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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4511 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4511

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To provide for the crediting of funds received by the National Guard 
                  Bureau as reimbursement from States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Guarding Readiness Resources Act''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF FUNDS RECEIVED BY NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU AS 
              REIMBURSEMENT FROM STATES.

    Section 710 of title 32, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Treatment of Reimbursed Funds.--Any funds received by the 
National Guard Bureau from a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands as reimbursement 
under this section for the use of military property--
            ``(1) shall be credited to--
                    ``(A) the appropriation, fund, or account used in 
                incurring the obligation; or
                    ``(B) an appropriate appropriation, fund, or 
                account currently available for the purposes for which 
                the expenditures were made; and
            ``(2) may only be used by the Department of Defense for the 
        repair, maintenance, replacement, or other similar functions 
        related directly to assets used by National Guard units while 
        operating under State active duty status.''.

            Passed the Senate December 19 (legislative day, December 
      16), 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4511

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To provide for the crediting of funds received by the National Guard 
                  Bureau as reimbursement from States.
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DENISE FRANCIS,

NO. 2:04-cv-1640-MCE-JFM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On October 26, 2005, this Court issued an Order to Show

Cause which required Plaintiff to demonstrate, within twenty (20)

days following the date of said Order, why this action should not

be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for

failure to serve Defendant Defense Commissary Agency with the

summons and complaint in this matter. Plaintiff has failed to

demonstrate any good cause for that failure, and has failed to

make any response whatsoever to the Court’s October 26, 2005

Order. 

Case 2:04-cv-01640-MCE -JFM Document 13 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Given that failure, the present action is dismissed, without

prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to close

the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 21, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01640-MCE -JFM Document 13 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on (i) Form S-16, (Nos. 2-51894, 2-55664, 2-63470 and 2-75654); (ii)
Form S-8, (Nos. 2-77752, 33-10747, 33-24934, 33-33018, 33-54403, 33-54443,
33-54555, 333-08059, 333-08087 and 333-60839); and (iii) Form S-3, (Nos.
2-84910, 33-26314, 33-23880, 33-42698, 33-44871, 33-45091, 33-46999, 33-54317,
33-69432, 333-04385, 333-40869, 333-44421, 333-55921, and 333-68257) of Kinder
Morgan, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated March 16, 2000 relating to
the financial statements and schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K, and of
our report dated March 10, 2000 relating to the financial statements of
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., which are incorporated by reference in
this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas
March 27, 2000
No. 58536.

protests 160996-K, 186516-K, and 191223-K (New York).

#### Cerruti & Cominneli *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fontana Hollywood Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 98, C. D. 1503), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Partnership.
 By:
    /s/ FREDDIE M. KOTEKName:
    Freddie M. KotekTitle:
    Chairman of the Board of Directors,
Chief Executive Officer and President of the Managing General PartnerDate: November 12, 2010
1

Medina, Dayana

From: Medina, Dayana

Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 4:02 PM

To: McCorkle, Mark

Subject: AECC Bailey and McCellan

Hi Mark,  

Thank you for working with us and with AECC to address our concerns regarding the BART analysis for the two units at

Bailey and McClellan. We appreciate the December 23, 2013 response from AECC that was forwarded to us.  

EPA believes we can propose approval of the recommended SO2 BART decision for the AECC Bailey and McClellan units.

However, footnote 7 explains that the cost estimate provided by the vendor for the base case fuel oil (i.e., No. 6 fuel oil

with sulfur content between 1.0 – 2.0%) is between $16.00/MMBtu ‐ $16.50/MMBtu, but tables 5‐9 and 5‐10 list the

estimated cost of the base case fuel as $4.68/MMBtu for Bailey and $5.70/MMBtu for McClellan. The $4.68/MMBtu and

$5.70/MMBtu estimates are what was used to calculate the cost of switching from the base case fuel to fuel oil with a

lower sulfur content. AECC has clarified that $4.68/MMBtu and $5.70/MMBtu were used in the calculations because this

was the actual price paid for the fuel oil currently stored at the two plants when it was purchased several years ago.

However, since AECC used these old cost numbers for the base case fuel oil and current cost estimates of lower sulfur

fuel oil to calculate the cost of switching from the base case fuel to lower sulfur fuel, the cost of fuel switching has been

overestimated. Because the BART limit won’t apply until the current supplies of fuel oil are depleted, new purchases will

be subject to today’s higher price. ADEQ should ensure that the cost analysis reflects updated costs of the base case

fuel, as was done for the other fuel scenarios evaluated.  

We have no further comments regarding the PM and NOx BART analyses for the Bailey and McClellan units.

Thank you,  

Dayana Medina

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division

Air Planning Section (6PD‐L)

214‐665‐7241
[Exhibit 32.1]

                     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 Demco Industries, Inc.
(the "Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul Hines, Chief Executive Officer of the
company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 907 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

Dated: April 12, 2005

                               /s/ Paul Hines
                               -----------------------------------
                               Paul Hines, Chief Executive Officer
                               Demco Industries, Inc.
AFS-13-270-E

June 26, 2013

 Exemption No. 10808

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0237

Mr. Jonathan B. Hill

Counsel for Trimble Navigation Ltd.

Trimble Navigation Limited

1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 800

Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Hill:

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

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 5, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Trimble Navigation Limited (TNL) for an exemption from § 91.151 of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow TNL to operate its X100 unmanned aircraft system (UAS) in domestic operations consisting of research and 

development, crew training and market surveys associated with ground surveys without 

meeting the fuel requirements for VFR.

