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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7365 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7365

To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to grants for buses 
              and bus facilities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2020

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to grants for buses 
              and bus facilities, 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 ``Green Buses for Every Community 
Act''.

SEC. 2. LOW INCOME COMMUNITY GRANTS.

    Section 5339(c) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(H) the term `low-income community' means any 
                population census tract if--
                            ``(i) the poverty rate for such tract is at 
                        least 20 percent; or
                            ``(ii) in the case of a tract--
                                    ``(I) not located within a 
                                metropolitan area, the median family 
                                income for such tract does not exceed 
                                80 percent of statewide median family 
                                income; or
                                    ``(II) located within a 
                                metropolitan area, the median family 
                                income for such tract does not exceed 
                                80 percent of the greater statewide 
                                median family income or the 
                                metropolitan area median family 
                                income.''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) Low and moderate community grants.--Not less than 10 
        percent of the amounts made available under this subsection in 
        a fiscal year shall be distributed to projects serving 
        predominantly low-income communities.''.
                                 <all>
```
1

Affirm ance W ithout O pinion - M emor andum Opinio n. (b) The Court, w ith the con currenc e of all

judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum

opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum

opinion it shall be designated “MEMORA NDUM OPINION ,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or

relied on fo r any reas on in a su bseque nt unrelate d case. [A s amen ded by order filed April 22 , 1992.]

FILED

December 4, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

STEPHEN P. KOPELS, )

)

Plaintiff/Appellant ) NO. 01A01-9711-CV-00646

)

v. ) HON. MURIEL ROBINSON

) JUDGE

KATHERINE ANNETTE BRYANT, )

)

Defendant/Appellee ) AFFIRMED

David M. Zolensky, Nashville, for Appellant.

Dot Dobbins, Nashville, for Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

INMAN, Senior Judge

This is a domestic relations case. The appellant complains of the award of

the residence to the appellee, and the award of the attorney’s fees. Our review of

the findings of fact made by the trial Court is de novo upon the record of the trial

Court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the

preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. R. APP. P., RULE 13(d);

Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26 (Tenn. 1996). Where there is no

conflict in the evidence as to any material fact, the question on appeal is one of

law, and the scope of review is de novo with no presumption of correctness

accompanying a chancellor's conclusions of law. Union Carbide Corp. v.

Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn. 1993).
2

The parties were married seventeen years. They have two minor children.

The trial judge found that the appellee provided the principal sustenance for the

family, and that her separate, substantial estate was dissipated by the appellant,

whose lifestyle was beyond his financial means. The award of attorney fees was

essentially driven by the chronic failure of the appellant to attend hearings, which

multiplied the appellee’s legal expenses.

Rule 10, Rules of the Court of Appeals, is peculiarly applicable to this case,

since we clearly cannot find that the evidence preponderates against the judgment

of the trial court and no proper purpose would be served by a recitation of the

evidence.

The judgment is affirmed at the costs of the appellant.

_______________________________

William H. Inman, Senior Judge 

CONCUR:

_______________________________

Houston M. Goddard, Presiding Judge

_______________________________

Charles D. Susano, Jr., Judge
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34068]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Thursday, January 29, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference 
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-34068 Filed 12-24-97; 11:12 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
No. 10003.

#### Spink *v.*Spink, Admx.

Decided March 3, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Mr. Otis H. Fisk,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Bates & Meyer,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7764-7765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4131]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-185-002]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

February 13, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 10, 1997, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A 
attached to the filing, proposed to be effective January 9, 1997. 
Panhandle asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
Commission's order issued January 9, 1997 in docket No. RP97-185-000, 
78 FERC para. 61,011 (1997).
    Panhandle states that this compliance filing (1) deletes the 
indemnification clause in the exhibits to the negotiated

[[Page 7765]]

rate service agreements and (2) clarifies that the provision allowing 
agreed-to billing adjustments of payment obligations and the crediting 
mechanism for releasing shippers with negotiated rates does not permit 
Panhandle to negotiate terms and conditions of service.
