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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 220 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 220

To make supplemental appropriations to carry out farm stress programs, 
   provide for expedited additional support under the farm and ranch 
           stress assistance network, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2021

Mr. Emmer (for himself and Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make supplemental appropriations to carry out farm stress programs, 
   provide for expedited additional support under the farm and ranch 
           stress assistance network, 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 ``Stemming the Tide of Rural Economic 
Stress and Suicide under COVID-19 Act'' or the ``STRESS under COVID-19 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPEDITED ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR FARM AND RANCH STRESS 
              ASSISTANCE NETWORK.

    (a) Emergency Funding.--
            (1) In general.--In addition to amounts otherwise made 
        available to carry out section 7522 of the Food, Conservation, 
        and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 5936), out of the funds of the 
        Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there is appropriated to 
        carry out such section $10,000,000, to remain available until 
        September 30, 2022.
            (2) Allocation.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
        the enactment of this Act, from the amounts made available 
        under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall award to each eligible 
        recipient (as specified in section 7522(c) of the Food, 
        Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 5936(c))) that 
        meets the criteria determined by the Secretary, and submits an 
        application within the time period specified by the Secretary, 
        an amount to be determined by the Secretary, except in no case 
        may such amount exceed $500,000.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to amounts 
otherwise authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 7522 of 
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 5936), there 
is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture to 
carry out such section $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 
through 2025.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Computer Horizons Corp. (the “Company”)for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the “Periodic Report”), I,William J. Murphy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that thePeriodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained inthe Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  | August 14, 2003 |   |                     | /s/  William J. Murphy |   |
|--------|-----------------|--------|--------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
|   |            |   | William J.  Murphy       |
|   |            |   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
257 La. 274

#### STATE of Louisiana v. James Roger BURNS.

No. 51052.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 1971.

In re: James Roger Burns applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, review and habeas corpus.

Application denied. No motion to recuse the judge as to the hearing of this habeas corpus proceeding having been filed by relator, there is nothing for this Court to review on the recusal issue. As to the prayer for relief under the habeas corpus petition, this Court will not ordinarily exercise its ha-beas corpus jurisdiction until a ruling on the petition has been made in the trial court.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 202 (Monday, October 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27663]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Intent To File An Application

October 14, 1997.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been 
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of filing: Notice of Intent to File An Application for a 
New License.
    b. Project No.: 309.
    c. Date filed: October 3, 1997.
    d. Submitted By: Pennsylvania Electric Company, current licensee.
    e. Name of Project: Piney Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Clarion River, in the Clarion County, 
Pennsylvania.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 15 of the Federal Power Act, 18 CFR 
16.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Effective date of current license: June 1, 1979.
    i. Expiration date of current license: October 12, 2002.
    j. The project consists of: (1) A 125-foot-high, 700-toot-long 
concrete gravity arch dam; (2) a 653-acre reservoir; (3) a powerhouse 
containing three generating units with a total installed capacity of 
28,800 kW; (4) a 115-kV and 34.5-kV transmission and distribution 
facility; and (5) appurtenant facilities.
    k. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.7, information on the project is available 
at: Pennsylvania Electric Company, 1001 Broad Street, Johnstown, PA 
15907, (814) 533-8111.
    l. FERC contact: Tom Dean (202) 219-2778.
    m. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.9 each application for a new license and 
any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at 
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All 
applications for license for this project must be filed by October 12, 
2000.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27663 Filed 10-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Jerry SCHAEFER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42640.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 29, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 264 So.2d 121.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32(b)








This
Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall
not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other
document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in
such filing.








Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title
18 of the United States Code








In
connection with the Annual Report of Columbus Southern Power Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Holly
Keller Koeppel, the chief financial officer of the Company certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








/s/ Holly Keller
Koeppel_


Holly
Keller Koeppel


Chief
Financial Officer








August 4,
2009








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 20

- 00087

- CV

Javon DUKES

, Appellant

v.

Ana LITOFSKY and Michael Litofsky,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CV00365

Honorable Tommy Stolhandske, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF PROSECUTION. It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed against appel lant in

relation to this appeal because he qualifies as indigent under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

20.

SIGNED May 6, 2020.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice
#### STATE of Louisiana, ex rel. Roy HOLLINGSWORTH v. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ORLEANS, State of Louisiana.

