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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2100 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2100

   To prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from prohibiting the 
    transportation of liquefied natural gas by rail, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 19, 2021

 Mr. Nehls (for himself, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Perry, 
 Mr. Stauber, and Mr. Balderson) introduced the following bill; which 
   was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from prohibiting the 
    transportation of liquefied natural gas by rail, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Providing Americans with LNG Safely 
Act'' or the ``PALS Act''.

SEC. 2. LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS BY RAIL.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation may not issue any 
regulation or long-term order that--
            (1) prohibits the transportation of ``methane, refrigerated 
        liquid,'', commonly known as liquefied natural gas (LNG), by 
        rail; or
            (2) restricts or contracts the scope of allowance provided 
        by the final rule of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
        Safety Administration, titled ``Hazardous Materials: Liquefied 
        Natural Gas by Rail'' and published in the Federal Register on 
        July 24, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 44994).
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Transportation 
from issuing short-term emergency orders related to the transportation 
of liquefied natural gas by rail.
                                 <all>
```
1 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

___________

No. 11-2067 

___________

B.H., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER MOTHER; JENNIFER HAWK; 

K.M., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER MOTHER; AMY MCDONALDMARTINEZ 

v. 

EASTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

 Appellant 

__________

PRESENT: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, AMBRO, 

FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, 

GREENAWAY, Jr., VANASKIE, and GREENBERG1

, Circuit Judges

ORDER 

 The Court, sua sponte, orders rehearing en banc in the above captioned case. 

It is ordered that the Clerk of this Court list the case for rehearing en banc

at the convenience of the Court. 

By the Court, 

/s/ Theodore A. McKee 

Chief Circuit Judge 

Date: August 16, 2012 

 1

Will participate as a member of the en banc court pursuant to 3d. Cir. I.O.P. 9.6.4. 

 

A True Copy:

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

 

 

A True Copy: Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

 

 
2 

TMM/smw/cc: Mary Catherine Roper, Esq. 

 Molly M. Tack-Hooper, Esq. 

 Witold J. Walczak, Esq. 

 Keely J. Espinar, Esq. 

 John E. Freund, III, Esq. 

 Wilson M. Brown, III, Esq. 

 Kathryn E. Deal, Esq. 

 Wayne Pollock, Esq. 

 Terry L. Fromson, Esq.
Mark BrennanGroup PresidentCONDUENT501 Bleecker StUtica NY 13501mark.brennan@conduent.comTel 602-323-6007





































a) A review of the activities of the Subservicer during the period of January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and its performance under the FFEL Program Omnibus Subservicing Agreement (the “Servicing Agreement”) dated March 27, 2015 between Xerox and Navient Solutions, LLC. (“Navient”) has been made under my supervision.





b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such a review, except for the items identified in Exhibit A hereto, the Subservicer has fulfilled all of its material obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period, and there have been no known material defaults in the fulfillment of such obligations.










By:
/s/ Mark Brennan

Date:
March 15, 2017Name:
Mark BrennanTitle:
President, Xerox Business Services












1. During the year ended December 31, 2012, Servicer discovered a servicing issue with respect to the servicing of certain consolidation loans made under Section 428C(a)(3) of the Higher Education Act (repealed effective July 1, 2006). Some of such spousal consolidation loans apparently were incorrectly deferred. As a result, some borrowers have received the benefit of deferment of repayment for which they may not have been eligible. Servicer has notified the Department of Education of the issue and, on December 27, 2016, the Department issued its Final Program Review Determination regarding that notification. Certain documentation issues appear to have continued through 2016, although fewer loans were impacted than prior to 2002. These items were not material with respect to Servicer’s activities under the Servicing Agreement..





2. Servicer has a backlog of unprocessed borrower financial reapplications and other transactions in its servicing system that Servicer is currently remediating. Servicer has notified Navient, the Department, and other regulatory agencies of these issues and its efforts to remediate each. These items were not material with respect to Servicer’s activities under the Servicing Agreement.





3. Servicer discovered certain errors in the systems and processes used to report data to credit reporting agencies. The systems and processes either have been or will be corrected, and Servicer is or will be working with the affected credit reporting agencies to remove any erroneous data. These items were not material with respect to Servicer’s activities under the Servicing Agreement.





4. Certain income based repayment plans were granted without proper consideration of the borrower’s spouse’s income, eligibility, and presence of the spouse’s signature on the application. These items were not material with respect to Servicer’s activities under the Servicing Agreement.




5. As a result of items listed in 1-4 above, investigation and/or enforcement activity by governmental agencies could result in fines, penalties and other liabilities associated with such items.
