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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5183 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5183

   To authorize the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to 
   lease, jointly-develop, or otherwise use a commercially provided 
   inflatable habitation module for the International Space Station.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 14, 2000

  Mr. Lampson (for himself, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, and Mr. Cramer) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                                Science

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to 
   lease, jointly-develop, or otherwise use a commercially provided 
   inflatable habitation module for the International Space Station.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY.

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration may lease, 
jointly-develop, or otherwise use a commercially provided inflatable 
habitation module for the International Space Station, but only if such 
module would--
            (1) result in no increase in the National Aeronautics and 
        Space Administration's planned remaining cost (including any 
        necessary modifications to other hardware or operating 
        expenses) to complete and attach the baseline habitation 
        module;
            (2) impose no delays to the Space Station Assembly 
        Sequence; and
            (3) result in no increased safety risk.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 74.01-10 Charges invoiced to owner for marking sunken wrecks and other obstructions to navigation.

Charges for the establishment, maintenance, and replacement by the Coast Guard of an aid, either permanent or temporary, to mark a sunken wreck or other obstruction to navigation are calculated to recover the Coast Guard costs involved in, or associated with, the marking process. These charges will be invoiced to the owner of the obstruction. Charges for the removal of aids to navigation established by the Coast Guard will be invoiced to the owner unless the District Engineer requests the continued marking of the obstruction. All charges will be assessed in accordance with Subpart 74.20 of this part.

[CGD 81-051, 48 FR 15468, Apr. 11, 1983]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No: 1:22-cv-22394

ABDIEL MUNOZ MESA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WORLD OMNI FINANCIAL CORP

d/b/a SOUTHEAST TOYOTA FINANCE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff, Abdiel Munoz, through undersigned counsel, hereby notifies the Court that a 

settlement has been reached. Plaintiff anticipates filing a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice 

within (30) days asks the Court to retain jurisdiction for that time. 

Dated: August 25, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Darren R. Newhart

Darren R. Newhart, Esq. 

FL Bar No: 0115546

E-mail: darren@newhartlegal.com

NEWHART LEGAL, P.A.

14611 Southern Blvd. Suite 1351

Loxahatchee, FL 33470

Telephone: (561) 331-1806 

Facsimile: (561) 473-2946

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically filed on August 25, 

2022 via the Clerk of Court’s CM/ECF system. I further certify that the foregoing has been sent via

electronic transmission to all counsel on the service list below.

/s/ Darren R. Newhart

Darren R. Newhart, Esq. 

SERVICE LIST

Case 1:22-cv-22394-RNS Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2022 Page 1 of 2
All counsel of record.

Case 1:22-cv-22394-RNS Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2022 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

READYONE INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

IVETH RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 00157

- CV

Appeal from

346th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2014

- DCV1525 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the

judgment. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the cause to the

trial court with instructions to enter an order granting Appellant’s motion to compel arbitration,

in accordance with this Court = s opinion. We further order that Appellant recover from Appellee

all costs of this ap peal, for which let execution issue, and this decision be certified below for

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 8 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2017

.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Ro driguez, J., and Larsen, J. (Senior Judge)

Larsen, J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Presidential Documents 36313

Presidential Determination No. 2000–23 of June 2, 2000

Determination Under Subsection 402(d)(1) of the Trade Act

of 1974, as Amended: Continuation of Waiver Authority for

the People’s Republic of China

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me under the Trade Act of 1974,

as amended, Public Law 93–618, 88 Stat. 1978 (the ‘‘Act’’), I have determined,

pursuant to section 402(d)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2432(d)(1), that the

further extension of the waiver authority granted by section 402(c) of the

Act will substantially promote the objectives of section 402 of the Act.

I further determine that continuation of the waiver applicable to the People’s

Republic of China will substantially promote the objectives of section 402

of the Act.

You are authorized and directed to publish this determination in the

Federal Register

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, June 2, 2000.

.

œ–

[FR Doc. 00–14622

Filed 6–7–00; 8:45 am]

Billing code 4710–10–M
§ 3010.100 Applicability and scope. ( a ) The rules in this part apply to practice before the Postal Regulatory Commission.
( b ) When a general rule conflicts with a rule governing a specific practice area, the rule governing the specific practice area shall take precedence.
( c ) The rules in this part shall be liberally construed to secure a just and speedy determination of issues. They permit the informal disposition of any matter for which formal procedures are not specifically required by statute.
( d ) Except when specifically required by statute, the rules in this part may be waived for good cause and appropriate alternative procedures may be prescribed.
( e ) The rules in this part shall be referred to as the “rules of practice.” Rules are to be cited using only the numbers and letters to the right of the decimal point. For example, paragraph (a) of “§ 3010.120 Filing material with the Commission” shall be referred to as “section 120(a) of the rules of practice (39 CFR 3-1-.120(a))” or as “rule 120(a)” (39 CFR 3010.120(a)).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6022

KAM RICHARD CARPENTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SIDNEY HARKLEROAD, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-34) Submitted: May 19, 2006 Decided: June 14, 2006 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kam Richard Carpenter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kam Richard Carpenter moves for a certificate of appealability, seeking review of the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003); Sl ack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Carpenter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, William S. Ayer, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Alaska Airlines, Inc.for the period ended September 30, 2004;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of September 30, 2004, based on suchevaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        December 23, 2004 By   /s/ William S. Ayer  William S. Ayer   Chairman, President & CEO
AFS-13-486-E