No. 61789.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 28, 1978.

In re: Roy Hollingsworth, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Denied.

TATE and MARCUS, JJ., would grant the writ.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2323 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2323

  To prohibit airlines and Amtrak from conditioning the provision of 
  transportation services to any individual on such individual having 
       been vaccinated against COVID-19, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2021

 Mr. LaMalfa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the 
   Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 prohibit airlines and Amtrak from conditioning the provision of 
  transportation services to any individual on such individual having 
       been vaccinated against COVID-19, 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. CERTAIN COVID VACCINATION REQUIREMENTS PROHIBITED.

    (a) Airlines.--The Secretary of Transportation, acting through the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, shall prohibit 
air carriers (as such term is defined in section 40102(a) of title 49, 
United States Code) from denying an individual air transportation 
solely because such individual has not been vaccinated against COVID-
19.
    (b) Amtrak.--Amtrak may not deny an individual passenger rail 
transportation solely because such individual has not been vaccinated 
against COVID-19.
    (c) Funding Prohibitions.--No Federal funds may be obligated or 
expended--
            (1) to create, administer, or mandate the creation of a 
        database of individuals who have been vaccinated against COVID-
        19; and
            (2) by any Federal agency (as defined in section 105 of 
        title 5, United States Code) to develop, implement, or enforce 
        any Federal law, rule, regulation, guidance, or policy denying 
        any individual access to transportation or otherwise 
        restricting or preventing any individual from traveling solely 
        because such individual has not been vaccinated against COVID-
        19.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ralph BAILEY, For the Use and Benefit of Pinckney Oldsmobile, Inc., Appellant, v. Milton Wayne SMITH et al., Appellees.

No. 71-429.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 16, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Pablo GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-40.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 29, 1972.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and Edwin T. Mulock, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

*46Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

LILES, Judge.

Appellant Pablo Gonzalez plead guilty to murder in the second degree, after having been indicted by a Grand Jury for murder in the first degree. He was represented at all stages on the trial level by a court appointed attorney. The public defender was appointed to represent him in this appeal and the public defender has filed an *An-ders*type brief. This court allowed appellant thirty days in which to file his brief and he has done so. Appellant maintains that he was promised a sentence of five years instead of the twenty years which was imposed by the trial judge.

The record reflects that two codefend-ants were involved in this matter and that they each plead guilty and did, in fact, receive five years, this transpiring before appellant was sentenced. The record further reflects that appellant plead guilty to killing one Theodore David Bennett while Bennett was attempting to perpetrate the abominable and detestable crime against nature, and that the appellant stabbed, cut and wounded Bennett to such an extent that he died as result thereof.

The judge in the presence of appellant’s counsel, who parenthetically was appointed by the court at the request of appellant’s parents, made extensive inquiry as to the voluntariness of appellant’s plea of guilty. The judge meticulously explained to appellant the legal sentence at the conclusion of which he correctly determined that the plea of guilty was voluntarily, knowingly and willfully given. The judge then ordered a pre-sentence investigation.

The record also reflects that at the time of sentencing appellant was present with counsel, his parents and a court-appointed interpreter. He then pronounced sentence which was twenty years in the State prison with credit for time already served. Neither appellant nor his attorney asked for a change of plea, and we must therefore conclude from the record that appellant plead guilty to the charge because he was, in fact, guilty.

The disturbing factor here is that appellant’s codefendants each received five years, but the record does not reveal why they received only five years and this appellant received twenty years. The mere fact that this is so does not constitute reversible error.

From the record before us we have no alternative but to affirm since there is no showing of reversible error.

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
Memo

Financing Marketable All Other Change in End-Of-Quarter

Need Borrowing Sources Total Cash Balance Cash Balance

Quarter Announcement Date (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) + (3) (5) = (4) - (1) (6)

