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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2059 

To amend section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 

any hours worked by Federal firefighters under a qualified trade-oftime arrangement shall be excluded for purposes of determinations relating to overtime pay. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2021 

Mr. SARBANES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, to 

provide that any hours worked by Federal firefighters 

under a qualified trade-of-time arrangement shall be excluded for purposes of determinations relating to overtime pay. 

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 ‘‘Federal Firefighter 

5 Flexibility and Fairness Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2059 IH

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF HOURS WORKED UNDER A QUALI2 FIED TRADE-OF-TIME ARRANGEMENT. 

3 Section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(h)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

6 section, any hours worked by a firefighter under a quali7 fied trade-of-time arrangement shall be disregarded for 

8 purposes of any determination relating to eligibility for, 

9 or the amount of, any overtime pay under this section. 

10 ‘‘(2) For purposes of this subsection— 

11 ‘‘(A) the term ‘qualified trade-of-time arrange12 ment’ means an arrangement under which 2 fire13 fighters who are employed by the same agency 

14 agree, solely at their option and with the approval 

15 of their employing agency, to substitute for one an16 other during scheduled work hours in the perform17 ance of work in the same capacity; and 

18 ‘‘(B) the term ‘firefighter’ means a firefighter 

19 as defined by section 8331(21) or 8401(14).’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4005

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus RAYMOND LAMONT WATLINGTON, a/k/a Lamont Watlington, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-04-141) Submitted: June 17, 2005 Decided: July 18, 2005 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Raymond Lamont Watlington pled guilty to attempted bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). Watlington was sentenced to 55 months’ imprisonment, followed by five years’ supervised release. Watlington appeals his sentence, arguing the district court erred in applying the federal sentencing guidelines as mandatory in viol ation of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). In Booker , the Supreme Court held that the mandatory manner in which the federal sentencing guidelines required courts to impose sentencing enhancements based on facts found by the court by a preponderance of the evidence violated the Sixth Amendment. 125 S. Ct. at 746, 750. The Court remedied the constitutional violation by severing two statutory provisions, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3553(b)(1), 3742(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), thereby making the guidelines advisory. See United States v. Hughes , 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). Watlington does not challenge any enhancements to his sentence, so we need not consider whether his sentence violates his Sixth Amendment rights. Under Booker , in reviewing sentences that do not involve a Sixth Amendment violation, this court applies the plain error and harmless error doctrines in determining whether resentencing is required. Booker , 125 S. Ct. at 769; seeFed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (appellate court may disregard any error that does- 3 - not affect substantial rights). The harmless error standard permits an error at sentencing to be disregarded if the reviewing court is certain that any such error “did not affect the district court’s selection of the sentence imposed.” Williams v. United States , 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992). Here, because the district court imposed an alternate discretionary sentence that was identical to the guideline sentence, the error inherent in the application of the guidelines as mandatory did not affect the court’s ultimate determination of the sentence nor Watlington’s substantial rights. Accordingly, we affirm Watlington’s conviction and sentence. 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
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Comarco, Inc., I, Daniel R. Lutz,
Chief Financial Officer of Comarco, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Comarco, Inc.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                                       
|------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
|                    |  | 
|Date: June 14, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Daniel R. Lutz                    
|                    |  |  |  | Daniel R. Lutz Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is being
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the accompanying report on Form 10-Q. A signed original copy 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.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Principal Executive Officer

and Principal Financial Officer,

As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906
Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.

I, F. Clay Creasey, Jr., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of Toys R Us Property Company I, LLC (the Company) for the annual period ended January 29, 2011 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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 28, 2011                                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                                       
|/s/    F. Clay Creasey,
Jr.                                                                                                            
|F. Clay Creasey, Jr.
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
|
Proskauer Rose LLP Eleven Times Square New York, NY 10036-8299

Beijing | Boca Raton | Boston | Chicago | Hong Kong | London | Los Angeles | New Orleans | New York | Paris | São Paulo | Washington, DC

March 17, 2021 

The Honorable Janet L. Yellen 

U.S. Secretary of Treasury

U.S. Department of the Treasury 

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20220 

Re: American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Fund – Withdrawal of 

MPRA Suspension Application 

Dear Secretary Yellen: 

As an authorized representative of the American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ 

Pension Fund, I write to advise you that, in light of the enactment of the American Rescue Plan 

Act of 2021, the American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Fund hereby 

respectfully withdraws its Application to the Department of the Treasury for Approval of 

Suspension of Benefits under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014, dated December 

30, 2020. 

