alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31145]

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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    The National Credit Union Administration Board determined that its 
business requires the addition of the following item, which is open to 
public observation, to the previously announced open meeting (Federal 
Register, Vol. 62, page 62077, Thursday, November 20, 1997) scheduled 
for Monday, November 24, 1997.
    9. Interim Final Rule with Request for Comments, Part 703, NCUA's 
Rules and Regulations, Investment and Deposit Activities.
    The Board voted unanimously that agency business requires that this 
item be considered with less than the usual seven days notice, that it 
be open to the public, and that no earlier announcement of this change 
was possible.
    The previously announced items are:
    1. Requests from Three (3) Federal Credit Unions to Convert to a 
Community Charter.
    2. Request from a Federal Credit Union for a Charter and Insurance 
Conversion.
    3. Requests from Two (2) Credit Unions to Merge and Convert 
Insurance.
    4. Extension of Regulation Effective Date: Part 704, NCUA's Rules 
and Regulations, Corporate Credit Unions.
    5. Notice of Proposed Rule and Request for Comments: Part 708a, 
Appendix A, NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Mergers or Conversions of 
Federally Insured Credit Unions to Non-Credit Union Status.
    6. Notice of Proposed Rule and Request for Comments: Part 708b, 
Subpart C, NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Mergers of Federally Insured 
Credit Unions; Voluntary Termination or Conversion of Insured Status.
    7. Proposed National Small Credit Union Development Program.
    8. NCUA's 1998/1999 Operating Budget.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Baker, Secretary of The Board, 
Telephone 703-518-6304.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-31145 Filed 11-21-97; 3:05 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
```
Exhibit 32
 Certification of Principle Executive Officer and Principle Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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: September 13, 2010
    /s/ Kevin J. LynchKevin J. LynchChief Executive Officer and PresidentDate: September 13, 2010
    /s/ John M. Fields, Jr.John M. Fields, Jr.Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS 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 Ryerson Holding Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), Michael C. Arnold, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and
for the periods expressed in the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|/s/ Michael C. Arnold              
|Michael C. Arnold                  
|President & Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)      

March 15, 2011



83
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1202
GARRIS S. MCFADDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusINTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, AFLCIO; HORACE T. ALSTON, Vice President, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:04-cv-02317-WDQ) Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: July 31, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Garris S. McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. John P. Sheridan, GLEASON & MATHEWS, New York, New York, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Garris S. McFadden appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated bythe district court. McFadden v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, AFLCIO , No. 1:04-cv-02317-WDQ (D. Md. Jan. 12, 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 TruServ Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 27, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to such officer's knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         Section 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
         Report.

Date: November 12, 2003

/s/ PAMELA FORBES LIEBERMAN
-------------------------------------
Pamela Forbes Lieberman
President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ DAVID A. SHADDUCK
-------------------------------------
David A. Shadduck
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to TruServ Corporation and will be retained by TruServ Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6834

JAMES DAVID NANNEY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
ERIK A. HOOKS , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Martin K. Reidinger , Chief District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv - 00215

- MR )

Submitted : November 17, 2022 Decided: November 23, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
James David Nanney, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6834 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: James David Nanney appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to refile his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and for a change of venue. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Nanney v.
Hooks , No. 1:19

- cv - 00215

- MR (W.D.N.C. fi led July 9, 2022 & entered July 11, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6834 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Treasury approves North Carolina’s plan to invest $177.7 million of CPF 

funding in broadband infrastructure projects that will provide high-quality 

internet to locations that lack access to adequate service.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

North Carolina

 

▪ Program Summary: $177.7 million for Broadband Infrastructure (65% of CPF allocation)

▪ Locations to Be Served: 78,100 (estimated)

▪ Program Description: The Completing Access to 

Broadband (CAB) program is a competitive grant program

that aims to create a partnership between the state, 

counties, and internet providers to build broadband 

infrastructure and provide service to areas that lack 

adequate access to internet. 

‒ The program is designed to provide internet service with 

speeds of 100/100 Mbps symmetrical to households and businesses upon project 

completion.

‒ Each of the internet service providers funded by the program will participate in the FCC’s 

Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) – a $30 per month subsidy for low-income families. 

▪ Key State Contact: North Carolina Department of Information Technology (NCDIT)

North Carolina Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

As reported by North 

Carolina, estimates show 

that investments made 

using the Capital Projects 

Fund will serve ~14% of 

locations still lacking highspeed internet access in the 

state.

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information
Best Communication Practices for Preparation of Exceptional Event Demonstrations

OAQPS developed this document of Best Practices based on input received from EPA regional offices 

and selected state/local air agencies who submitted Exceptional Event Demonstrations under the 2007 

version of the Exceptional Events Rule (EE Rule). After promulgation of revisions to the 2007 EE Rule, 

this document will be updated to conform to the revised Exceptional Events Rule. 

EPA regional offices and state air agencies may find that using the following communication practices 

between all staff involved in such work will provide for efficient preparation and review of Exceptional 

Events demonstrations (demonstrations). This document is not intended to reflect the best practices for 

technical analyses specifically, as we include those in the guidance documents for each event type.

On a regular and mutually agreed upon frequency, EPA regional offices and their air agencies should 

communicate at the following stages of demonstration development and submission.

