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

Alliance 

Wi I&L,IZi4cfr Serving Texas Conservation For More Than 40 Years 

Testimony on the Proposed EPA Rule Regarding Carbon Emissions 

By Mack Turner, Chairman 

July 29, 2014 

Each generation faces environmental challenges — over the past century we've limited clear 

cutting, cleaned up polluted lakes, protected endangered species, and taught people about 

recycling. Today we face an environmental challenge of global proportions. Climate change 

affects every aspect of our lives — human health, the health of our economy, the health of the 

terrestrial and marine ecosystems essential for human existence. 

The EPA rule has been carefully crafted with input from industry, state governments, public 

health advocates, wildlife and sporting interests -- a wide range of people — to limit the 

amount of carbon being added to the atmosphere while giving states as much flexibility as 

possible to control carbon output. 

The EPA rule is especially important in Texas. Scientists are becoming increasingly 

convinced that the droughts that have been so devastating to Texas over the past decade are 

due to climate change. We need to be actively reversing the causes and effects of climate 

change. 

Power plants account for 40% of the carbon pollution in the United States. We limit 

mercury, arsenic, lead, smog and soot from power plants — the time has definitely come to 

also limit carbon emissions. 

Every time the EPA has set pollution limits — such as carbon monoxide, smog, & chemicals 

that affect the ozone layer — there were people who said it would hurt the economy. Yet we've 

proceeded and found that we have cleaner safer lives AND a healthy economy. 

Opponents of the rule fear negative impacts on the economy. In truth, the greatest economic 

danger is inaction. The untold billions of dollars that will result from unchecked climate 

change will be staggering to the economies of the world. 

If handled properly, addressing climate change can be an economic asset. Texas is a prime 

example of the economic growth that can come from alternative sources of energy. Natural 

P. 0. Box 822554 • Dallas, TX 75382 

TCA@TCAtexas.org• 512-327-4119 

TCAtexas.org 
gas and wind energy are key drivers for the Texas economy, and solar power is growing fast. 

Texas has shown that we can maintain grid reliability and keep costs down. 

This debate hinges on a very simple question: Should power plants be able to dump 

unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into our skies, or is there a reasonable limit? 

I vote for a reasonable limit, to give my grandchildren and their children the opportunity to 

enjoy the benefits I've had in my life. 

Thank you. 

Mack Turner, Chairman 

Texas Conservation Alliance
Skip NavigationUSGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
Woods Hole Science Center
GIS Compilation of Data Collected from the Pulley Ridge Deep Coral Reef Region OF 2005-1089
OF       2005-1089

Disc       Contents

Introduction

Surficial       Geology

GIS/Visualization

Data       Catalog

References       Cited

Acknowledgments

Contacts

Figure 1. Click on figure for larger       image. Location map showing the extent of Pulley Ridge and       the approximate bounds of the study area. The right portion of the figure       also indicates the approximate bounds for the zooxanthellate coral-rich       area and the suggested bounds for the Coral Essential Fish Habitat and       Habitat Area of Particular Concern. 
Skip       Navigation
AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and       Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL:       woodshole.er.usgs.gov/pubs/of2005-1089/htmldocs/fig1.htmPage Contact       Information: WHSC       WebmasterThis page last modified on Monday, 14-Jan-2013 12:50:16       EST
#### The People of the State New York, Respondent, v Clifton Green, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 521]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kay, J.), rendered February 23, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered.

The defendant contends that he was denied his right to a public trial *(see,*US Const 6th Amend; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4; *People v Jones,*47 NY2d 409, *cert denied*444 US 946) because the Supreme Court excluded from the courtroom members of his family during the testimony of an undercover police officer. We agree. At the conclusion of a hearing pursuant to *People v Hinton*(31 NY2d 71, *cert denied*410 US 911), the defendant objected to the exclusion of his mother and several cousins. When the defendant objects to the exclusion of a particular individual, the party seeking exclusion must prove that it is necessary to protect an overriding interest of the witness *(see, People v Kin Kan,*78 NY2d 54, 58-59). Nothing in this record supports the exclusion of the defendant’s family, thereby rendering the closure "broader than constitutionally tolerable” *(People v Gutierez,*86 NY2d 817, 818).

