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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1635 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1635

 To increase authorization of the grant program for school security in 
        the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 2021

  Mr. Hudson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on 
Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To increase authorization of the grant program for school security in 
        the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.

    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 ``STOP II: Classrooms Over Conference 
Rooms Act''.

SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL SECURITY.

    (a) In General.--Section 2705 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10555) is amended--
            (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
    ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
$200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2028, of which, for 
each fiscal year--
            ``(1) $133,333,333 shall be made available to the BJA 
        Director to carry out this part; and
            ``(2) $66,666,667 shall be made available to the COPS 
        Director to carry out this part.''; and
            (2) in subsection (b) by adding at the end the following: 
        ``Any funds appropriated under the Consolidated Appropriations 
        Act of 2021, which may be used for purposes of renting 
        conference rooms in the District of Columbia in carrying out 
        the Department of Education Organization Act shall instead be 
        used for the purposes in subsection (a).''.
    (b) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
carry out the Department of Education Organization Act, $270,000,000 
(reduced by $270,000,000) for fiscal year 2022.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000022767
<NAME> TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER CO.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      924,953
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        214
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          44,485
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        29,057
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 998,709
<COMMON>                                           107
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      222,133
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             73,765
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 296,005
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,420
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           496,900
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      100
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 202,284
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  998,709
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      445,619
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            18,808
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     345,463
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     364,271
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         81,348
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 675
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  82,023
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        43,146
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,877
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        120
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   38,757
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        30,300
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       39,989
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          83,135
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6894

ANDRE STEED,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (CA-04-458-2-RBS)

Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 5, 2005

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andre Steed, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Andre Steed seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district

court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Steed has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We also deny Steed’s motions for appointment

of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
From: Laura K. McAfee [mailto:LMcAfee@bdlaw.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:40 PM

To: Fruh, Steve; French, Chuck; Chin, Conrad

Subject: Felman 2012 ICR Stack Testing

Conrad, Chuck, and Steve –

Attached for your review is the information we have received on the stack test results, which LAN has 

summarized in an Excel spreadsheet and described in a cover memo. We will follow up with the report 

as soon as it is available.

Thanks.

Laura

Laura K. McAfee

201 North Charles St. Suite 2210

Baltimore, MD 21201

T (410) 230-1330 ~ F (410) 230-1389

LMcAfee@bdlaw.com

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This electronic message contains information from the law firm of Beveridge & Diamond, 

P.C. and may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or 

entity(ies) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or 

use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately 

by telephone at (202) 789-6000 or by e-mail reply and delete this message. Thank you.

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
#### Harry Tomback et al., Appellants, v Kew Gardens Association, LLC, Respondent, Queens Gardens Owners, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[736 NYS2d 100]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated July 11, 2001, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Kew Gardens Association, LLC, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the defendant Queens Gardens Owners, Inc., separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the same motion which was to dismiss its cross claim against the defendant Kew Gardens Association, LLC.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff Harry Tomback fell, allegedly as the result of a loose handrail, while walking up the stairs to his second-floor apartment. Except for the interiors of certain apartments owned by the defendant Kew Gardens Association, LLC (hereinafter Kew Gardens), the building was owned and managed by the defendant Queens Gardens Owners, Inc. (hereinafter Queens Gardens). Kew Gardens demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment (see, *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320) by establishing that it exercised no ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property where the fall took place (see, *Morrison v Gerlitzky,*282 AD2d 725; *Golds v Del Aguila,*259 AD2d 942; *Allen v Pearson Publ. Empire,*256 AD2d 528, 529). The plaintiffs and Queens Gardens failed to oppose the motion with sufficient evidence in admissible form to raise a triable issue of fact (see, *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557). Nor did the plaintiffs establish that the building superintendent working for Kew Gardens had apparent authority to represent that it would be responsible for the repair of the loose handrail that was the alleged cause of the fall (see, *Ford v Unity Hosp.,*32 NY2d 464; *Federal Ins. Co. v Diamond Kamvakis & Co.,*144 AD2d 42; *Zigabarra v Falk,*143 AD2d 901). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Kew Gardens for, inter alia, summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DARIUS DANTONI TANZYMORE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR04-22-JFM)

Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: April 6, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth W. Ravenell, SCHULMAN, TREEM, KAMINKOW, GILDEN & RAVENELL,

P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein,

United States Attorney, Barbara S. Sale, Assistant United States

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
-2-

PER CURIAM:

Darius Tanzymore was indicted on one count of possession

of a firearm while being a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

922(g)(1). Tanzymore pleaded not guilty. During trial, the

district court rejected Tanzymore’s justification defense as a

matter of law. Tanzymore argued that he possessed the firearm

because he feared for his safety and that of his family. 

Tanzymore then entered a guilty plea during trial

conditioned on his right to appeal the justification defense. The

court accepted the conditional plea and sentenced Tanzymore to 188

months' imprisonment. This appeal followed. 

Disposition of this appeal is controlled by our decision

in United States v. Bundy, 392 F.3d 641 (4th Cir. 2004). In Bundy,

we held that a conditional guilty plea that attempts to preserve

non-case-dispositive issues for appellate review is invalid. An

issue is case-dispositive only if a ruling in the defendant's favor

would require dismissal of the charges or suppression of essential

evidence, or a ruling in the government's favor would require

affirming the conviction. "In short, there should be no trial

after the specified issues are resolved by the court of appeals."

