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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8112 

To increase the Federal share provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act for a certain time frame during 

fiscal year 2020. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 25, 2020 

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself, Mr. BERA, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. 

CISNEROS, Mr. COSTA, Mr. DESAULNIER, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. GARAMENDI, 

Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. LAMALFA, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. 

LOFGREN, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. NORTON, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. ROUDA, and Ms. SPEIER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To increase the Federal share provided under the Robert 

T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act for a certain time frame during fiscal year 2020. 

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 ‘‘Increase Federal Dis5 aster Cost Share Act of 2020’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8112 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE OF FEDERAL SHARE. 

2 Notwithstanding sections 203(h)(1), 403(b), 

3 403(c)(4), 404(a), 406(b), 408(d), 408(g)(2), 

4 428(e)(2)(B), 503(a), and 614(b) of the Robert T. Staf5 ford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) beginning on January 20, 2020, and 

7 ending on December 31, 2020, the Federal share of assist8 ance provided under such sections shall be not less than 

9 90 percent of the eligible cost of such assistance. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Edward Hannes, Plaintiff, *v.*George B. De Luca, as District Attorney of Bronx County, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

October 15, 1952.

*Edward Ilannes,*plaintiff in person.

*George B. Be Luca, District Attorney,*defendant in person.

Eder, J.

Motion to vacate and set aside a “Bequest” to plaintiff to appear at the office of defendant, as District Attorney of Bronx County, and to enjoin him and his assistants from examining plaintiff pursuant thereto, is denied.

It is a procedure adopted by the District Attorneys in New York City to conduct in certain instances preliminary examinations to determine whether to proceed under a complaint, at all, or before a Magistrate’s Court or before the grand jury. The “ Bequest ” is not an official or statutory or legal process of any sort; nor is it sanctioned by decisional law. It is a sensible and convenient mode of procedure, nonetheless, and in many instances desirable and preferable.

Since it is not a “ process ” of any kind but, as its very term indicates, a mere *1 ‘*request ’ ’, the matter of appearance is wholly optional and voluntary and can be complied with or refused. If so, there is no penalty. It is not a subpoena; the impression is sometimes gained by the laity that it is a legal process because it bears the title of the office of the District Attorney, and his signature (in print) — as such official — and states that such appearance is requested of the party as a “ witness ” in a *563“ criminal action ”— *“*prosecuted by the People of the State of New York, against..............”. Certainly this conveys the impression that this form of ‘ *‘*request ’ ’ is the equivalent of a subpoena and that attendance under the request is compulsory. Be that as it may, the indubitable fact remains the *“*request ” is not legal process and may be ignored. Hence, there can be no claim of abuse of *11*legal process ”, which process should therefore be vacated and set aside and proceedings thereunder restrained.

There is, in consequence, no cause of action maintainable for the relief sought, nor is there power in the court to set aside and vacate a 6 ‘ Bequest ’ ’ for appearance or to restrain any action by the District Attorney thereunder.

The instant action is purely one academic and meaningless.

Since there is no cross motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency in that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the court at this time cannot grant such relief. Settle order.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00218-CR

Jesse James Tabor, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR20,307, HONORABLE EDWARD P. MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant=s motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). The 

appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed on Appellant=s Motion

Filed: June 26, 2003

Do Not Publish
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 4.17

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE


$100,000.00
Houston, Texas                                                      June 5, 2001


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, iExalt, Inc., a Nevada Corporation (Maker), promises to pay
to Randy James, Box 908 Friendswood, Texas 77549 (Holder) the principal sum of
One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) with interest from date at the rate
of 22,500 restricted shares to be issued, per month, plus 50,000 restricted
shares if total amount of Promissory Note is delivered to iExalt, Inc. prior to
June 30, 2001. In addition to the above, Holder has the right to convert up to
twenty-five percent (25%) of Principal to restricted common stock at the rate of
sixty-five percent (65%) of the closing price of the common stock traded on the
date of this Note. Principal is payable in lawful money of the United States of
America at 12000 Aerospace Avenue, Suite 375, Houston, Texas 77034, or at such
place as may later be designated by written notice from the Holder to the Maker
hereof, on the date and in the manner following:

         All principal and accrued interest is due on or before six (6) months
         from the date of this note, or December 31, 2001.

