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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1207 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 148
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1207

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 30777 Rancho California Road in Temecula, California, as the ``Dalip 
                  Singh Saund Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 9, 2005

 Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mrs. Boxer) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

                             June 29, 2005

     Committee discharged and ordered to be placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 30777 Rancho California Road in Temecula, California, as the ``Dalip 
                  Singh Saund Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DALIP SINGH SAUND POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 30777 Rancho California Road in Temecula, California, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Dalip Singh Saund Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Dalip Singh 
Saund Post Office Building.
                                                       Calendar No. 148

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1207

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 30777 Rancho California Road in Temecula, California, as the ``Dalip 
                  Singh Saund Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 29, 2005

     Committee discharged and ordered to be placed on the calendar
```
# DFSP Charleston excels in surprise oil spill exercise

/ Published April 4, 2017
CHARLESTON, South Carolina,
#### Alexander DAVIS, Appellant, v. Rosa Lee DAVIS, Appellee.

No. 76-2248.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 21, 1978.

*197George E. Barket, Richard M. Gale, Miami, for appellant.

Edward C. Vining, Jr. and Richard A. Burt, Jack H. Eakle, Miami, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J„ and HEN-DRY and KEHOE, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant/respondent/husband challenges the correctness of a final judgment which dissolved his marriage to appel-lee/petitioner/wife and determined the ownership of certain real and personal property held by the parties in their joint names.

After carefully reviewing the record and briefs, in light of the controlling principles of law, it is our opinion that (1) the chancellor was authorized to determine the equities of the spouses in the property by virtue of both the prayers found in the petition and counter-petition for dissolution of marriage and the fact that no objection to such proceeding was voiced at trial; and (2) that there was competent evidence to support the chancellor’s ruling that, by virtue of the fact that the wife had purchased the property solely from her own funds prior to 1968, she was entitled to be vested with ownership of said property on either a special equity or resulting trust theory. *Hendricks v. Hendricks,*312 So.2d 792 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); *Walton v. Walton,*290 So.2d 110 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); *Ball v. Bali,*303 So.2d 32 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). See also *McKenry*v. *McKenry,*336 So.2d 20 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); *Robinson v. Robinson,*340 So.2d 935 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); *Ezell v. Ezell,*320 So.2d 427 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); *Olsen v. Olsen,*195 So.2d 864 (Fla.3d DCA 1967).

Accordingly, the final judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
# DLA Distribution Commanding General's Thanksgiving Message

/ Published Nov. 23, 2017

DLA Distribution Team, 

Thanksgiving is a time to celebrate with friends and family and show appreciation for all that we have and, as I prepare to celebrate Thanksgiving, I am extremely grateful for my wonderful family.  Additionally, I am thankful to be part of DLA Distribution... an extraordinary organization which is committed to delivering the Right Things...at the Right Place, at the Right Time!  The incredible flexibility, commitment, and dedication of our resilient workforce is truly remarkable and is how we are able to accomplish our mission.  Despite natural disasters, uncertain budgets, and an increasingly complex international security environment, DLA Distribution continues exceeding every expectation for support to the Warfighter.  

And speaking of Warfighters, please remember those who are deployed ... we still have thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines fighting tough fights in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria ... in harsh environments, on ships, and in deserts ... as well as those who stand against tyranny in places like Korea, Europe, Africa, and around the globe.  They sacrifice to protect the freedoms we hold dear, so please keep them and their families in your thoughts and prayers.  I hope each of you feel great satisfaction, like I do, knowing that we have contributed to ensuring the Warfighter has what they need to do their missions so they can return safely home to their families.    

During the Thanksgiving holiday, I encourage you to consider all the accomplishments and achievements of 2017.  Find time to enjoy the company of family and friends and reflect upon how you have personally contributed to serving the Warfighter and the Nation and take pride in knowing that you are part of something larger than yourself.  We have just completed our new DLA Strategic Plan which will help chart the Agency’s course for the next decade and I’ll be working with the leadership across DLA Distribution to ensure everyone understands how our global Distribution network will continue to contribute to sustaining Warfighter readiness.  Whatever your plans, use sound judgment during the holidays ... we depend on each other as a team and I am personally counting on your safe return.  

On behalf of Ms. Gonzales and myself, and from my family to yours ... **thank you** for what you do every day.  DLA Distribution, I am proud to be on your team!   

