unauthorized treatment from Dr. Whipple, for which 

employer was not held responsible, Dr. Jessee's later referral 

was not valid. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.
§ 986.69 Authorities regulating handling. ( a ) The Council may recommend, subject to the approval of the Secretary, regulations that: ( 1 ) Establish handling requirements or minimum tolerances for particular grades, sizes, or qualities, or any combination thereof, of any or all varieties or classifications of pecans during any period;
( 2 ) Establish different handling requirements or minimum tolerances for particular grades, sizes, or qualities, or any combination thereof for different varieties or classifications, for different containers, for different portions of the production area, or any combination of the foregoing, during any period;
( 3 ) Fix the size, capacity, weight, dimensions, or pack of the container or containers, which may be used in the packaging, transportation, sale, preparation for market, shipment, or other handling of pecans; and
( 4 ) Establish inspection and certification requirements for the purposes of (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
( b ) Regulations issued hereunder may be amended, modified, suspended, or terminated whenever it is determined: ( 1 ) That such action is warranted upon recommendation of the Council and approval by the Secretary, or other available information; or
( 2 ) That regulations issued hereunder no longer tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
( c ) The authority to regulate as put forward in this subsection shall not in any way constitute authority for the Council to recommend volume regulation, such as reserve pools, producer allotments, or handler withholding requirements which limit the flow of product to market for the purpose of reducing market supply.
( d ) The Council may recommend, subject to the approval of the Secretary, rules and regulations to effectuate this subpart.