In view of our determination we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,099
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,099
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,502
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            33
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,099
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (32,403)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0




</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ERNESTO B. RIVERA, Stewardsman, U. S. Navy, Appellant

13 USCMA 30, 32 CMR 30

No. 15,724

April 13, 1962

*Lieutenant Colonel William H. Bennison,*USMC, and *Lieutenant Earl Munson,*USNR, were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Commander Leo F. O’Brien,*USN, and *Lieutenant Harold J. Wallum, Jr.,*USNR, were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

*31Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

On his plea of guilty, the accused was convicted by a special court-martial of larceny of $60.00, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921. On review, the convening authority held that certain evidence admitted on behalf of the Government in connection with the sentence was improper. To cure the error, he reduced the confinement and the forfeitures adjudged by the court-martial. In view of the nature of the improper evidence, the convening authority’s action provided inadequate relief. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to it for further consideration. United States v Fowle, 7 USCMA 349, 352, 22 CMR 139.
(V. D. 86)

#### E. Leitz, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 967138, etc.

(Decided October 21, 1958)

*Eugene B. Pichrell*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *E. Leitz, Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*40 Cust. Ct. 503, Abstract 61757, and it has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the above remands of protest consist of Microscopes and Microscope Parts and Wooden Cabinets, containers for said microscopes and microscope parts, which were the subject of a judgment and decision by the First Division of this Court, in the case of *E. Leitz, Inc. et al.*vs. *The United States,*Abstract 61757, on April 1, 1958, wherein it is stated "* * * and remand the matters pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. 0. § 2636 (d), for further proceedings before a single judge sitting in re-appraisement for determination of the value of the imported merchandise in the manner provided for by law”.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of the exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States were as follows:

*E. Leitz, Inc.*— -Remand of Protest No. 23735-L-K/19287-53



*463

*464IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above remands of protest may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is definfed in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, and I hold such dutiable value for each of the articles to be as hereinabove set forth in the stipulation of submission. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 57701.

#### The Baltimore *&*Ohio Railroad Company *v.*United States,

protest 184924-K (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in this case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
EXHIBIT
31.1



CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I,
Ivan Braiker, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this
    Amendment No. 2 (the "Amendment") to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ominto, Inc.;                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|2. | Based on my knowledge,
    this Amendment 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 Annual Report;



|DATE:  January
    25, 2016 |                        
|--------------------------- | -----------------------
|                            |                        
|                            | /s/
    IVAN BRAIKER   
|                            | Ivan Braiker           
|                            | Chief Executive Officer
April 9, 1945

No. 50113.

Suit 4463.

#### United *States*v. *H. A. Caesar & Co.*

reversed February 7, 1945. C. A. D. 299.
(Reap. Dec. 8250)

#### United States *v.*Hawley *&*Letzerich

Entry No. 22.

(Decided September 17, 1953)

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

*397Ekwall, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> It is hereby stipulated by and between the undersigned, subject to the approval of the court, that at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved in the above case, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption in France to all purchasers in the principal markets of France, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, as follows:

> Merchandise

> Home consumption value per 1,000 feet (French francs)

> 20,900 feet 2 conductors no. 17 AWG rubber insulated neoprene jacket (4 boxes no. 833 and up) 15. 353

> 14,530 feet 4 conductors no. 14 AWG rubber insulated neoprene jacket (5) boxes no. 828 and up) 42. 990

> 19,950 feet of no. 4 AWG copper conductor rubber insulated black varnished braid for Battery Connection 56. 080

> 820 feet of multiconduetor neoprene insulated and jacketed cable 273. 375

> (As to all items, taxes included, less nondutiable charges as shown on the invoices, packing included).

> It is further stipulated and agreed that at the time of exportation, there was no higher export value for such or similar merchandise.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the above case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were as follows:

> French francs per 1,000 feet

> 20,900 feet 2 conductors no. 17 AWG rubber insulated neoprene jacket (4 boxes no. 833 and up) 15. 353

> 14,530 feet 4 conductors no. 14 AWG rubber insulated neoprene jacket (5) boxes no. 828 and up) 42. 990

> 19,950 feet of no. 4 AWG copper conductor rubber insulated black varnished braid for Battery Connection 56. 080

> 820 feet of multiconductor neoprene insulated and jacketed cable 273. 375

> (As to all items, taxes included, less nondutiable charges as shown on the invoices, packing included).

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1152 MCE GGH P

vs.

J.G. ARCEO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file his objections to the April 18,

2006 findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has not shown cause for why objections could not

be timely filed or any colorable basis upon which an extension of time might be granted;

moreover, as he himself points out, he has previously moved for dismissal of the very claims and

defendants for which dismissal is recommended in the subject findings and recommendations. 