**Happy Thanksgiving!**

BG John S. Laskodi 

Commanding General 

DLA Distribution

Warfighter First!
Exhibit 32.2

Suncrest Global Energy
Corp.

CERTIFICATION OF
PERIODIC REPORTPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
18 U.S.C. Section 1350

| | The
undersigned executive officer of Suncrest Global Energy Corp. (the "Company")  certifies
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | the
transition report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2007,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | the
information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: February 4, 2008 |  | /s/ Robert Mohr                                                                                    
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | Robert Mohr
                                                     
      Principal Financial Officer

| |  | 
| |  | 

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00353-CV

United Food and Commercial 

Workers International Union, 

Organization United For Respect at 

Walmart, North Texas Jobs With 

Justice, Lester Eugene Lantz, and 

Does 1-10

v.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Wal-Mart Real 

Estate Business Trust; Wal-Mart 

Realty Company; Wal-Mart Stores 

Texas, LLC; Wal-Mart Stores East, 

LP; and Sam’s East, Inc.

§

§

§

§

From the 352nd District Court

of Tarrant County (352-266419-13)

April 17, 2014

Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

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

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

the trial court is affirmed. We further order this court’s October 22, 2013 

temporary order, which continued provisions of the trial court’s October 9, 2013 

temporary restraining order “until disposition of this interlocutory appeal or until 

further order of this court,” dissolved as of 5 p.m. on April 17, 2014, and we deny 

as moot “Appellants’ Motion For Expedited Reconsideration Of Temporary 

Order.”
It is further ordered that appellants United Food and Commercial Workers 

International Union, Organization United For Respect at Walmart, North Texas 

Jobs With Justice, Lester Eugene Lantz, and Does 1-10 shall pay all of the costs 

of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Sue Walker____________________

 Justice Sue Walker
This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure *

6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. 

See Fed.R. App.P. 34(a); Cir.R. 34(f).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 4, 2010*

Decided November 1, 2010

Before

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 10-2341

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ROBERT ROLLINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 99 CR 771

William J. Hibbler,

Judge.

O R D E R

On December 15, 2009, the defendant filed in the District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois what is styled a “Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Eight of the

Indictment Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the FRCP and Affidavit in Support.” On April 6,

2010, he filed a “Post-Trial Motion to Dismiss” the conviction or the indictment for lack of

jurisdiction. Both motions were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and both of these rulings

are now challenged on appeal.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 10-2341 Page 2

Both of the defendant’s motions challenge the jurisdiction of the district court over

the defendant and seek the vacation of the conviction and the reduction of his sentence. 

These claims fall squarely within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), and should be construed

as § 2255 motions.

The government in its argument here has incorrectly identified the filing deadline

for the defendant’s appeal. It is true that the deadline for filing an appeal from the denial

of habeas corpus relief is governed by FED. R. APP. P. 4(a), which prescribes a default filing

deadline of thirty days in civil cases. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). But where the United States

is a party to a civil case the applicable deadline is sixty days. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B). 

Therefore, an appeal from the denial of a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, in which the

United States is a party, enjoys a sixty day deadline. See Edwards v. United States, 266 F.3d

756, 757 (7th Cir. 2001). Here, the district court entered its final judgment denying the

defendant’s April 6 motion on April 14, 2010, and the defendant filed this appeal

approximately fifty days later on June 2, 2010. Given our determination to construe the

defendant’s motions as having been made pursuant to § 2255, the appeal was not untimely.

Nevertheless, this appeal must be dismissed. The defendant has already filed a 

§ 2255 motion which was denied on November 20, 2006. The defendant’s present motions

are therefore successive motions for relief under § 2255. The defendant has not obtained

the necessary authorization, pursuant §§ 2255(h) and 2244, to file successive motions.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED.
P\RTME!^TOF 

: viRPORWiON, 

' !•-TOPERATlONb 

SERVED JANUARY 4, 2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

DONNA R. DEVANEY 

FAA DOCKET NO. CPlOWPOOl 1 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FAA No. FAA-2010-0785 

AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER 

This matter will not be scheduled for hearing prior to March 1, 2011. 

Paragraphs #2 and #3 of the Procedural Order are amended as follows : 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the 

following procedural schedule: 

... On or before March I, 2011, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, 

but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to production 

requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute 

they shall submit the dispute to the under signed for resolution in a timely 

manner... 

' Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials filed in security cases) are also available 