    Panhandle states that copies of this filing are being served on all 
affected customers, applicable state regulatory agencies and all 
parties to this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4131 Filed 2-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Roger Leon BRUNEAU, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-673.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Jan. 16, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4594]


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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE


Notice of Meeting of the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and 
Negotiations (ACTPN)

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations 
(ACTPN) will hold a meeting on March 6, 1997 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 
p.m. The meeting will be open to the public from 1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for Marcy 6, 1997, unless otherwise 
notified.

ADDRESS: The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Carlton Hotel in the 
Chandelier Room, located at 16th and K Streets, Washington, D.C., 
unless otherwise notified.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanna Kang, Office of the United 
States Trade Representative, 600 17th St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20508, 
(202) 395-6120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ACTPN will hold a meeting on March 6, 
1997 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The meeting will include a review and 
discussion of current issues which influence U.S. trade policy. 
Pursuant to Section 2155(f)(2) of Title 19 of the United States Code 
and Executive Order 11846 of March 27, 1975, the Office of the U.S. 
Trade Representative has determined that part of this meeting will be 
concerned with matters the disclosure of which would seriously 
compromise the development by the United States Government of trade 
policy, priorities, negotiating objectives or bargaining positions with 
respect to the operation of any trade agreement and other matters 
arising in connection with the development, implementation and 
administration of the trade policy of the United States. During the 
discussion of such matters, the meeting will be closed to the public 
from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The meeting will be open to the public and 
press from 1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. when other trade policy issues will 
be discussed. Attendance during this part of the meeting is for 
observation only. Individuals who are not members of the committee will 
not be invited to comment.
Charlene Barshefsky,
United States Trade Representative--Designate.
[FR Doc. 97-4594 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-20-00035-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

Trial Court No. 18-9283-267

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE LONE TREE RESOURCES & CONSULTING, INC. AND FARZIN 

AFSHAR, Relators
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators Lone Tree Resources & Consulting, Inc. and Farzin Afshar filed a 

mandamus petition contending that the trial-court judge had abused her discretion by 

refusing to rule on four motions within a reasonable time and asked us to compel her 

to rule. The trial-court judge has now signed orders ruling on those motions. Because 

relators have obtained all of the relief that they sought in their mandamus petition, we 

dismiss their petition as moot. See In re Cooper, No. 02-16-00430-CV, 

2016 WL 7339118, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 19, 2016, orig. proceeding) 

(per curiam) (mem. op.).

Per Curiam

Delivered: March 6, 2020
#### BURLEIGH HOUSE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a municipal corporation situated in Dade County, Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-751.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 18, 1970.

Dubbin, Schiff, Berkman & Dubbin, and Ira Abrams, Miami, for appellant.

Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty., for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal presents the same issue that was decided in City of Miami Beach v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, Fla.App., 239 So.2d 272, opinion filed this day. The trial court in the present case held that the ordinance was validly adopted pursuant to § 8-4(b) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, which section, among other things, grants the appropriate building official of an incorporated area of Dade County the power to “enforce the provisions of the code within the municipality he serves”.

Upon the basis of the authorities cited in City of Miami Beach v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, above, we must reverse.

Reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4278]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA'')

    Consistent with the policy set forth in Section 122(d)(2)(B) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 
1980 as amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d)(2)(B), and the 
Department of Justice regulations at 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 
given that on January 21, 1997, a proposed Consent Decree was lodged 
with the United States District Court for the Southern District of 
Indiana in United States v. Jonathan W. Bankert, Jr., et al., Cause No. 
IP-91-1181C-M/S. This Consent Decree settles claims asserted by the 
United States pursuant to Section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, for 
partial reimbursement of response costs incurred by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency in connection with response actions at 
the Northside Sanitary Landfill Site in Zionsville, Indiana.