         This Note is secured by specific rights attached hereto.

         Both parties understand that the amount or value above may exceed the
         maximum interest allowed by law, under the statutes of the state of
         Texas, and acknowledge that the terms are reasonable given the nature
         of the loan.

                                            iExalt, Inc.
                                            a Nevada corporation



                                            By: /s/ Chris L. Sisk
                                                Chris L. Sisk
                                                Its Chief Financial Officer

Amount: $100,000 Received on:28th day of June, 2001


                                      37
|Exhibit 31(c)                                                                                  
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification                                                         
|I, Lewis Hay III, Chief Executive Officer of Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), certify that:
|1.                                                                                             
|2.                                                                                             
|3.                                                                                             
|4.                                                                                             
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|5.                                                                                             
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|Date:   November 11, 2003                                                                      
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David E. DUKE and James K. Warner.

No. 61712.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 31, 1978.

In re: David E. Duke and James K. Warner, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Jefferson.

Granted. The petition of the relators in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Patrick E. Carr, Judge of the 24th Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Jefferson, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 14th day of April, 1978, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this Court why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
Exhibit 99.1








August 28, 2014Analyst Contact:T.D. Eureste918-588-7167Media Contact:Stephanie Higgins918-591-5026





ONEOK to Participate in Barclays CEO Energy Conference


TULSA, Okla . - Aug. 28, 2014 - ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE) will present at the Barclays CEO Energy Conference in New York City on Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2014.


Terry K. Spencer, ONEOK president and chief executive officer, will present at the conference on Tuesday, Sept. 2, at 2:25 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (1:25 p.m. Central Daylight Time).


Spencer and Derek S. Reiners, ONEOK senior vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer, also will conduct a series of one-on-one meetings with investment-community representatives at the conference.


The conference will be webcast and will be accessible on ONEOK’s website, www.oneok.com . A replay of the webcast will be archived for 30 days.





The presentation will be posted on its website that morning, beginning at 8 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (7 a.m. Central Daylight Time).





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


ONEOK, Inc. (pronounced ONE-OAK) (NYSE: OKE) is the general partner and as of June 30, 2014, owns 38.5 percent of ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS), one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, which is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation's premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers.  ONEOK is a FORTUNE 500 company and is included in Standard & Poor's (S&P) 500 Stock Index.





For more information, visit the websites at www.oneok.com or www.oneokpartners.com .





For the latest news about ONEOK and ONEOK Partners, follow us on Twitter @ONEOKNews and @ONEOKPartners .











# # #
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         223,523
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  706,202
<ALLOWANCES>                                   134,000
<INVENTORY>                                     94,164
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,188,206
<PP&E>                                       1,518,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                 573,010
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,213,080
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          995,369
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,220
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,402
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,174,753
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,213,080
<SALES>                                        409,818
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,149,011
<CGS>                                          376,197
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  376,197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,933
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,927,990)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,927,990)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,927,990)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICEROF FOREST OIL CORPORATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and in connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2006 that is being filed concurrently withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned officer of Forest Oil Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifiesthat:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                   | /s/ H. CRAIG  CLARK                     |
|-------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| May 10, 2006 | H. Craig Clark                          |
|              | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

 

 

----
263 La. 340

#### STATE of Louisiana v. John W. BROUSSARD.

No. 52635.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 26, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1972.

*248Leroy J. Falgout, Metairie, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Ma-moulides, Dist. Atty., Robert B. Evans, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of violation of Jefferson Parish Ordinance #8053, Section 3-19, Paragraph 9 (allowing “B” drinking) and appeals.

