alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM

To: Public Information (MS 5030)

Plans Section, Office of Field Operations (MS 5231) Public Information copy of Exploration Plan Control # - N-09684 Type - Initial Exploration Plan Lease(s) - OCS-G31474 Block - 26 Mississippi Canyon Area Operator - Stone Energy Corporation Drill and complete Wells A and B DP SEMISUBMERSIBLE Attached is a copy of the subject plan for public comments on issues that should be addressed in an Environmental Assessment. It has been deemed submitted as of this date and is under review for approval.

Ulunma Nwokeafor Plan Coordinator Description - Rig Type - Subject: From: March 25, 2013
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) A13-07 

Audit Division Recommendation ) Agenda Document No. 17-S6-A 

Memorandum on the Hawaii Democratic ) 

Party (HDP) .) 

•CERTIFICATIQN 

I, Dayna C. Brown, recording secretary of the Federal Election Commission open meeting on 

December 14,2017 do hereby certify that the Commission took the following actions in the 

above-captioned matter: 

1. Failed by a vote of 2-3 to: 

Approve the Audit Division recommendations as set forth in the Audit Division 

Recommendation Memorandum on the Hawaii Democratic Parly (HDP) (A13-07), 

Agenda Document No. 17-56-A. 

Commissioners Walther and Weintraub voted affirmatively for the motion. 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, and Petersen dissented. 

2. Decided by a vote of 5-0 to: 

Approve the Audit Division recommendations as set forth in the Audit Division 

Recommendation Memorandum on the Hawaii Democratic Party (HDP) (A13-07), 

Agenda Document No. 17-56-A, subject to the excision or relocation of the $11,922 

expenditure for the production design costs to the Additional Issues section, with the 

final decision on whether to excise or relocate given to the Audit Division. 
Federal Election Commission 

Certification for the Audit Division Recommendation 

l^i^prandum on the Hawaii Democratic Party (A13-07) 

DecgiSiiyeigl4,2017 r.-* ' 

Page 2 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voted afBimatively 

for the decision. 

Attest:. 

Date Dayna C. Brown 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1536 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1536

To authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a fellowship program 
                        regarding neuroscience.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2009

  Mr. Sestak introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a fellowship program 
                        regarding neuroscience.

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

SECTION 1. VISITING NIH SENIOR NEUROSCIENCE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.

    (a) Authority To Establish.--The Secretary of Defense may establish 
a program to be known as the Visiting NIH Senior Neuroscience 
Fellowship Program at--
            (1) the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; and
            (2) the Defense Center of Excellence for Psychological 
        Health and Traumatic Brain Injury.
    (b) Activities of the Program.--In establishing the Visiting NIH 
Senior Neuroscience Fellowship Program under subsection (a), the 
Secretary shall require the program to--
            (1) provide a partnership between the National Institutes 
        of Health and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to 
        enable identification and funding of the broadest range of 
        innovative, highest quality clinical and experimental 
        neuroscience studies for the benefit of members of the Armed 
        Forces;
            (2) provide a partnership between the National Institutes 
        of Health and the Defense Center of Excellence for 
        Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury that will 
        enable identification and funding of clinical and experimental 
        neuroscience studies for the benefit of members of the Armed 
        Forces;
            (3) use the results of the studies described in paragraph 
        (1) and (2) to enhance the mission of the National Institutes 
        of Health for the benefit of the public; and
            (4) provide a military and civilian collaborative 
        environment for neuroscience-based medical problem-solving in 
        critical areas affecting both military and civilian life, 
        particularly post-traumatic stress disorder.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1635.2 Definitions. As used in this part— ( a ) *Case* means a form of program service in which a recipient employee provides legal assistance to one or more specific clients, including but not limited to providing representation in litigation, administrative proceedings, and negotiations, and such actions as advice, providing brief services, and transactional assistance.
( b ) ( 1 ) *Case oversight* means a supervisor's review of a case for regulatory compliance, consistency with Case Service Report reporting rules, and quality control purposes. Case oversight activities include, but are not limited to, review of file for retainer, citizenship attestation or documentation of eligible non-citizen status, and documentation of financial eligibility determination; review of closing codes; and review of advice provided or pleadings filed.
( 2 ) *Case oversight* activities may be counted as case activity when the supervisor conducts extended review of the substantive legal advice provided in the case. *Case oversight* activities may be reported as a supporting activity when it represents the aggregate of a supervisor's time spent doing brief review of a large number of cases.
( c ) *Matter* means an action that contributes to the overall delivery of program services but does not involve direct legal advice to or legal representation of one or more specific clients. Examples of matters include both direct services, such as community education presentations, operating pro se clinics, providing information about the availability of legal assistance, and developing written materials explaining legal rights and responsibilities; and indirect services, such as training, continuing legal education, supervision of program services, preparing and disseminating desk manuals, PAI recruitment, referral, intake when no case is undertaken, and tracking substantive law developments.
( d ) *Restricted activities* means those activities that recipients may not engage in pursuant to 45 CFR part 1610.
( e ) *Supporting activity* means any action that is not a case or matter.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEB 22, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-12268