Treasury approves Ohio’s plan to invest $60 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

Ohio

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 Program Summary: $60 million for Broadband Infrastructure (22% of CPF allocation)

 Program Description: The Multi-County Last Mile Fiber Build Pilot program is a broadband 

grant program designed to provide high-speed, reliable internet in an area of the state with a 

gap in infrastructure availability and where the cost of the last-mile connection is a barrier.

‒ This program is designed to provide internet service with speeds of 100/100 Mbps upon 

project completion.

‒ Internet service providers utilizing investments funded by CPF will be required to 

participate in the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) – a $30 per month subsidy 

for low-income families. 

 Key State Contact: Broadband Ohio, the state broadband office within the Ohio Department 

of Development 

Ohio’s Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

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
254 La. 753

#### BOTANY BAY CORPORATION v. TEXACO, INC.

No. 50127.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 29, 1969.

In re: Texaco, Inc. applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writs refused. This court will not interfere with the orderly proceedings in the trial court, in the absence of a showing of irreparable injury. Relator has a remedy by appeal in the event of an adverse judgment on the merits.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61316-61317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30078]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-534-001]


Viking Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 10, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 5, 1997, Viking Gas Transmission 
Company (Viking) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to 
the filing to be effective November 1, 1997.
    Viking states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
Office of Pipeline Regulation's October 22, 1997 Letter in Docket No. 
RP97-534-000 requesting that the subject tariff sheets state that they 
were filed to comply with the Commission's May 6, 1997 ``Order Issuing 
Certificate'' in Docket No. CP97-93-000, 79 FERC para. 61,136 (1997). 
As required by Sec. 154.201(a) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 
154.201(a) Viking is submitting a marked version of each tariff sheet 
with this filing.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section

[[Page 61317]]

385.211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such 
protests should be filed in accordance with Sec. 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.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30078 Filed 11-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
2021_Shelby_MOVESInputs_Screenshot
#### Hugh S. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. Harvey T. COTTEN, Jr., et al., Appellees.

No. Q-90.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 7, 1972.

Wilmer H. Mitchell, of Holsberry, Emmanuel, Sheppard, Mitchell & Condon, Pensacola, for appellant.

W. Spencer Mitchem, of Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, Pensacola, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATIONS








I, Yanzhang Li, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Advanced Pipe Fitting Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant");





2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.





4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and;





5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.








By:/s/ Yanzhang Li





Yanzhang Li


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 32.2.2**

 

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

 

I, Robert Hoglund, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endedMarch 31, 2009, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in theForm 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: May 1, 2009
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER
Appellate case name: In re United Engineers, Inc. Appellate case number: 01

- 2 2

- 00 493

- CV

Trial court case number: 2020

- 13994

Trial court: 189th District Court of Harris County

On July 7, 2022
, relator
, United Engineers, Inc. , filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging two trial court orders, including: (1) a January 4, 2022 “Order Granting In Part Plaintiff’s Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,” and (2) a Januar y 24, 2022 “Order Denying [Relator’s] Motion for Reconsideration of the [Trial] Court’s Order Granting A Partial Summary Judgment as to the ‘Voiding’ of the 2019 Contract.”
T he Court requests a response to the petition for a writ of mandamus from real par t y in interest , Byers Engineering Company

. The response if any, is due no later than t w en ty days from the date of this order

. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____ /s/ Amparo Guerra

_________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ July 14, 20 22

_____
#### Joseph BASS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida. Appellee.

No. S-133.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Tax, Utility, HOA & Insurance Assistance Program

Brief description Provide funds to resolve delinquent payments for utility services,

including water, sewer, electric, homeowner association (HOA) fees,

homeowner insurance, property taxes and gas (internet is NOT

included), including interest, reasonably required legal fees,

deposits, or fees required to remove an account from collections, as

required under the circumstances to resolve a delinquency which

threatens the homeowner’s access to utility services.

Maximum amount of

assistance per

homeowner

Eligible homeowners will be allocated up to $17,000 per residence

in Wyoming Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF) Program through

any combination of HAF programs, with mortgage reinstatement

having priority.

Homeowner eligibility

criteria and

documentation

requirements

Eligibility Criteria

● The household must be ineligible for LIEAP (generally,

household income above sixty percent (60%) of state

median income (SMI)).

● Household income must be at or below 150% area median

income (AMI).

● The property must be currently occupied as the

homeowner’s primary residence.

● The homeowner must have experienced a Covid-related

financial hardship after January 21, 2020.

Documentation Requirements

● Completed application

● Proof of residency - current utility bill

● Self-attestation of a Covid-related financial hardship after

January 21, 2020

● 2021 tax returns or most recent recent filed tax return

Loan eligibility criteria

specific to the program

● N/A

Form of assistance Assistance will be structured as a one-time, non-recourse grant for

arrearages ONLY. This program does not cover ongoing utility costs.

Payment requirements Funds will be paid directly to the utility provider, county assessor,

homeowner association, or other applicable third-party authorized

to collect eligible charges.