Thank you to you and your team, as well as the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, for your 

consideration of the application. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Respectfully submitted, 

Robert M. Projansky 

Fund Co-Counsel 

cc: Danielle Norris, Esq. 

 Board of Trustees

Ms. Maureen Kilkelly 

 Mr. Kevin Campe 

Mr. Timothy Herman

 Mr. Robert Behar 

Jani K. Rachelson, Esq. 

 Zachary Leeds, Esq.

Robert M. Projansky

Member of the Firm

d +1.212.969.3367

f 212.969.2900

rprojansky@proskauer.com

www.proskauer.com
Page 37.1.901


SUNNYVALE AUTO BODY 

Page 37.1.904
Page 37.1.905
Page 37.1.906


SVENHARD’S TRUCK SHOP 

Page 37.1.909

Page 37.1.911
Page 37.1.912

SYAR INDUSTRIES 

Page 37.1.914
Page 37.1.915
Page 37.1.916
Page 37.1.917

Page 37.1.919

 

 

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 853 

Page 37.1.921
 

 

Page 37.1.922

 

 

TELFER OIL COMPANY 

Page 37.1.924
Page 37.1.925
Page 37.1.926
 

Page 37.1.927

 

THERMA CORPORATION 

Page 37.1.929
Page 37.1.930
Page 37.1.931
Page 37.1.932

TOBY’S TRUCKING 

Page 37.1.934
Page 37.1.935
 

Page 37.1.936

 

 
Page 37.1.937

 

 

 

TOYOTA MATERIAL HANDLING (LOCAL 1414) 

Page 37.1.939
#### MONTCLAIR LAKE ESTATES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Rene DELORT and Marguerite A. Delort, his wife, Appellees.

No. 72-687.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 26, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 19, 1973.

Harold H. Griffin of the Law Offices of Robert W. Wilson, Clearwater, for appellant.

*146Charles A. Robinson, Jr., and Larry G. Rightmyer of Goldner, Marger, Davis & Rightmyer, St. Petersburg, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Stevenson v. Arnold, 250 So.2d 270, Fla.1971.

MANN, C. J., and LILES and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ENERGY TRANSFER,

Respondent

v.

ERIC FRIEDMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 655 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY

COMMISSION,

Respondent

v.

ERIC FRIEDMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 656 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27 th day of April, 2021 , the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED

. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Does the Office of Open records have the authority to order the release of a record in Public Utility Commission’s possession when the OOR determines that record does not contain Confidential Security Information as defined in the Confidential Security Information Act, 35 P.S. § 2141.3 et seq.?[ 655 MAL 2020 and 656 MAL 2020 ]

- 2

The Application for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae b y State Senators Katie J. Muth

a nd Timothy P. Kearney is GRANTED

.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


           In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Colonial
  Commercial Corp. (the "Company") for the three months and six months ended
  June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
  hereof (the "report"), I, Bernard Korn, Chief Executive Officer of the
  Company, certify, pursuant to section 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to
  section 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 results
                     of operations of the Company.

  By:  /S/ BERNARD KORN
      -----------------
  Name:  BERNARD KORN
         Chief Executive Officer


  November 14, 2003

<PAGE>
SWORCCPP-000335
 

 

SWORCCPP-000336

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SWORCCPP-000338
 

SWORCCPP-000339
#### Noah Paul SEGAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-338.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and KE-HOE, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant was charged by information with burglary of a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny. At arraignment, he entered a plea of not guilty. A motion to suppress physical evidence and a motion to suppress confessions, admissions, and statements were filed. The motion to suppress the statements was granted, however, the motion to supress the physical evidence was denied. Appellant thereupon withdrew his prior plea and entered a plea of nolo con-tendere, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress the physical evidence. The trial court thereupon entered a finding of guilt, withheld adjudication, and ordered that appellant be put on probation. This appeal follows.