for viewing at http://www.regulations.gov. 

^ The Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes of the decisions, the Rules of Practice, as 

well as other materials relating to civil penalty cases, are available on the internet at: 

htlp://w\v\v.faagov/ahout/office_org/hea£lquarters offices/agc/pol adjudicatiori/agc400/c^ see 

also: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Titlel4/l4tab_02.tpl. In 

addition, Thomson Reuters/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation Decisions. Finally, the decisions 

are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw 9FTRAN-FAA database). For additional 

information, see the Web site. 

1 
facilities... :i'--' Ai 

casi^ 

v: 

m 

^f •-: 

Attachment - Service List 

fCbodw^L 

tJ.S* Aidmiiiistrative Law Judge 

Ul ii 

"'* 

Ji-''*y 

••^-•| ; 

the date. tJaw aad location of the hearing." ^ atleist«0<l 

!•' 

3c.v. 

t?^f'<< i 

: &". 

V^^<^SS6»1^ 

J '^'S.' ^ h • 

•-• «.; • 

:l 

t ? 
FAA Docket No. CPlOWPOOl 1 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Donna R. Devaney, Respondent 

212SteeplebrookDr. 

Spring Branch, TX 78070 

TEL: 830-885-5797 

Adam Runkel, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, AWP-7.12 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7142 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbiur Wright Building - Room 

2014, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### James COHEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-447.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

April 23, 1969.

Frank E. Bryant, Sebring, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland,-for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled guilty to two informations, each .charging him with assault with intent to commit first degree murder. He was adjudged guilty and sentenced to twenty years at hard labor under each information, such sentences to run concurrently.

In this appeal the appellant claims that he was not given adequate opportunity to obtain private counsel.

The record conclusively shows that at the time the appellant changed his pleas from not guilty to guilty he was questioned by the court as to whether or not he was satisfied with the representation given him by the public defenderos office, to which he replied in the affirmative.

Appellant’s other point on appeal should properly be raised by a motion under Criminal Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A. The affirmance of the judgments and sentences by this appeal shall in no way prejudice the appellant as to any motions he might see fit to file in the trial court under Criminal Rule 1.850.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, TT., concur.
#### Pasco EDWARDS v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 49921.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 26, 1977.

John E. Shaw, Kosciusko, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Scherry J. LeSieur, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Attala County; Clarence E. Morgan, Jr., Judge.

*324Before SMITH, P. J., BROOM and LEE, JJ., and FLOYD LOGAN, Commissioner.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C. J., INZER, P. J., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21965]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 2583]


Shipping Coordinating Committee Subcommittee on Safety of Life at 
Sea Working Group on Bulk Liquids and Gases; Notice of Meeting

    The Working Group on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG) of the 
Subcommittee on Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) will conduct an open 
meeting at 9:30 AM on Friday, September 5, 1997 in Room 2415, U.S. 
Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, S.W., Washington, DC 
20593-0001. The purpose of the meeting is to review the results of the 
Second Session of the Subcommittee on Bulk Liquids and Gases of the 
International Maritime Organization (IMO) which was held on April 7-11, 
1997, at the IMO Headquarters in London. In addition, items included on 
the work program for the Third Session of the Subcommittee will be 
reviewed.
    The agenda items of particular interest:
    a. Revision of the International Convention for the Prevention of 
Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 
73/78) regulations 1/22 to 24 in the light of the probabilistic 
methodology for oil outflow analysis.
    b. Review of Annexes I and II of MARPOL 73/78.
    c. Revision of carriage requirements for carbon disulfide in the 
International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying 
Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code).
    d. Requirements for personal protection involved in transportation 
of cargoes containing toxic substances in oil tankers.
    e. Amendments to the International Code for the Construction and 
Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk and the Code for 
the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in 
Bulk.
    f. Revision of chapter 8 of the IBC Code in the light of the 
revised SOLAS regulation II-2/59.
    g. Evaluation of safety and pollution hazards of chemicals and 
preparation of consequential amendments.
    h. Assessment of alternative tanker designs.
    Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating 
capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by 
writing: Commander K. S. Cook, U.S. Coast Guard (G-MSO-3), 2100 Second 
Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20593-0001 or by calling (202) 267-1577.

    Dated: August 4, 1997.
Stephen M. Miller,
Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee.
[FR Doc. 97-21965 Filed 8-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-45-M
EXHIBIT 32.1





Section 1350 Certification








In connection with the annual report of PHAZAR CORP (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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:





(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 operation of the Company.











/s/ Robert E. Fitzgerald


Robert E. Fitzgerald


Principal Executive Officer








/s/ Deborah A. Inzer


Deborah A. Inzer


Chief Financial Officer