Process ● Homeowners will submit their application through the
state’s online portal

● Case managers will review the application and make an

eligibility determination

● For eligible homeowners, payment will be made directly to

the utility or homeowner’s association

● The homeowner will receive an eligibility determination

notice via email
255 La. 912

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Tommie NETTLES v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 50492.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 1970.

In re: Tommie Nettles applying for writ of habeas corpus.

The application is denied. Applicant is not entitled to the relief sought.
WUS-1

WUS-2 WUS-3

WUS-4

2ND ST S

S WASHINGTON BLVD

S COURTHOUSE RD

WSP USA Inc

1 EAST PRATT STREET SUITE 300

BALTIMORE, MD 21202

(410) 727-5050

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS

HIGHWAY DIVISION

Hatfield Gate at U.S. Army Garrison

Fort Myer

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

SCALE: DATE: FEBRUARY 2022 CONTRACT NO:

DESIGNED BY __________________

DRAWN BY: CTH

CHECKED BY KG

F.A.P. NO. __________________

COUNTY: ARLINGTON COUNTY

LOGMILE __________________

DRAWING NO. SHEET NO 1 OF 1

 ̄

1

IMPACTS MAPPING

0 180 360 540

Feet

Grading

Cut

Fill

Limit of Disturbance (LOD)

1 INCH = 180 FEET

Waters of the US

Intermittent

Perennial

Waterway Impacts

Flow Lines
### ~ta:t.e 

## of**~.em** 

## W.ers.el1
D E PARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CHRIS CHRISTIE Division of Land Use Regulation BOB MARTIN Governor Commissioner Mail Code 501-02A P.O. Box 420 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0420 KIM GUADAGNO www.state.ni.us/dep/landuse LI. Go v ernor 

# JAN 25 

# 2 012 John Filippelli, Acting Director United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 290 Broadway New York, New York 10007-1866
Re : Federal Consistency Determination for Two Proposed General NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Permits DLUR File No. 0000-08-0021.1 CDT11 000 I
Dear Mr. Filippelli: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Land Use Regulation, acting under Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Management Act (P.L. 92-583) as amended, agrees with the certification that the above referenced permits are consistent with the approved New Jersey Coastal Management Program and authorizes a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate. Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 

### § 1342, (CWA) section 301 (a) prohibits the discharges of pollutants into waters ofthe United States, except in compliance with certain other sections ofthe CWA, including compliance with a NPDES permit. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing the Vessel General Permit (VGP) to regulate discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non-recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 feet in length. The EPA is also proposing the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) to cover discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels less than 79 feet in length

. The proposed permits provide increased protection to coastal waters by imposing enforceable NPDES permit limits on vessel discharges. 

### In addition, both proposed permits establish technology-based effluent limitations based upon CWA sections 30 I (b)(2)(A) and 30 I (b)(2)(E), ensuring that vessel discharges will be in compliance with applicable State water quality standards under CWA section 303, and establishes requirements for the permittee to conduct monitoring and inspections. Thank you for your attention to and cooperation with New Jersey's Coastal Zone Management Program. If you have any questions with regard to this determination, please do not hesitate to contact Georgeann Gray, at the above address or at 609-633-2289

. Sincerely,

# '**l?s~ ~**  Manager

cc. Ruth Foster, Office of Permit Coordination & Environmental Review Kim Springer, Office of Policy, Planning & Science

New Jer sey is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Prinled on Recycled Pa per and Recyclable
No. 9624.

#### German American Insurance Co. *v.*Wagner.

(Decided October 23, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Seneca County.

*Mr. Willis Bacon*and *Mr.*J.' *W. Mooney,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Platt & Black*and *Mr. G. B. Keppel,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed. Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby’ is, reversed for error in affirming the judg*581ment of the court of common pleas of said Seneca county, and the judgment of said court of common pleas is reversed for error in overruling the motion for a new trial upon the grounds that the court erred in the admission of evidence, in refusing to charge, and in its general charge to the jury; it appearing from the plaintiff’s evidence that Lillis, the mortgagee, is a real and not a fictitious person, he is a necessary party to the action, or a valid release of the mortgage must be proven. It appearing from the plaintiff’s evidence that the mortgagee, neither signed the release nor authorized it, it was error to admit in evidence the release on the mortgage record. The verdict is set aside and the case remanded to said court of common pleas for a new trial.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 17, 2009

p0610 

# Order

June 17, 2009

138157

HOME OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellee,

v SC: 138157 COA: 280112 Mecosta CC: 05-017158-CK LARRY SELFRIDGE and BETTY SELFRIDGE,Defendants-CounterPlaintiffs-Appellees,

and

HALLIE SELFRIDGE, PORTER D. SELFRIDGE, Minor, by his Next Friend, HALLIE SELFRIDGE and BRIAN SELFRIDGE, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

H ATHAWAY

, J., would grant leave to appeal.