    The Department of Justice will receive written comments relating to 
the proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Comments should be directed to the 
Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to 
United States v. Jonathan W. Bankert, Jr., et al., DOJ Reference # 90-
11-2-48H.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, U.S. 
Courthouse, 5th Floor, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 
46204, at the Region V offices of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590, and at the 
Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 
20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may be 
obtained in person or by mail from the Consent Decree Library. In 
requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $2.75, (25 
cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree 
Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-4278 Filed 2-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
#### James PEACOCK, Appellant, v. Willie WISE, Appellee.

No. FF-402.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 18, 1977.

Mayo C. Johnston of Davenport, Johnston, Harris, Gerde & Harrison, Panama City, for appellant.

Stanley Bruce Powell, of Douglass & Powell, Tallahassee, for appellee.

SMITH, Judge.

An appeal from a judgment declaring all absentee ballots invalid in a party primary *1135in Calhoun County and ousting appellant from the office of clerk of the circuit court as a result. The trial court’s conclusion that at least 25 absentee ballots were void because the ballot and “application for absent elector’s ballot” were mailed to the supervisor of elections in the same envelope, Section 101.67(3), Florida Statutes (1975), is supported by substantial competent evidence. The trial court properly ruled that all absentee ballots would not be counted. “[WJhere the number of invalid absentee ballots is more than enough to change the result of the election, then the election shall be determined solely upon the basis of the machine ballot.” *Boardman v. Esteva,*323 So.2d 259, 268 (Fla.1975), app. dism., 425 U.S. 967, 96 S.Ct. 2162, 48 L.Ed.2d 791 (1976). The judgment is

AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Larry Joe PHILLIPS.

No. 60975.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1977.

In re: Larry Joe Phillips applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Orleans.

Denied. Appeal pending.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT HALL,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 410 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                          47,010
<SECURITIES>                                    79,264
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,468
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    251,645
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               414,445
<PP&E>                                         239,612
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,233
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 717,688
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          250,232
<BONDS>                                        242,363
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,465
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   717,688
<SALES>                                        738,721
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               741,637
<CGS>                                          575,047
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  575,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               161,702
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,837
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,949)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,753)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,395)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,126)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,521)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.22)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 32.1


                CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     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 Falcon Products, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 2, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Franklin A. Jacobs, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board 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:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities 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 16, 2003

                                                  /s/ Franklin A. Jacobs
                                                  ----------------------
                                                  Franklin A. Jacobs
                                                  Chairman of the Board and
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
#### Kenneth GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-383.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 5, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Daniel P. TOMPKINS, Appellant, v. Sylvia Jane TOMPKINS, Appellee.

No. GG-243.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 12, 1978.

Raymond J. Sweeney, Jr. and Carlton P. Maddox of Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Sulik & Nichols, Jacksonville, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a denial of modification of child support and alimony. Appellant sought to have the duty to pay temporarily terminated during a period of incarceration. The trial court denied his request and we affirm.

In arguing his appeal, appellant contends that the refusal to terminate his obligation during his incarceration exposes him to contempt sanctions immediately upon his release. We point out that any finding of contempt would have to comport with the requirements of *Faircloth v. Faircloth,*339 So.2d 650 (Fla.1976).

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, Acting C. J., and MELVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
February 23, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

THE CITY OF HOUSTON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00648

- CV V.

PRINCESS ELAINE STEW ART , Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Princess Elaine Stewart, signed July 21, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the
court below AFFIRMED

.
We order appellant, The City of Houston, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2274

CHARLES WILLIAM LEVY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COUNTY OF FAIRFAX,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, District

Judge. (CA-97-1151-A)

Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 9, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles William Levy, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Everett Rose, III,

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary

judgment to the County of Fairfax on his civil action arising out

of his eviction from his apartment. Because there is no evidence in

the record to support any claim against Fairfax County, we affirm.

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