Before the air agency begins work to develop its next exceptional event demonstration(s):

 Discuss and document which flagged monitoring sites and days will become the subject of

demonstrations based on summary information for each event.

 Discuss and document the current or potential regulatory significance of these days, including 

when their regulatory significance or non-significance will become clear – if not already known.

 Discuss the level of effort and types of analyses to be included in each demonstration. 

 Discuss the timing of the submissions and the expected response times from the EPA regional 

office in light of the office’s prioritization of work.

 Verify a shared understanding of rule and guidance provisions applicable to the event type(s) 

under consideration.

 Understand key data and analyses that were successful in obtaining EPA approval of previous 

demonstrations for those event type(s).

During development of demonstrations:

 Share early drafts of data, analysis, and narrative in time to provide the EPA regional office with 

time for review and feedback.

After submission:

 Confirm how the EPA regional office will keep the state air agency informed of the progress of 

EPA’s review. 

 Discuss and confirm which demonstrations still have regulatory significance, and which ones 

have “aged out”.

 Discuss and understand the policy and technical reasons for the EPA regional office not being 

able to act on a submission. 

After EPA action on Exceptional Event demonstrations:

 Discuss elements of the process that should be continued and those that need to be improved.

 Understand which information was useful for EPA’s action and which information was 

extraneous.
#### DINER’S CLUB, INC., Appellant, v. Evelio L. PEREZ, Appellee.

No. 77-912.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Robert Bakerman, Miami, and Kenneth Sandler, Deerfield Beach, for appellant.

Evelio L. Perez, in pro. per.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, appeals a dismissal with prejudice after failing to comply with several court orders.

We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, but find them not to be well-taken and the order under review to be within the discretion of the trial judge. However, we modify the order of dismissal by striking therefrom “with prejudice”.

Affirmed as modified.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3764 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.3764

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty four

                                 An Act

 
  To extend and authorize annual appropriations for the United States 
 Commission on International Religious Freedom through fiscal year 2026.

    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 ``United States Commission on 
International Religious Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2024''.
SEC. 2. UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
    (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 207(a) of the 
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6435(a)) is 
amended by striking ``2023 and 2024'' and inserting ``2025 and 2026''.
    (b) Extension of Authorization.--Section 209 of the International 
Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6436) is amended by striking 
``September 30, 2024'' and inserting ``September 30, 2026''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6883

KEVIN L. CHOICE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden, Evans Correctional

Institution; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY

MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(8:03-cv-01999-RBH)

Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 31, 2006

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin L. Choice, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kevin L. Choice seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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

his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable

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 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Choice has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     UT
 
<LEGEND>                      The schedule contains summary financial
                              information extracted from Consolidated
                              Balance Sheet, Income Statement and Statement
                              of Cash Flows for Consolidated
                              Edison, Inc. and is qualified in its entirety
                              by reference to such financial statements
                              and the notes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0001047862
<NAME>  Consolidated Edison, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
       
<S>                                <C> 
   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  Dec-31-1998
  
<PERIOD-END>                       Mar-31-1998
 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-Mos
 
<BOOK-VALUE>                       Per-Book
 
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          11,264,989
 
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>        286,460
 
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>             1,318,834
 
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>           594,213
 
<OTHER-ASSETS>                     938,053
 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     14,402,549
 
<COMMON>                           588,724
  
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>          856,661
 
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                4,531,810
 
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     5,977,195
 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              84,550
 
<PREFERRED>                        233,468
 
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>               4,198,152
 
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                     0
 
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>              0
 
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>         0
 
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>      200,000
 
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>              0
 
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>        39,180
 
<LEASES-CURRENT>                   2,778
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     3,667,226
 
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      14,402,549
 
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          1,853,047
 
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>               91,961
 
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         1,506,525
 
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         1,598,486
 
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>            254,561
 
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                 1,934
 
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>     256,495
 
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>           80,042
 
<NET-INCOME>                       176,453
 
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>        4,536
 
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>      171,917
 
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>           124,810
 
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>          79,058
 
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>             268,751
 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        .73
 
<EPS-DILUTED>                        .73

        


</TABLE>
Order filed January 28, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00985-CV

____________

CHUKWUEMEKA FRANK NWANKWO AND ELIGWE, LLC, Appellants

V.

LARRY PAUL MANLEY, JR., Appellee

On Appeal from the 127th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-53467

O R D E R

This is an appeal from a judgment signed August 29, 2019. The notice of 

appeal was due November 27, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellants, 

however, filed the notice of appeal on December 11, 2019, a date within 15 days of 

the due date for the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is necessarily 

implied when the perfecting instrument is filed within 15 days of its due date. 

Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellants did not file a 

motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be 
implied, appellants are still obligated to come forward with a reasonable 

explanation to support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center 

Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no 

pet.). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellants to file a proper motion to extend time 

to file the notice of appeal on or before 10 days after the date of this order. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 26.3;10.5(b). If appellants do not comply with this order, we will 

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Cornelius Ronald Debe

, * From the 104th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 22123B.

Vs. No. 11

- 19

- 00263

- CR * September 19, 2019

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Stretcher , J. , and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment )

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the

appeal should be dismissed. Ther efore, in accordance with this court’s

opinion, the appeal is dismissed

.