392 F.3d at 648.

In this case, Tanzymore’s conditional guilty plea

attempted to preserve for appeal a non-case-dispositive issue. If

we were to find that Tanzymore was entitled to present a
-3-

justification defense, the case would be returned to the district

court and proceed to trial. As in Bundy, we conclude that "the

presence of one non-case-dispositive issue in this conditional plea

renders the entire plea invalid." Id. And as in Bundy, we

therefore vacate the judgment of conviction and remand for further

proceedings. 

VACATED AND REMANDED
#### Bobby BRINKER v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50048.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 17, 1977.

Jimmy D. Shelton, Leroy Henderson, Jr., Tupelo, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Karen Gil-foy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lee County; Neal Biggers, Jr., Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and WALKER and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
SWORCCPP-000178
 

SWORCCPP-000179
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29664]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging, Amended Notice of Closed Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel, National Institute on Aging, 
November 17, 1997, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, 
Maryland which was published in the Federal Register on October 16, 
(Vol. 62, No. 200).
    This committee was to have convened at 12:00 noon on November 17, 
but has been changed to 12:00 noon on December 2. The location remains 
the same.
    As previously announced, this meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: November 4, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Office, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-29664 Filed 11-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
**President**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Michael G. Clark, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Equity 500 Index Portfolio, on Form N-CSRS; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSRS (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or §15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| August 25, 2009 | /s/Michael G. Clark            |
|-----------------|--------------------------------|
|            | Michael G. Clark               |
|            | President                      |
|            | DWS Equity 500 Index Portfolio |

 

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29690]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-181-006]


CNG Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance Tariff Filing

November 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 29, 1997, CNG Transmission Corporation 
(CNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, Third Substitute Original Sheet No. 386A. CNG 
requests an effective date of June 1, 1997, for its proposed tariff 
sheet.
    CNG states that the purpose of its filing is two fold: To revise 
CNG's FERC Gas Tariff in compliance with the September 15, 1997 Letter 
Order, regarding Standard 5.3.5 of the Gas Industry Standards Board 
(GISB); and to request Commission approval of a further brief deferral 
of CNG's implementation of certain system-based and EDM-related GISB 
standards. CNG will separately submit a status report to the Commission 
regarding its implementation of certain additional Version 1.1 GISB 
business practice standards, as required by the Letter Order.
    CNG states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all 
parties to the captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29690 Filed 11-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61482-61483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30244]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 86, and 89

[AMS-FRL-5923-3]
RIN 2060-AF76


Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is extending the 
comment period on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which 
proposes new emission standards for

[[Page 61483]]

nonroad diesel engines. The NPRM appeared in the Federal Register on 
September 24, 1997 (62 FR 50152). The public comment period was to end 
on November 24, 1997. The purpose of this notice is to extend the 
comment period an additional 4 weeks, to end on December 22, 1997. This 
extension of the comment period is provided to allow commenters 
additional time to respond to the NPRM.

DATES: EPA will accept public comments on the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking until December 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this proposal, including the Draft 
Regulatory Impact Analysis, are contained in Public Docket A-96-40, 
located at room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 
20460. The docket may be inspected from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday. The telephone number is (202) 260-7548 and the 
facsimile number is (202) 260-4400. A reasonable fee may be charged by 
EPA for copying docket materials.
    Comments on this proposal should be sent to Public Docket A-96-40 
at the above address. EPA requests that a copy of comments also be sent 
to Alan Stout, U.S. EPA, Engine Programs and Compliance Division, 2565 
Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Stout, U.S. EPA, Engine Programs 
and Compliance Division, (313) 741-7805; (313) 741-7816 (fax); 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dcafa8b3a9a8f2bdb0bdb29cb9acbdb1bdb5b0f2b9acbdf2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6310170c16174d020f020d230613020e020a0f4d0613024d040c15">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: November 10, 1997.
Richard D. Wilson,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 97-30244 Filed 11-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Dividends

Page &P of &N

# Footnotes

Page &P of &N

# Missed Payments

Page &P of &N
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 07821

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

07821\07281_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 07821\07821_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

07821\07821_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 07821\07821_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07821\07821_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07821\07821_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07821\07821_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07821\07821_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07821\07821_PartF.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07821\07821_PartG.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07821\07821_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

07821\Certification Statement Plant ID 07821.pdf Plant certification statement

x 07821\PART G\Data Review Summary 073010.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07821\PART G\Data Review Summary 080610.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07821\PART G\Data Review Summary 081310.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07821\PART G\Data Review Summary 082310.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07821\PART G\Data Review Summary 083010.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07821\PART G\Data Review Summary HG 080610.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07821\PART G\Data Review Summary HG 081710.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07821\PART G\Data Review Summary HG 082410.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07821\PART G\Data Review Summary HG 083010.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

07821\PART G\Dunkirk 07821 Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

x 07821\PART G\Dunkirk 7821 Part G-MAP-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

07821\PART G\Part G Landfill Aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07821\Supplemental Documents\07821_Part A-MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07821\Supplemental Documents\07821_Part A-MAP-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07821\Supplemental Documents\07821_Part A-WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

07821\Supplemental Documents\07821_Part C-Fly Ash System.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07821\Supplemental Documents\07821_Part D-D1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07821\Supplemental Documents\07821_Part D-D2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07821\Supplemental Documents\07821_Part G 101910_SUPPLEMENT.xls Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07821\Supplemental Documents\RE Part G for Plant ID # 07821.GWI Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.