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 02-00125-CV-CAR-5

2025 EMERY HIGHWAY, L.L.C.,

d.b.a Club Exotica,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BIBB COUNTY, GA,

JOHN DOE, in his official capacity with the

Bibb County Sheriff's office,

JERRY M. MODENA, SR., Sheriff, in his official capacity

as the Sheriff of Bibb County,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(February 22, 2007)

Before TJOFLAT, HULL and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

The Plaintiff 2025 Emery Highway, LLC d/b/a Club Exotica (“The Club”)

contends on this appeal that the district court erred by: (1) denying The Club

declaratory and injunctive relief that would permit it to offer nude dance

entertainment; (2) concluding that actions at The Club on August 16, 2003 did not

amount to a prior restraint of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights; and (3) concluding

that the Bibb County Sheriff’s Office acted as an “arm of the state” and as such is

entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from this damage claim.

Having reviewed the briefs and relevant parts of the record, we discern no

reversible error. 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 21.1

WILLDAN GROUP, INC.

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Name of Entity

Jurisdiction
of Organization

Ownership Interest1.     Willdan Engineering

California

100% Willdan Group, Inc.2.     Willdan Geotechnical

California

100% Willdan Group, Inc.3.     Willdan Energy Solutions

California

100% Willdan Group, Inc.4.     Willdan Resource Solutions

California

100% Willdan Group, Inc.5.     Public Agency Resources

California

100% Willdan Group, Inc.6.     Willdan Financial Services

California

100% Willdan Group, Inc.7.     Willdan Homeland Solutions

California

100% Willdan Group, Inc.


---



QuickLinks
#### Lloyd G. McCrum, Appellant, *v.*Lex Realty Company et al., Respondents.

*MeGrum*v. *Lex Realty Go.,*122 App. Div. 922, affirmed.

(Argued June 8, 1909;

decided October 5,1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 1Y, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on " trial at Special Term in an action to compel specific performance of an alleged contract to convey real property.

*William P. Maloney*for appellant.

*Pieharcl T. Greene*and *E. W. Tyler*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.
****EXHIBIT 32.1****

 

****IMPLANTSCIENCES CORPORATION****

 

****CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002****

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Implant SciencesCorporation. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/AAmendment No. 1 for the period ending December31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the Report), I, Anthony Armini, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

1.               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | **/s/**    Anthony  Armini       |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Anthony Armini                                       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer and Chief  Financial Officer |
|   |                                                 |
|   | June 29,  2005                                       |

 

----
§ 233.106 Denial of AFDC benefits to strikers. ( a ) *Condition for plan approval.* A State plan under title IV-A of the Social Security Act must: ( 1 ) Provide that participation in a strike shall not constitute good cause to leave, or to refuse to seek or accept, employment.
( 2 ) ( i ) Provide for the denial of AFDC benefits to any family for any month in which any caretaker relative with whom the child is living is, on the last day of such month, participating in a strike; and
( ii ) Provide that no individual's needs shall be included in determining the amount of aid payable for any month to a family under the plan if, on the last day of such month, such individual is participating in a strike.
( b ) *Definitions.* ( 1 ) The State must define “strike” by using the National Labor Relations Board definition (29 U.S.C. 142(2)) or another definition of the term that is currently in State law.
( 2 ) The State must define the term “participating in a strike.”
( 3 ) For purposes of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, “caretaker relative” means any natural or adoptive parent.
[47 FR 5682, Feb. 5, 1982]
Exhibit 99.6
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  18 U.S.C. §1350,
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In connection with the annual report of Westport Innovations Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David R. Demers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)           The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
  June 1, 2010
/s/ David R. DemersDavid R. DemersChief Executive Officer
 
 This certification accompanies this annual report on Form 40-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
§ 264.71 What determines the amount of the provisional payment of contingency funds that will be made to a State? We will make a provisional payment to a State that meets the requirements of § 264.70, within the following limits: ( a ) The amount that we will pay to a State in a fiscal year will not exceed an amount equal to 1 ⁄ 12 times 20 percent of that State's SFAG for that fiscal year, multiplied by the number of eligible months for which the State has requested contingency funds;
( b ) The total amount that we will pay to all States during a fiscal year will not exceed the amount appropriated for this purpose; and
( c ) We will pay contingency funds to States in the order in which we receive requests for such payments.
#### Hudson Base Ball Association, Respondent, *v.*Greater New York Base Ball Association, Appellant.

*Hudson Base Ball Assn.*v. *Greater New York Base Ball Assn., 127*App. Div. 932, affirmed.

(Argued October 12, 1909;

decided October 26, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered June 26, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict'and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover upon a written contract.

*Joseph M. Proskauer*and *Abram I. Elkus*for appellant.