*939A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress comes to an appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness and an appellate court should interpret the evidence and all reasonable inferences and deductions capable of being drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to sustain the trial court’s conclusion. *Jester v. State,*339 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); *Wigfall v. State,*323 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

With the above guidelines in mind, it is our opinion that, after carefully reviewing the record and briefs, there was competent substantial evidence to support the trial judge’s conclusion that the two arresting officers, in furtherance of their investigative duties, viewed and reasonably identified the alleged stolen item (television set) from their lawful vantage point at the entrance to appellant’s residence when, in response to the officers’ knocking, appellant opened his door revealing the television set in “plain view.” *Harris v. United States,*390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968); *Bailey v. State,*319 So.2d 22 (Fla.1975); *State*v. *Ashby,*245 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971); see also *Moore v. Wainwright,*248 So.2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) and *State v. O’Steen,*238 So.2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### Miller *v.*Textor Transfer Co. et al., Appellants.

Argued April 20, 1934.

Before Tkexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*Samuel G. Wagner,*and with him *Leo A. Nunnink*of *Meyer & Nunnink,*for appellants.

*Murray J. Jordan,*and with him *Fred J. Jordan,*for appellee.

May 1, 1934:

Per Curiam,

When this case was here before we reversed the judgment because there was no evidence in the case to sustain a finding that the accident from which the *529employee’s death resulted occurred on November 20th rather than August 31st, or that sufficiently established] the accident on either date as the cause of death. As the insurance carrier on November 20th was not the same as on August 31st, it was necessary that the date on which the accident occurred, which caused the employee’s death, should be established by evidence, satisfactory to the fact finding body, sufficient to sustain a finding.

The case has been reheard. The referee found that the accident in which the employee received the injuries causing his death occurred on November 25, 1929. There is evidence to support the findings. That it conflicted, in some respects, with the evidence given on the previous hearing did not render it incompetent but only affected the credibility of the witnesses. The board on appeal approved the findings of the referee. As it is supported by competent evidence, satisfactory to the fact finding body, the court below could not disturb it, nor can this court.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,641

EX PARTE BRIAN CARL VEAZIE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 99696 IN THE 252nd DISTRICT COURT

FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

assault and sentenced to seventy-five years’ imprisonment. The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed

his conviction. Veazie v. State, No. 09-09-00418-CR (Tex. Crim. App.–Beaumont, delivered April

28, 2010, no pet.). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed. We remanded this
2

application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The trial court has obtained affidavits from Texas Department of Criminal Justice mail-room

officials. Based on these affidavits, the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law

that appellate counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed. The

trial court recommends that relief be granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App.

1997). We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition

for discretionary review of the judgment of the Ninth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 09-09-00418-

CR that affirmed his conviction in Case No. 99696 from the 252nd Judicial District Court of

Jefferson County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court within

30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: September 21, 2011

Do not publish
Exhibit 12

Consolidated Natural Gas Company
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

|                                   |                                                                                 
|---------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                   |                                                                                 
|Earnings, as defined:              |                                                                                 
|                                   | Earnings before income taxes and minority interests in consolidated subsidiaries
|                                   | Distributed income from unconsolidated investees, less equity in earnings       
|                                   | Fixed charges included in the determination of net income                       
|                                   |                                                                                 
|                                   |                                                                                 
|                                   | Fixed charges, as defined:                                                      
|                                   |                                                                                 
|                                   |                                                                                 
|                                   |                                                                                 
|                                   |                                                                                 
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges | 7.20                                                                            
|                                   |                                                                                 
|                                   |                                                                                 



.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Cone
Mills Corporation Consolidated Financial Statements dated July 4, 1999, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
(in thousands, except earnings per share data).

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000023304
<NAME>                        CONE MILLS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUL-04-1999
<CASH>                                         3,992
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  60,599
<ALLOWANCES>                                   3,300
<INVENTORY>                                    113,718
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               189,783
<PP&E>                                         467,423
<DEPRECIATION>                                 242,229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 497,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,340
<BONDS>                                        171,608
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    39,556
<COMMON>                                       2,549
<OTHER-SE>                                     129,727
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   497,941
<SALES>                                        331,749
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               331,749
<CGS>                                          302,163
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  325,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               12,917
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1,800
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (6,281)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,967)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,718)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      (1,038)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,756)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.40)



</TABLE>