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

[111th Congress Public Law 361]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 4053]]

Public Law 111-361
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 47 East Fayette Street in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, as the ``George C. 
     Marshall Post Office''. <<NOTE: Jan. 4, 2011 -  [H.R. 5605]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. GEORGE C. MARSHALL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 47 East Fayette Street in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, shall be 
known and designated as the ``George C. Marshall Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``George C. 
Marshall Post Office''.

    Approved January 4, 2011.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5605:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            Sept. 28, 29, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 16, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00212-CV

GLENDA BROWN AND WILLIAM 

JONES, Appellants

V.

RUTH SANDERS, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 431st District 

Court

of Denton County (17-3609-158)

June 9, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the trial court’s judgment

is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellants Glenda Brown and William Jones must pay 

all costs of this appeal.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1213 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1213

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make S corporations 
eligible for the rules applicable to real property subdivided for sale 
                       by noncorporate taxpayers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 1995

  Mr. Stark introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make S corporations 
eligible for the rules applicable to real property subdivided for sale 
                       by noncorporate taxpayers.

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

SECTION 1. S CORPORATIONS ELIGIBLE FOR RULES APPLICABLE TO REAL 
              PROPERTY SUBDIVIDED FOR SALE BY NONCORPORATE TAXPAYERS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1237 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to real property subdivided for sale) is 
amended by striking ``other than a corporation'' and inserting ``other 
than a C corporation''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to sales after January 1, 1992 (and to sales and exchanges on or 
before such date for purposes of determining whether the treatment 
under section 1237(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 applies to 
any sale after such date).
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Alderic Vaillancourt, Petitioner, v F. Dana Winslow, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Respondent.

[804 NYS2d 261]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent F. Dana Winslow, a Justice of the Supreme *571Court, Nassau County, from enforcing a judgment entered in an unrelated proceeding entitled *Matter of Vaillancourt v Treasurer of Nassau County,*pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under index No. 1571/05.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; *see Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.1
                                                                   ------------

               STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Mary Lynn D. Lenz, is the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Slade's Ferry Bancorp. (the "Company"). This statement is being
furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the
"Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

      1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
            78o(d)); and

      2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
            covered by the Report.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that
this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that
this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

DATE:  May 15, 2007                    /s/ Mary Lynn D. Lenz
       -----------------------         ------------------------------------
                                       Mary Lynn D. Lenz
                                       President/Chief
                                       Executive Officer

                                       37
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 08, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 08, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21D0035. ARTURO GRISALES v. DIANA GRISALES. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 20F005200
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 157 (Monday, August 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 41416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19602]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13412-000]


Clean River Power MR-8, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

August 6, 2009.
    On March 25, 2009, Clean River Power MR-8, LLC filed an 
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Zanesville Lock and Dam Water 
Power Project, to be located at the State of Ohio's Zanesville lock and 
dam on the Muskingum River in Muskingum County, Ohio.
    The proposed Zanesville Lock and Dam Project would consist of: (1) 
The existing 12-foot-high, 514-foot-long concrete dam; (2) the existing 
470-acre reservoir with a 3,410 acre-foot storage capacity; (3) a new 
150-foot-long, 75-foot-wide intake structure; (4) a 150-foot-long, 75-
foot-wide power canal; (5) a new powerhouse containing three proposed 
generating units with a total installed capacity of 4.0 megawatts; (6) 
a new 500-foot-long tailrace; (7) a new switchyard containing a single 
three-phase step-up transformer; and (8) a new 100-foot-long, 34.5-
kilovolt overhead transmission line. The project would have an 
estimated average annual generation of 15,900 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Alan Skelly, 8425 Beechmont Avenue, 
Cincinnati, OH 45255, phone (513) 375-9242.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer, (202) 502-6093.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13412) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19602 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20640 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee, v. GERM AN DUQ UE , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 90- C R
- 424- 2 B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * G e r m a n D u q u e , fe d e r a l p r is o n e r # 5 4 9 9 1 -0 7 9 , a p p e a ls t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s s um m ar y de ni alo f hi s c hal l e nge t o t he va l i di t y o f hi s i ndi c t m e nt , f i l e d p ur s uant t o F ED . R. C RIM . P. 12(b) ( 3) ( B ) . D uque f i l ed t hi s m ot i on af

t erh i s c onvi c t i on w as af f i rm ed on a pp eala n d t h e ex pi rat i on of the t i m e f or s eeking cert i orari . B ecau se t h e cr i m i n alproceedi n gs w ere no l on ger pen di n g, t h i s m ot i on w as un au t h ori zed a n d w ith o u t a ju r is d ic tio n a l b a s is . S ee Un itedS ta tes v. E a rly , 27 F. 3d 140, 142 ( 5th C i r. 199 4) . B e ca u se D u qu e w as not c h al l en gi n g h i s s en t en ce, hi s m ot i on United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 28, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-20640 Document: 00511125131 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2010N o. 09- 20640

2 coul d n otbe const rued as ari si n g u n der 18 U . S . C . § 358 2 or F ED . R. C RIM . P. 35. M oreover, i tcann otbe const rued as a 28 U . S . C . § 2255 m ot i on to va cat e, set asi de, or corr ect h i s sentence becau se D u qu e h as al ready f i l ed one § 225 5 m ot i on t hatw as a ddr e s s e d o n t he m e r i t s a nd ane w m o t i o n woul d b e s ubj ect t o t he ju r is d ic tio n a l b a ro f 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b )(3 )(A ). S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. K ey , 205 F. 3d 7 7 3 , 7 7 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). D u qu e h as thu s “ ap pea l ed f rom t h e den i alof

a m ean i n gl ess, un au t h ori zed m oti on . ” E a rly , 27 F . 3d at 142 . A ccor di n gl y, t h e j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ctcourt d e n y in gre lie f o n D u q u e ’ s m o tio n is A F F IR M E D . Se e i d. Case: 09-20640 Document: 00511125131 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2010
(Superior Court of Cincinnati.)

Special Term, 1901.

#### H. L. ASHBROOK v. NORTH FAIRMOUNT BUILDING & SAVINGS CO.

A depositor of a building Association, who is not a stock member thereof, is a creditor of the association.

Galvin & Bauer, for plaintiff.

Albert T. Brown, contra.

Jackson, J.,

The evidence offered on behalf of the plaintiff herein, which is undisputed, shows that the moneys paid into the Building Association by Ashbrook were paid by him and received by the company as special deposits; that Ash-brook was not a running stock member, and that he did not pay any dues unon running stock.

The different amounts paid to the company by Ashbrook must therefore be regarded as loans. Therefore, on the authority of George H. Schone et al., v. the Consolidated Building & Saving Company et al., 4 N. P., 216, plaintiff is entitled to recover herein.

Judgment for plaintiff.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42954

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

KEVIN EUGENE HANKINS

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 664

Filed: October 20, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Steven J. Hippler , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum term of confinement of five years, for lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen,

affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley , Deputy Appellate Public Defen der, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Kevin Eugene Hankins pled guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen , Idaho

Code § 18

- 1508 . The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum

term of confinement of five years

. Hankins appeals, conte nding that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated he re. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.2

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewin g

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused it s discretion.

Therefore, Hankins ’ judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### § 49.4251-3 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I, Michael Schumacher, certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Birch Branch,
Inc.

     2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

     3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 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 quarterly 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 this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

          c)  presented in this quarterly 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

          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
this quarterly report whether 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:  May 16, 2005


/s/ Michael Schumacher
Michael Schumacher
President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer,
 Chief Financial Officer and Director
www.gpo.gov

### §1325. Abatement of actions

#### (a) Pending actions or proceedings; effect of cession

No action or proceeding pending before any court or agency of the United States immediately prior to any cession of jurisdiction by the United States pursuant to this subchapter shall abate by reason of that cession. For the purposes of any such action or proceeding, such cession shall take effect on the day following the date of final determination of such action or proceeding.

#### (b) Criminal actions; effect of cession

No cession made by the United States under this subchapter shall deprive any court of the United States of jurisdiction to hear, determine, render judgment, or impose sentence in any criminal action instituted against any person for any offense committed before the effective date of such cession, if the offense charged in such action was cognizable under any law of the United States at the time of the commission of such offense. For the purposes of any such criminal action, such cession shall take effect on the day following the date of final determination of such action.

(Pub. L. 90–284, title IV, §405, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 80.)
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 240.11 Treasury Check Offset. ( a ) If Treasury is unable to effect collection pursuant to § 240.8, § 240.9, or § 240.10, of this part, Treasury will collect the amount of the reclamation debt through Treasury Check Offset. Treasury Check Offset occurs when, at the direction of the Treasury, a Federal Reserve Bank withholds, that is, offsets, credit from a presenting bank. The amount of credit offset is applied to the reclamation debt owed by the presenting bank. By presenting Treasury checks for payment, the presenting bank is deemed to authorize Treasury Check Offset.
( b ) If Treasury effects offset under this section and it is later determined that the presenting bank paid the reclamation debt in full, or that a presenting bank was not liable for the amount of the reclamation debt, Treasury will promptly refund to the presenting bank the amount of its overpayment. Treasury may refund the amount either by applying the amount to another reclamation debt in accordance with this part or other applicable law, or by returning the amount to the presenting bank.
( c ) Treasury Check Offset is used for the purpose of collecting debt owed by a presenting bank to the Federal Government. As a consequence, presenting banks shall not be able to use the fact that Treasury checks have not been paid as the basis for a claim against Treasury, a Federal Reserve Bank, or other persons or entities, including payees or other indorsers of checks, for the amount of the credit offset pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3712(e) and this section.
( d ) This section does not apply to a claim based upon a reclamation that has been outstanding for more than 10 years from the date of delinquency.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 19, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00208-CV 

DAVID CARMONA AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 1113 GRIFFITH AVENUE, 

TERRELL, TEXAS 75160, Appellants 

V. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

Kaufman County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 14C-0170-2 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Appellants’ brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated September 2, 2015, we 

notified appellants the time for filing their brief had expired. We directed appellants to file both 

their brief and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellants that failure to file 

their brief and an extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further 

notice. To date, appellants have not filed their brief, an extension motion, or otherwise 

corresponded with the Court regarding the status of their brief. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c). 

150208F.P05 

 

/CarolynWright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DAVID CARMONA AND ALL OTHER 

OCCUPANTS OF 1113 GRIFFITH 

AVENUE, TERRELL, TEXAS 75160, 

Appellants 

No. 05-15-00208-CV V. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 2, Kaufman County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 14C-0170-2. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. recover its costs of this 

appeal from appellants DAVID CARMONA AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 1113 

GRIFFITH AVENUE, TERRELL, TEXAS 75160. 

Judgment entered November 19, 2015.