Oct - Dec

2005 Actual 97 93 6 98 1 37

Jan - Mar

2006 Actual 173 158 (14) 144 (28) 8

Apr - Jun

2006 Actual (137) (92) (7) (99) 38 46

Jul - Sep

2006 Actual 19 45 (19) 26 6 52

Oct - Dec

2006 Actual 70 42 6 48 (21) 31

Jan - Mar

2007 Actual 159 126 9 134 (25) 6

Apr - Jun

2007 Actual (153) (139) 5 (133) 19 25

Jul - Sep

2007 Actual 35 105 (20) 85 50 75

Memo: Forecast Revision

Oct - Dec October 29, 2007 85 68 (13) 55 (30) 45

2007 Actual 91 87 (14) 73 (18) 57

Memo: Forecast Revision 6 19 (1) 18 12 12

Jan - Mar October 29, 2007 142 133 (11) 122 (20) 25

2008 January 28, 2008 169 156 (18) 137 (32) 25

Memo: Forecast Revision 27 23 (7) 15 (12) 0

Apr - Jun

2008 January 28, 2008 (155) (122) (13) (135) 20 45

Notes: All data reported on a cash basis

Sources and Uses Reconciliation Table

Financing
EXHIBIT 32

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 Conolog Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert S. Benou
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                       
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | The Report
 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.

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Conolog Corporation and will be retained by Conolog Corporation and furnished
to the SEC or its staff upon request.


|                      |                                                                          | 
|--------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Dated: June
 21, 2010 | /s/ Robert
 S. Benou                                                     | 
|                      |                                                                          | 
|                      | Robert S.
 Benou                                                         | 
|                      | Chairman,
 Chief Executive Officer, ChiefFinancial Officer and Treasurer | 

The foregoing
certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before
or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
such filing.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2272 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2272

 To authorize the Coast Guard to issue a certificate of documentation 
  with a coastwise endorsement for the vessel WIDGEON, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2021

 Mr. Bergman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Coast Guard to issue a certificate of documentation 
  with a coastwise endorsement for the vessel WIDGEON, 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. COASTWISE ENDORSEMENT.

    Notwithstanding sections 12112 of title 46, United States Code, the 
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may 
issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement for 
the vessel WIDGEON (United States official number 1299656).
                                 <all>
```
#### Victor and Marie PERKINS v. Henry DESROCHES and Metairie Ford, Inc.

No. 62658.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Victor and Marie Perkins, applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court *579Parish of St. of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Bernard. 359 So.2d 323.

Writ denied.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS, J., would grant the writ.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2018 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2018

  To waive certain provisions in the case of an emergency declaration 
 under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 18, 2021

 Miss Gonzalez-Colon introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To waive certain provisions in the case of an emergency declaration 
 under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
                                  Act.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.

    In the case of an emergency declared pursuant to section 501 of the 
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
U.S.C. 5191), the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency shall not require the application of chapter 83 of title 41, 
United States Code, with respect to purchases made or contracts issued 
by Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, or the Virgin 
Islands of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
257 La. 268

#### Orion D. HARTSELL v. HOOKER CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Hooker Chemicals of Taft, Inc., and Twin City Fire Insurance Company.

No. 51043.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 1971.

In re: Hooker Chemical Corporation, Hooker Chemicals of Taft, Inc., and Twin City Fire Insurance Company applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Denied. The showing made does not establish that the trial Court abused its discretion.

*245BARHAM, Justice,

is of the opinion the relator should be granted relief by ordering the trial court to render a full final judgment.

On Application for Writs

To written reasons for judgment which conclude that plaintiff suffers total disability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the trial judge adds an “order” or “adjudication” which demands that defendant pay “all” medical expenses of a remedial surgical procedure, although he has made no “adjudication” of compensation for disability. There is no award of compensation, no order for plaintiff to submit to remedial surgery, no order awarding medical expenses, no order limiting the expenditures defendant is to incur for the surgery, no order cancelling compensation in event of plaintiff’s failure to submit to surgery, no order limiting surgical expenses to basic limits, and no finding of undue hardship to sustain an award of expenses in excess of basic statutory limits. In sum, there is no definitive judgment or order permitted by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There is nothing from which to appeal ; and if defendant submits to this so-called “order” as it stands, it has been deprived of the right of review. Defendant should not comply with the so-called order until a judgment is rendered in compliance with the Workmen’s Compensation Act and Code of Civil Procedure Articles 1917 and 1918. From such a judgment it could exercise its right of appeal. All determination of disability in Workmen’s Compensation cases may be altered if the plaintiff’s disability is removed, and he cannot be harmed by a full final judgment at this time. Surgery for removal of a disability is an alternative requirement to payment of benefits only under certain unusual circumstances. Judgments ordering such procedures should carefully comply with the law.