*William Wallace Chace*and *J. Frank Chace*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Yann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
#### §§ 2104.141-2104.148 [Reserved]
§ 205.58 Income and eligibility information; specific agreements required between the State agency and the agency supplying the information. ( a ) A State plan under title I, IV-A, X, XIV, or XVI (AABD) of the Social Security Act must provide that, in carrying out the requirements of §§ 205.55 and 205.56, the State agency will enter into specific written agreements as described in paragraph (b) of this section with those agencies providing income and eligibility information. Agreements with Federal agencies are subject to the approval by the appropriate Federal Data Integrity Boards. The agreements will contain the procedure to be used in requesting and providing information.
( b ) These agreements will include, but need not be limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Purpose of the request;
( 2 ) Identification of all agency officials, by position with authority to request information;
( 3 ) Methods and timing of the requests for information, including the machine readable format to be used, the period of time needed to furnish the requested information and the basis for establishing this period. Agreements with the SWICA and the agency administering the Unemployment Compensation program in the State must provide that the State agency shall obtain information no less frequently than twice monthly;
( 4 ) The type of information and reporting periods for which information will be provided and the verification methodologies to be used;
( 5 ) Safeguards limiting release or redisclosure as required by Federal or State law or regulation, including the requirements of § 205.50 and as may be required by guidelines issued by the Secretary; and
( 6 ) Reimbursement, if any, for the costs of furnishing the information requested by the State agency, including new developmental costs associated with furnishing such information.
[51 FR 7216, Feb. 28, 1986, as amended at 57 FR 53860, Nov. 13, 1992]
#### Kate L. Page *vs.*C. H. Warner, et al.

January Term, 1899.

Present: Tart, C. J., Rowell, Tyler, Start, Thompson and Watson, JJ.

Opinion filed April 13, 1899.

*Jurisdiction as Determined by Amount.*— In an action of debt upon a partially satisfied judgment, the jurisdiction is determined by the amount remaining due at the commencement of the action, not by the amount of the original judgment. Hence a justice, having jurisdiction of causes not exceeding $200, may take cognizance of an action upon a judgment of the county court for $249.15, upon which there was only $145.52 unpaid at the commencement of the action.

*181Debt on judgment. The action was begun before a justice of the peace and a motion was there made that it be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The motion was overruled and an appeal taken by the plaintiff. The motion was renewed in the county court, at the September term, 1898, Chittenden county, *Ross,*J., presiding, the copy of the original record of the judgment and the execution and return thereon being made a part of the motion. The motion was overruled and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted.

*G. W. Kennedy*for the defendant.

*Brown & Macomber*for the plaintiff.

Tyler, J.

By Y. S. 1040 justices of the peace have jurisdiction of all actions of a civil nature, except those specified, where the debt or other matter in demand does not exceed two hundred dollars. In this case the original judgment was for $249.15, execution was issued, property was levied upon and sold and the proceeds applied, so that when this suit was brought there remained due upon the judgment only the sum of $145.52 and interest. The defendant insists that the test of jurisdiction is the amount of the j u dgmenir Tec o ver ed, and not the amount remaining due when the action is brought; but this is not maintainable either upon principle or authority. The same question has been many times, though in different forms, before this court. In *Southwick, et al,*v. *Merrill,*3 Vt. 320, the court said: “Where the want of jurisdiction appears from the face of the writ, the defendant may avail himself of the objection by plea ; but where from the writ the court, *prima facie,*has jurisdiction, but it appears on trial, from the plaintiff’s own showing, that his debt or demand is not of sufficient amount to give the court jurisdiction, the course is to dismiss the action on motion.” The converse of this is true in the present case, for the declaration and the claim presented showed jurisdiction in the justice.

*182It was said in *Miller*v. *Livingston,*37 Vt. 467, that the “matter in demand,” as used in the statute, meant “the plaintiff’s cause of action, or in other words, it is the claim which the plaintiff brings his suit for the purpose of enforcing.” See *Berry Shoe Co. v. Dechenes,*68 Vt. 387.

If the plaintiff had brought her suit in the county court, and her declaration had shown the part-payment of the judgment, or if she had declared for the full amount of the judgment and the part-payment had been shown at the trial, the action must have been dismissed as “cognizable by a justice.”

*Judgment affirmed.*
### Source: Protocol Gas Order Summary

– 1/28/10 From Scottt Shanklin to John Schakenbach

Location State Quoted

- 2010 Cost/Cylinder * Durham NC $375 Maumee ** OH $375 Woodland TX $375 Salem NH $375 LaPorte TX $400 Plumsteadville ** PA $400 Longmont CO $400 Troy MI $400 Apoke FL $269 Twinsburg OH $340 Bethlehem PA $435 Long Beach CA $435 Shreveport LA $475 Riverside CA $660 Auburn ME $450 Long Beach CA $403 Toledo OH $225 West Branch NJ $665 Morri sville PA $397 Columbus OH $400 * Cost quoted by gas vendor for 3

-component plus balance gas cylinder when the order was placed; does not include shipping cost ** During call to vendor, revealed that this particular plant was closed, production moved to another close facility
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 58 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 58

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy 
    relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 
                   Standards for Consumer Furnaces''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to ``Energy 
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer 
Furnaces'' (88 Fed. Reg. 87502 (December 18, 2023)), and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.

            Passed the Senate May 21, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             S. J. RES. 58

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy 
    relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 
                   Standards for Consumer Furnaces''.
```