August 5, 2013

 Exemption No. 10838

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0675

Ms. Helene Breznay

Parent of Elizabeth Breznay

27 Penny Lane

Plains, PA 18702

Dear Ms. Breznay:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received July 25, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Elizabeth Breznay for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Elizabeth to 

exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, 

manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard 

a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Elizabeth.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using 

restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security 

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the 
2

petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by 

persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Elizabeth Breznay an exemption from § 121.311(b). In 

addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Elizabeth is

aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary 

to allow her to use an FAA-approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Elizabeth’s

parents or a caregiver accompanying her. Elizabeth Breznay may only occupy a passenger 

seat with no passenger seated behind her. In addition, Elizabeth’s parent or caregiver must 

carry a copy of this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at 

least 48 hours before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on August 31, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
§ 953.5 Hearings. ( a ) In general, admissibility of evidence at hearings conducted under this part hinges on relevancy and materiality. However, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, or by considerations of undue delay, or by needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Testimony shall be given under oath or affirmation, and witnesses are subject to cross-examination. Stipulations of fact are encouraged and may be received in evidence.
( b ) Objections to the admission or exclusion of evidence shall be in short form, stating the grounds of objections relied upon. The transcript shall not include argument or debate thereon except as ordered by the presiding officer. Rulings on such objections shall be a part of the transcript.
( c ) Formal exceptions to the rulings of the presiding officer made during the course of the hearing are unnecessary. For all purposes for which an exception otherwise would be taken, it is sufficient that a party, when the ruling of the presiding officer is made or sought, makes known the action he desires the presiding officer to take or his objection to an action taken, and his grounds therefor.
Exhibit 32(a)

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 on Form 10-Q of Alberto-Culver Company (the company) for the period
ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Howard B. Bernick, 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 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/ Howard B. Bernick                
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 8, 2006
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions Rulemaking

MEMORANDUM TO RECORD

SUBJECT: Meeting with ACWA’s Monitoring, Standards & Assessment Committee

DATE: Thursday, October 31, 2013

TIME: 2:30 – 4:30 PM

Invitees: (Roll-call not conducted)

EPA – Sara Hisel-McCoy, Grace Robiou, Shari Barash, Manjali Vlcan, Janita Aguirre

ACWA/States/ASDWA/ECOS/ASWM –Susan Kirsch; Sean Rolland; Alexandra Dunn; Melissa

Mccoy; Jim Taft; Lee Garrigan; Jeanne Christie; Derek Smithee; Drew Bartlett; Martha Clark

Mettler; Kevin Coyne; Michelle Moses; Kim Caviness; Sarah Johnson; Jennifer Wigal; Nancy

Sonafrank; Don Essig; Deb Smith; John Bender; Guha Biswarup; Connie Brower; David

Waterstreet; Kelly Holligan; John Backus; Thomas Barron

Summary of Meeting: EPA provided an overview of the proposed rule and received clarifying

questions from participants.
#### § 953.12 Initial decision.

Unless given orally at the conclusion of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge shall render an initial decision as expeditiously as practicable after the conclusion of the hearing and the receipt of the proposed findings and conclusions, if any. The initial decision shall become the decision of the Postal Service if an appeal is not perfected. When the Judicial Officer presides at the hearing, his powers shall include those of an Administrative Law Judge, but the Judicial Officer may render either an initial or final decision. Exceptions may be filed to an initial decision rendered by the Judicial Officer in accordance with § 953.13.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1750

STEPHEN S. KYEREME, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. 

(Tax Court No. 07-3464) 

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 19, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Stephen S. Kyereme, Petitioner Pro Se. Nathan J. Hochman, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richard Farber, Gretchen M. 

Wolfinger, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Tax Division, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Stephen S. Kyereme appeals the tax court’s order 

upholding the Commissioner’s assessment of a deficiency and 

penalty with respect to Kyereme’s 2004 federal income tax 

liability. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax 

court. Kyereme v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, (U.S. Tax Ct. No. 

07-3464, U.S. Tax Court April 24, 2008). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000004507
<NAME> ORANGE-CO, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             350
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,164
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,149
<INVENTORY>                                     68,930
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,357
<PP&E>                                         182,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 228,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,016
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        76,218
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,668
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   228,210
<SALES>                                         97,536
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,536
<CGS>                                           87,201
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,201
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,429
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,984
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,922
<INCOME-TAX>                                       726
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,196
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,196
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

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 AMERCO
and U-Haul International, Inc. (together, the
Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Gary B. Horton, Treasurer of AMERCO and Assistant Treasurer
of U-Haul International, Inc. certify, to the best of my
knowledge, 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 Registrant.



| |                     
| | --------------------
| | AMERCO,             
| | a Nevada corporation
|
| | /s/ GARY B. HORTON  
| |                     
| | Gary B. Horton      
| | Treasurer           

Date: February 17, 2004



| |                            
| | ---------------------------
| | U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
| | a Nevada corporation       
|
| | /s/ GARY B. HORTON         
| |                            
| | Gary B. Horton             
| | Assistant Treasurer        

Date: February 17, 2004