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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2927 

To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to increase 

Tribal access to water conservation and efficiency grants, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2023 

Mr. LUJA ́N (for himself, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, and Mr. HICKENLOOPER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 

2009 to increase Tribal access to water conservation 

and efficiency grants, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘WaterSMART Access 

5 for Tribes Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 2927 IS

1 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OR WAIVER OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE 

2 OF COSTS OF CERTAIN WATER MANAGEMENT 

3 IMPROVEMENTS FOR INDIAN TRIBES. 

4 Section 9504(a)(3)(E)(i) of the Omnibus Public 

5 Land Management Act of 2009 (42 U.S.C. 

6 10364(a)(3)(E)(i)) is amended— 

7 (1) in subclause (I), by striking ‘‘subclause 

8 (II)’’ and inserting ‘‘subclauses (II) and (III)’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(III) WAIVER; REDUCTION.— 

11 With respect to a grant or other 

12 agreement entered into under para13 graph (1) between the Secretary and 

14 an Indian tribe, the Secretary may re15 duce or waive the non-Federal share 

16 of the cost of any infrastructure im17 provement or activity that is the sub18 ject of the grant or other agreement if 

19 the Secretary determines that con20 tribution of the non-Federal share 

21 would result in a financial hardship 

22 for the Indian tribe.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1
                                  ------------


LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
-----------------------------------


National N-Viro Tech., Inc. (Ohio)
Midwest N-Viro, Inc. (Illinois)
Tennessee-Carolina N-Viro, Inc. (Tennessee)
N-Viro Soil South, Inc. (Florida)
N-Viro Honolulu, Inc. (Hawaii)
Pan-American N-Viro, Inc. (Delaware)
BioCheck Laboratories, Inc.* (Ohio)
American N-Viro Resources, Inc. (Ohio)


*Assets were sold April 1, 1996 but the entity was never dissolved.



                                       27
#### Elvy RHYNES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. K-435.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Sept. 16, 1969.

Elvy Rhynes, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James Robert Yon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed. See Carey v. State, 176 So.2d 603 (Fla.App.1965), and Wilder v. State, 156 So.2d 395 (Fla.App.1963).

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.31


         Summary of Senior Management Incentive Plan


The Company's Senior Management Incentive Plan ("SMIP")
provides that participating management employees may receive
a percentage of their salary as a bonus.  Through 1999 the
President, Executive Vice President, and Senior Vice
Presidents participated in SMIP.  Beginning in 2000 certain
other key employees also became eligible to participate.
SMIP payments are calculated as a percentage of base
compensation, based on performance by the Company relative
to criteria that are established and weighted by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.  These
criteria are based on measurements of the Company's
performance deemed to be relevant to senior level managers,
and to a level of performance that is deemed to be
attainable, indicative of corporate accomplishment, and
likely to lead to corporate success.  They may be based on
general corporate objectives, or may on specific projects or
objectives relevant to particular year.  Not all
participants necessarily participate in all criteria or to
the full extent of the plan.  Criteria for the most senior
SMIP participants will generally include measurements of
stock price performance and corporate earnings.  Maximum
payouts are established on an individual basis.  Frequency
of payment, not less than annually, will be determined by
the Compensation Committee.
PUBLIC LAW 104–167—JULY 29, 1996 110 STAT. 1451

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1899:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):

June 28, considered and passed Senate.

July 16, considered and passed House.

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 32 (1996):

July 29, Presidential statement.

Æ

Public Law 104–167

104th Congress

An Act

Entitled the ‘‘Mollie Beattie Wilderness Area Act’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section

702(3) of Public Law 96–487 is amended by striking ‘‘Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge Wilderness’’ and inserting ‘‘Mollie Beattie Wilderness’’. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to place a monument in honor of Mollie Beattie’s contributions to fish, wildlife,

and waterfowl conservation and management at a suitable location

that he designates within the Mollie Beattie Wilderness.

Approved July 29, 1996.

16 USC 1132

note.

July 29, 1996

[S. 1899]
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0001130 27-AUG-2015 07:51 AM
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0737 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-111-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and 

SA330J Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 18 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of a main servo-control upper end 

fitting, and subsequent failure of the flight controls and loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $60,358 (replacement)

Labor per Helicopter

(1 work-hour x $85/workhour for the inspection)

(4 work-hours x $85/workhour for the replacement)

$85

$340

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $85 (inspection)

Total US Fleet Cost $1,530 (inspection)

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Matt Wilbanks
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 26 , 2019

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 17 -00885- CR

CARLOS LUIS COMPEAN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 56th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16- CR -3340

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant appeals his conviction for felony assault causing bodily injury to a person with whom he had a dating relationship. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why2

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 80 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford
v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’s request, the record was provided to him. On July 12, 2018, appellant filed a pro se response to
counsel’s brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. We are not to address the merits of each claim
raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spain. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
#### George Walter COVINGTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-846.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 14, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# Den Europæiske Unions C 93I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0871 |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | C 093I |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Meddelelser og oplysninger | 64. årgang19. marts 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0871

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

C 093I

Dansk udgave

Meddelelser og oplysninger

64. årgang19. marts 2021

---

| Indhold | Side |
| --- | --- |
| | Berigtigelser |
| | Berigtigelse til fælles erklæring fra Europa-Parlamentet, Rådet og Europa-Kommissionen om konferencen om Europas fremtid — Samarbejde med borgerne om demokrati — Opbygning af et mere modstandsdygtigt Europa ( EUT C 91 I af 18.3.2021 ) | 1 |

Indhold

Side

Berigtigelser

Berigtigelse til fælles erklæring fra Europa-Parlamentet, Rådet og Europa-Kommissionen om konferencen om Europas fremtid — Samarbejde med borgerne om demokrati — Opbygning af et mere modstandsdygtigt Europa ( EUT C 91 I af 18.3.2021 )