Although it appearsmn the transcript of the trial that bills of exceptions were reserved, none were perfected as required by La.C.Cr.P. Arts. 844, 845. Therefore, we are limited on appeal to a review of errors discoverable on the face of the pleadings and proceedings. State v. Ash, 257 La. 337, 242 So.2d 535 (1971). We find none.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

BARHAM, Justice

(dissenting).

Bills of exception were reserved but by a combination of fault by the clerk, the court and counsel for defendant they were not perfected. Since the fault is not alone attributable to defendant we should remand for perfection of bills. Appeals are favored in law. An effective appeal cannot be had here without a review of the bills of exceptions and the necessary evidence. We have the authority to afford relief and an adequate appeal.
#### STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT v. KENDRY.

No. 37736.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 213 So.2d 23.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40966

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ULISES FERNANDEZ-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-97-CR-83-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 11, 1998

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Ulises Fernandez-Garcia appeals his sentence for

unlawfully entering the United States after having been

previously deported. Fernandez-Garcia argues that his sentence

was improperly enhanced pursuant to Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b),

based upon his prior commission of an aggravated felony, because

the charging indictment did not mention the aggravated felony. 

His argument is foreclosed by United States v. Vasquez-Olvera,

999 F.2d 943 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
#### UVESCO, INCORPORATED, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. The Honorable Russell E. SEAY, Jr., etc., Respondent.

No. 73-116.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 6, 1973.

Cause denied.

Prohibition denied.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1296-1297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-477]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 227

[Docket Number 950407093-6298-03; I.D. 012595A]

Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Central 
California Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU); 
Correction

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Correction to final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is making a technical correction to the final rule (61 FR 
56138, October 31, 1996) determining that the Central California Coast 
Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) is a threatened 
species. The correction specifies that the ESU consists of all coho 
salmon naturally reproduced in streams between Punta Gorda in Humboldt 
County, CA, and the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz County, CA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 2, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest 
Region, (310) 980-4021; or Marta

[[Page 1297]]

Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need for Correction

    On October 31, 1996, NMFS published a final rule listing the 
Central California Coho Salmon ESU as a threatened species (61 FR 
56138). In the last paragraph of the ``Listing Determination'' section 
of the preamble to the rule (see page 56146, bottom of second column 
and top of third column), NMFS clearly defined the Central California 
Coho Salmon ESU as consisting of ``all coho salmon naturally reproduced 
in streams between Punta Gorda, Humboldt County, CA, and the San 
Lorenzo River, Santa Cruz County, CA.'' However, the definition of the 
listed ESU in the regulatory text codified at section 227.4(h) was 
ambiguous as to the geographic extent of the listed ESU and whether the 
listed ESU specifically included hatchery populations or only naturally 
reproduced populations.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication on October 31, 1996, of the final rule 
(I.D. 012595A), which was the subject of FR Doc. 96-56138, is corrected 
as follows:

Sec. 227.4--[Corrected]

    On page 56149, in the third column, in Sec. 227.4, paragraph (h) is 
corrected to read as follows:
* * * * *
    (h) Central California Coast Coho Salmon. Includes all coho salmon 
naturally reproduced in streams between Punta Gorda in Humboldt County, 
CA, and the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz County, CA.
* * * * *

    Dated: January 3, 1997.
P. Michael Payne,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 97-477 Filed 1-6-97; 1:43 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
```
Section 1350 Certifications

EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
September 30, 2008, (the Report) of First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc., the (Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                                                                                   
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 7, 2008 |  | /s/ Sylvan J. Dlesk                                                               
|                       |  | Sylvan J. Dlesk                                                                   
|                       |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer/Director                          
|                       |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                                                     
|                       | 
|Date: November 7, 2008 |  | /s/ Francie P. Reppy                                                              
|                       |  | Francie P. Reppy                                                                  
|                       |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|                       |  | (Chief Financial Officer)
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Samson GUIDRY.

No. 62086.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 28, 1978.

In re: Samson Guidry, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for stay order. Parish of Jefferson.

Writ denied.