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 TNL.

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

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption Nos. 5745, 2689F, and 10673 (copies

enclosed), the FAA found that it was in the public interest to expand the fuel reserve authority 

to 10-minutes and provided a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—
2

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption Nos. 5745, 2689F, and 10673;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption Nos. 5745, 

2689F, and 10673 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 Trimble Navigation Limited an exemption from 

14 CFR § 91.151 to the extent necessary to allow TNL to operate its X-100 unmanned aircraft 

system (UAS) in domestic operations consisting of research and development, crew training 

and market surveys associated with ground surveys without meeting the fuel requirements for 

VFR, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. This exemption is applicable for flights conducted under daylight hours in VFR 

conditions only.

2. The exemption holder and TNL members shall comply with the requirements of an 

approved pilot operating handbook and/or aircraft flight manual concerning minimum 

fuel quantity.

All flights must takeoff and land from the same airport with the appropriate aircraft flight 

manual readily available at that airport before takeoff and after landing. This exemption 

terminates on July 31, 2016, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen

Deputy Director, Flight Standards

 Service

Enclosure
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0046 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0046

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on the facilitation of issuance of short-stay visas (8780/2006 - COM(2006)0188 - C6-0169/2006 - 2006/0062(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 287 E , 29/11/2007 P. 0509 - 0509 *

P6_TA(2007)0046

EC-Russia Short-stay Visa Agreement *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on the facilitation of issuance of short-stay visas (8780/2006 — COM(2006)0188 — C6-0169/2006 — 2006/0062(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2006)0188) [1],

- having regard to Article 62(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and Article 300(2), first subparagraph, first sentence, of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0169/2006),

- having regard to Rules 51 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0029/2007),

1. Approves the conclusion of the Agreement;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Russian Federation.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4542 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4542

 To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to discount 
 FHA single-family mortgage insurance premium payments for first-time 
    homebuyers who complete a financial literacy housing counseling 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 13, 2024

Mr. Peters (for himself and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to discount 
 FHA single-family mortgage insurance premium payments for first-time 
    homebuyers who complete a financial literacy housing counseling 
                                program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Housing Financial Literacy Act of 
2024''.

SEC. 2. DISCOUNT ON MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAYMENTS FOR FIRST-TIME 
              HOMEBUYERS WHO COMPLETE FINANCIAL LITERACY HOUSING 
              COUNSELING PROGRAMS.

    The second sentence of subparagraph (A) of section 203(c)(2) of the 
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(2)(A)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting before the comma the following: ``and such 
        program is completed before the mortgagor has signed an 
        application for a mortgage to be insured under this title or a 
        sales agreement''; and
            (2) by striking ``not exceed 2.75 percent of the amount of 
        the original insured principal obligation of the mortgage'' and 
        inserting ``be 25 basis points lower than the premium payment 
        amount established by the Secretary under the first sentence of 
        this subparagraph''.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A1665. REGINALD EUGENE GRIMES, JR. v. THE STATE.

After a jury trial, Reginald Eugene Grimes,Jr., was convicted of armed robbery

and kidnapping. On appeal, Grimes challenged only his kidnapping conviction, and

we reversed that conviction due to insufficient evidence. See Grimes v. State, 297 Ga.

App. 720 (678 SE2d 167) (2009). Grimes subsequently filed several motions to

vacate his armed robbery conviction. The trial court denied the motions, and Grimes

filed this appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

A post-conviction motion seeking to vacate an allegedly void conviction is not

a valid procedure in a criminal case, and any appeal from the denial or dismissal of

such a motion must be dismissed. See Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192, 192, 194 (695

SE2d 244) (2010); Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). A

direct appeal may lie from the denial of a motion to correct a void sentence if the

defendant raises a colorable claimthat the sentence is void. See Burg v. State, 297 Ga.

App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). “Motions to vacate a void sentence generally

are limited to claimsthat – even assuming the existence and validity of the conviction

for which the sentence was imposed – the law does not authorize that sentence, most

typically because it exceeds the most severe punishment for which the applicable

penal statute provides.” von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446)

(2013).

Here, Grimes’s motions do not allege that his sentence exceeds the maximum

allowed by law. Instead, Grimes alleges that he is actually innocent and that the jury

was presented with perjured testimony. These are not valid void-sentence arguments.

Accordingly, Grimes’s appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

June 03, 2020
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

06/03/2020
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Erik Lagerway, President, COO and director of Xten Networks, Inc., certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Xten Networks, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4.	The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: September 14, 2004

/s/ Erik Lagerway				Erik Lagerway
President, COO and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
No. 48470.

#### Protests 82690-K, etc., of F. W. Woolworth Co. et al. (Philadelphia, etc.).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 60837.

#### J. J. Hayes Company *v.*United States,

protest 272650-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 61854.

#### B. Altman & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 220100-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, II,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1225 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On March 6, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Both

parties have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

by proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 108 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 6, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. Defendants’ December 16, 2005, summary judgment motion is denied as to

plaintiff’s claim that defendant Cervantes violated his Eighth Amendment right to adequate

dental care by denying his administrative grievances; defendants’ motion is granted in all other

respects.

DATED: September 28, 2006

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/wood1225.805

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 108 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2