( EUT C 91 I af 18.3.2021 )

1

---

| DA | |
| --- | --- |

DA

---

Berigtigelser

| 19.3.2021 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | CI 93/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2021

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

CI 93/1

---

Berigtigelse til fælles erklæring fra Europa-Parlamentet, Rådet og Europa-Kommissionen om konferencen om Europas fremtid — Samarbejde med borgerne om demokrati — Opbygning af et mere modstandsdygtigt Europa

(
  Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 91 I af 18. marts 2021
  )

(2021/C 93 I/01)

Side 1, over titlen, samt i indholdsfortegnelsen på omslaget:

I stedet for:

»EUROPA-PARLAMENTET«

læses:

læses

»EUROPA-PARLAMENTET

RÅDET

EUROPA-KOMMISIONEN«.

---
EXHIBIT 21.1


                              TARRANT APPAREL GROUP

                                  SUBSIDIARIES


                                                              JURISDICTION OF
NAME                                                           ORGANIZATION
----                                                          ---------------

Private Brands, Inc.......................................      California

Fashion Resource (TCL), Inc...............................      California

Tag Mex, Inc..............................................      California

Rocky Apparel, LLC........................................      Delaware

Tag Mex, LLC..............................................      California

PBG7, LLC.................................................      California

Jane Doe International, LLC...............................      Delaware

Tarrant Company Limited...................................      Hong Kong

Marble Limited............................................      Hong Kong

Trade Link Holdings Limited...............................      Hong Kong

Jane Doe Hong Kong Ltd....................................      Hong Kong

Tarrant Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.........................      Mexico

Tagfin, S de R.L. de C.V..................................      Mexico

Tarrant Luxembourg, Sarl..................................      Luxembourg
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2680]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 1997 / 
Notices

[[Page 5200]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Western Washington Cascades Province Interagency Executive 
Committee (PIEC) Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Western Washington Cascades PIEC Advisory Committee will 
meet on February 27, 1997 at the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest 
Headquarters, 21905 64th Avenue West, in Mountlake Terrace, Washington. 
The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and continue until about 4:00 p.m. 
Agenda items to be covered include: (1) discussion of logistics, 
operating procedures, and expected accomplishments under the renewed 
charter; (2) updates on watershed analyses completed or in progress, 
Adaptive Management Area plans, the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National 
Forest fiscal year 1997 flood repair and watershed restoration program, 
and other current issues; (3) update on the River Basin Information 
Management framework project begun under the auspices of the previous 
Advisory Committee, and a demonstration of the Environmental Protection 
Agency's Environmental Information Management System (EIMS); (4) 
planned review and revision of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest 
monitoring and evaluation strategy; and, (5) open public forum. All 
Western Washington Cascades Province Advisory Committee meetings are 
open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct questions regarding this meeting to Chris Hansen-Murray, 
Province Liaison, USDA, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, 21905 
64th Avenue West, Mountlake Terrace, Washington 98043, 206-744-3276.

    Dated: January 28, 1997.
Dennis E. Bschor,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 97-2680 Filed 2-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
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 The Bralorne  Mining  Company (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  February 28, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of   operations
         of the Company.


Date:  April 21, 2005


/s/ Jeff Yenyou Zheng
---------------------------------------
Jeff Yenyou Zheng, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2015

d1118 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2015

151368

STARR STIMPSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151368

COA: 319165

Oakland CC: 2012

- 128168

- NO

GFI MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,

HARBOUR CLUB APARTMENTS, and

HARBOUR DETROIT SQUARE, L.L.C.,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 24, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE that part of the Court of Appeals

judgment holding that a reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff had no choice but to

c onfront the hazard posed by the snow and ice. In Hoffner v Lanctoe , 492 Mich 450,

468

- 69 (2012), this Court clarified that, for an unreasonably dangerous hazard to be

“effectively unavoidable,” it must be essentially “inescapable.” Effective unavoidabili ty

is characterized by “an inability to be avoided, an inescapable result, or the inevitability

of a given outcome.” Id . In this instance, it is undisputed that plaintiff selected the

location where she parked her truck, chose to use that vehicle even t hough she had a

second vehicle parked under a carport, and did not attempt to use the salt near her

apartment door. The Oakland Circuit Court correctly granted summary disposition to the

defendants and the Court of Appeals erred by reversing. We therefor e REMAND this

case to the circuit court for reinstatement of the judgment in favor of the defendants.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
June 11, 2015 

Mr. Blake Coppinger 

8751 West R Avenue 

Kalamazoo, MI 49009 

Dear Mr. Coppinger: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 28, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1963), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
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 LeCroy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 28, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Thomas H. Reslewic, Chief Executive 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, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: September 9, 2008



/S/    THOMAS H. RESLEWICThomas H. ReslewicChief Executive Officer


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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN DOE, )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Civil Action No. 06-95 ERIE

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

Defendants. )

)

ORDER

AND NOW this 8th day of August, 2006, after consideration of the Plaintiff’s 

Objections to the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the objections are DENIED 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

of July 21, 2006 is hereby AFFIRMED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Enjoining Defendants from 

withholding Legal Material (Doc. No. 30) is DENIED 

 S/Sean J. McLaughlin 

Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cc: counsel/parties of record NK 

Case 1:06-cv-00095-SJM-SPB Document 37 Filed 08/08/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         195,926
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  305,413
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    423,511
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               942,085
<PP&E>                                         175,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                  69,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,277,828
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          710,418
<BONDS>                                        497,173
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,721,824
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,277,828
<SALES>                                        594,857
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               594,857
<CGS>                                          319,531
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  319,531
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               207,278
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,430
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 98,290
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,938
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             96,487
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    96,487
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>