See plaintiff’s motion, filed on April 5, 2006. Finally, in his request he is “not certain” he will

file objections. Plaintiff’s request appears to be patently frivolous.

Accordingly, plaintiff's May 15, 2006 application for an extension of time is

denied.

DATED: 5/23/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

Case 2:04-cv-01152-MCE -GGH Document 40 Filed 05/23/06 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

jenk1152.den

Case 2:04-cv-01152-MCE -GGH Document 40 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4554 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 420
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4554

 To express support for protecting access to reproductive health care 
         after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision on June 24, 2022.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 17, 2024

  Mrs. Murray (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Butler, Ms. 
Cantwell, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Duckworth, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Hassan, 
  Ms. Hirono, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Rosen, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Smith, Ms. 
   Stabenow, Ms. Warren, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. 
Brown, Mr. Carper, Mr. Coons, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Markey, 
  Mr. Merkley, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Schatz, and Mr. Wyden) introduced the 
             following bill; which was read the first time

                             June 18, 2024

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To express support for protecting access to reproductive health care 
         after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision on June 24, 2022.

    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 ``Reproductive Freedom for Women 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) protections for access to abortion rights and other 
        reproductive health care after the Dobbs v. Jackson, 597 U.S. 
        215 (2022) decision on June 24, 2022, should be supported; and
            (2) the protections enshrined in  Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 
        (1973) should be restored and built upon, moving towards a 
        future where there is reproductive freedom for all.
                                                       Calendar No. 420

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4554

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To express support for protecting access to reproductive health care 
         after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision on June 24, 2022.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 18, 2024

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
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 Annual Report of PATRIOT NATIONAL BANCORP, INC. (the
Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Christopher D. Maher and Robert F. OConnell, the
Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



/s/ Christopher D. MaherChristopher D. MaherChief Executive Officer/s/ Robert F. OConnellRobert F. OConnellChief Financial Officer


April 30, 2012

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.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission and shall not be considered
filed as part of the Report.
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

ADELINE S. GREENWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD STREMEL GREENWELL 

and CARLA ROBBINS LEWIS, 

Defendants.

____________________________/

M & I/MARSHALL & ILSEY

TRUSTEE CO. and CORAL LOU

SAHARA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RONALD STREMEL GREENWELL,

CARLA ROBBINS LEWIS, RANDEE

BRADY, RONALD STREMEL

GREENWELL, and CARLA ROBBINS 

LEWIS, 

Defendants.

____________________________/

No. 2:04-cv-2205-MCE-GGH

RELATED CASE ORDER

No. 2:06-cv-0030-FCD-DAD

Examination of the above-entitled civil actions reveals that

these actions are related within the meaning of Local Rule 83-

123(a) (E.D. Cal. 1997). 

Case 2:04-cv-02205-MCE -GGH Document 68 Filed 02/13/06 Page 1 of 3
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

The actions involve many of the same defendants and are based on

the same or similar claims, the same property transaction or

event, similar questions of fact and the same questions of law,

and would therefore entail a substantial duplication of labor if

heard by different judges. Accordingly, the assignment of the

matters to the same judge is likely to effect a substantial

savings of judicial effort and is also likely to be convenient

for the parties. 

The parties should be aware that relating the cases under

Local Rule 83-123 merely has the result that both actions are

assigned to the same judge; no consolidation of the action is

effected. Under the regular practice of this court, related

cases are generally assigned to the district judge and magistrate

judge to whom the first filed action was assigned. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action denominated 2:06-cv0030-FCD-DAD, M & I/MARSHALL & ILSEY TRUSTEE CO. v. RONALD

STREMEL GREENWELL, et al., is reassigned to Judge Morrison C.

England, Jr. and Gregory G. Hollows for all further proceedings,

and any dates currently set in this reassigned case only is

hereby VACATED. The parties are referred to the attached Order

Requiring Joint Status Report. Henceforth, the caption on

documents filed in the reassigned case shall be shown as 2:06-cv0030-MCE-GGH.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02205-MCE -GGH Document 68 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court make

appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to

compensate for this reassignment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 10, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02205-MCE -GGH Document 68 Filed 02/13/06 Page 3 of 3
## COU RT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00133

- CR

Leah Louise Allen

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 1

o f Tarrant County ( 1241820D )

December 5, 2013

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

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

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM