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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8194 

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to Waverly B. 

Woodson, Jr., for acts of valor during World War II. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 

Mr. TRONE (for himself, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. RUSH, Ms. NORTON, Ms. 

MOORE, Mrs. HAYES, Ms. PRESSLEY, Mr. BROWN of Maryland, Mr. 

HOYER, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. RASKIN, and Mr. 

MFUME) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor 

to Waverly B. Woodson, Jr., for acts of valor during 

World War II. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR AWARD OF THE MEDAL 

4 OF HONOR TO WAVERLY B. WOODSON, JR., 

5 FOR ACTS OF VALOR DURING WORLD WAR II. 

6 (a) WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS.—Notwith7 standing the time limitations specified in section 7274 of 

8 title 10, United States Code, or any other time limitation 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8194 IH

1 with respect to the awarding of certain medals to persons 

2 who served in the Armed Forces, the President may award 

3 the Medal of Honor under section 7271 of such title to 

4 Waverly B. Woodson, Jr., for the acts of valor during 

5 World War II described in subsection (b). 

6 (b) ACTS OF VALOR DESCRIBED.—The acts of valor 

7 referred to in subsection (a) are the actions of Waverly 

8 B. Woodson, Jr., on June 6, 1944, at Omaha Beach when, 

9 as a Corporal in the 320th Barrage Balloon Battalion, he 

10 saved the lives of dozens, if not hundreds, of his fellow 

11 soldiers over the course of 30 hours, despite being struck 

12 by shrapnel while aboard his Landing Craft Tank and 

13 wounded in his groin and back, actions for which the his14 torical record indicates General John C.H. Lee rec15 ommended Corporal Woodson be awarded the Medal of 

16 Honor. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### John S. GATEWOOD, Appellant, v. Harriet Louise CURRY, Appellee.

No. 69-93.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 24, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 99-1**

**CERTIFICATION OF WILLIAM BELZBERG, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF WESTMINSTER CAPITAL, INC.**

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarterended September 30, 2002 of Westminster Capital, Inc. (the “Issuer”).  

I, William Belzberg, the Chief Executive Officer of Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

|  
(i)

the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 
 
 
 
(ii)

the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer

 

Dated: November 14, 2002

 
 
By

/s/  WILLIAM BELZBERG

  
 
 
  
 
  
**William Belzberg, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer**

   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.2A

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF

                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                 OF P-COM, INC.

(Pursuant to Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law)

P-COM, Inc. (the "Corporation"), a corporation organized and existing under the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

FIRST:    That a resolution was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the
          Corporation setting forth a proposed amendment to the Restated
          Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, and declaring said
          amendment to be advisable and recommended for approval by the
          stockholders of the Corporation. The resolution setting forth the
          proposed amendment is as follows:

RESOLVED, that the first paragraph of Article IV of the Restated Certificate of
          Incorporation of this corporation is amended such that, as amended,
          said paragraph shall read in its entirety as follows:

          "This Corporation is authorized to issue two (2) classes of stock, to
          be designated, respectively, "Common Stock" and "Preferred Stock." The
          total number of shares that this Corporation is authorized to issue is
          One Hundred Forty-Seven Million (147,000,000) shares. One Hundred
          Forty-Five Million (145,000,000) shares shall be Common Stock, par
          value $.0001 per share, and Two Million (2,000,000) shares shall be
          Preferred Stock, par value $.0001 per share."

SECOND:   That, thereafter, the stockholders of said Corporation approved the
          amendment by written consent of the outstanding shares in accordance
          with Section 228 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

THIRD:    That the foregoing amendment has been duly adopted in accordance with
          the provisions of Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

FOURTH:   That the capital of the Corporation shall not be reduced under or by
          reason of said amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment of Restated Certificate of
Incorporation has been executed this 20th day of October, 2000.

P-COM, INC.


By: /s/ James J. Sobczak
James J. Sobczak
President
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60399 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DERRICK J. HANDSPIKE, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Mississippi

(4:94-CR-98-S)

February 3, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Derrick J. Handspike appeals his c onviction by a jury of conspiracy to

possess cocaine base with intent to distribute and for possession of more than

50 grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.2

§§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. His appeal purports to challenge the sufficiency of the

evidence.

Our review of the record and briefs reflects th at Handspike actually

challenges credibility evaluations made by the jury, a challenge rarely accepted at

the appellate level. Our review discloses no reversible error and the convictions

and sentences are AFFIRMED.
#### D & R Realty Corporation, Landlord, *v.*Gluckman & Strauch, Inc., Tenant.

Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan,

July 16, 1953.

*Pincus Gashman*for landlord.

*Isaac Gluckman*and *George Weisbrod*for tenant.

Chimera, J.

It is not disputed that the rent payable by the tenant on the “ freeze ” date (March 1, 1943) was $178.75 per month; that commencing with the month of February, 1945, tenant paid 15% above the *“*freeze ” date amount, or $205.57 per month. Conceded also, is the fact that in June of 1945, landlord commenced a proceeding under section 4 of the Commercial Rent Law (L. 1945, ch. 3) as a result of which, the Supreme Court fixed the reasonable rent at 27%% above the base rent of March 1,1943, or $227.91 per month. The last amount has been paid by tenant to the landlord since January, 1946.

This is a nonpayment summary proceeding in which the landlord seeks to recover the subject commercial space by reason of the tenant’s refusal to pay the difference between $227.91 and $262.10 claimed to be due pursuant to the 1953 amendments to the emergency statutes. (Commercial Rent Law, L. 1945, ch. 3, as amd.)

*1127The question simply put, is: —Does the law as it is presently constituted, authorize this landlord to demand and receive an additional 15% increase of rent?

The increase of rent authorized by subdivision (e) of section 2 of the Commercial Rent Law, as amended by chapter 451 of the Laws of 1953, is applicable only to that class of tenants who on and after January 1, 1947, were paying no more than the emergency rent, specifically defined in the statute itself (supra): “ (e) ‘ Emergency rent.’ The rent reserved or payable under any lease, agreement or tenancy of commercial space in force on March first, nineteen hundred forty-three, plus fifteen per centum of such rent * *

In other words, increase is permissible only as to persons who were on or after January 1, 1947, paying no more than *“ such emergency rent without an increase pursuant to any of the provisions of this act *** (Italics ours.)

In such a case as is here presented, where the landlord was receiving a rental in excess of the *“*emergency rent ” as in said statute defined, no additional increase may be granted.

The insertion in the statute of the 1947 date has been the source of much confusion in the minds of lawyers and laymen alike, but the intention of the Legislature is clear when one reads the report of the State commission dated March 5, 1953. “ It is recommended, therefore, that so-called *‘*statutory ’ tenants, i.e., tenants whose leases have expired and who continue in occupancy under the emergency statutes merely by paying the emergency rent, who have not volunteered to pay or whose landlords have refrained from compelling them to pay an increase in rent pursuant to appropriate provisions of the emergency acts, pay an increase in rent of 15% exceeding the amount of the emergency rent. ’ ’ (Report, State Temp. Comm, to Study Rents and Rental Conditions, N. Y. Legis. Doc., [1953] No. 43, pp. 19-20.)

The question must be answered in the negative.
#### GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Robert E. SMITH and John Michael Smith, a minor, Appellees.

No. O-434.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 1, 1972.

Robert P. Gaines, of Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, Pensacola, for appellant.

R. P. Warfield, of Levin, Warfield, Graff, Mabie & Rosenbloum, Pensacola, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In Mullís v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 252 So.2d 229, the Florida Supreme Court held that exclusionary clauses in automobile liability insur-*91anee policies having the effect of restricting the circumstances under which an insured, as defined in the policy, is afforded uninsured motorist coverage are not permissible under the provisions of Section 627.0851, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and therefore against public policy.

Accordingly, the declaratory judgment reviewed herein which declares that a similar exclusionary clause contained in appellant’s policy is invalid must be affirmed on authority of Mullís, supra.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.3

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

         I, Joseph A. Santangelo, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley AcT of 2002, that:

                  1. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Orleans Homebuilders,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.





Date:    May 12, 2005



                                                    Joseph A. Santangelo
                                                    --------------------
                                                    Joseph A. Santangelo
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
262 La. 308

#### James H. STURCKE v. Bessie S. CLARK, the Hanover Insurance Company.

No. 52546.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 22, 1972.

In re: Mrs. Bessie S. Clark and Dan Clark, Jr. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 261 So.2d 717.

Application denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
### Dry FGD Pump

House Cooling

Towers Makeup Water

CT Clarifier

NPDES Outfall Dry FGD Reactor and Baghouse Dry FGD Mix Tanks

Flue Gas

Solid Byproduct Wet FGD Treatment Plant

Wet FGD Blowdown Storage Wet FGD Adsorber

Dry FGD Makeup Water
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 16 (Friday, January 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 4158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01422]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9013-2]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 01/13/2014 
Through 01/17/2014 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html

EIS No. 20140012, Draft EIS, HHS, GA, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention Roybal Campus 2015-2025 Master Plan, Comment Period Ends: 
03/10/2014, Contact: George Chandler 404-245-2763

EIS No. 20140013, Third Final Supplement, USACE, NM, Rio Grande 
Floodway, San Acacia to Bosque del Apache Unit, Review Period Ends: 02/
24/2014, Contact: Jerry Nieto 505-342-3362

EIS No. 20140014, Second Draft EIS (Tiering), FHWA, IL, Illiana 
Corridor Project Tier Two Transportation System Improvements, Comment 
Period Ends: 03/10/2014, Contact: Catherine A. Batey 217-492-4600

EIS No. 20140015, Final EIS, NPS, WY, Remote Vaccination Program to 
Reduce the Prevalence of Brucellosis in Yellowstone Bison, Review 
Period Ends: 02/24/2014, Contact: Jennifer Carpenter 307-344-2528

EIS No. 20140016, Draft EIS, USFWS, OH, Ballville Dam Project, Comment 
Period Ends: 03/26/2014, Contact: Brian Elkington 612-713-5168

EIS No. 20140017, Final EIS, USMC, CA, LEGISLATIVE--Renewal of the 
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Land Withdrawal, Review Period 
Ends: 02/24/2014, Contact: Ms. Kelly Finn 619-532-4452

EIS No. 20140018, Draft EIS, USN, WA, Northwest Training and Testing, 
Comment Period Ends: 03/25/2014, Contact: John Mosher 360-257-3234

    Dated: January 21, 2014.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-01422 Filed 1-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUSSEIN S. HUSSEIN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

GLENN MILLER,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-15436

D.C. No. 06-CV-00710-LRH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Hussein S. Hussein appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim and a

state law defamation claim arising out of statements made by fellow faculty

FILED

OCT 01 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-15436

member Glenn Miller. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo, Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2003), and we

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hussein’s First

Amendment retaliation claim because Hussein failed to raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether Miller’s statements are actionable under § 1983. See

Blair v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 608 F.3d 540, 543-46 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing

requirements for a First Amendment retaliation claim); Gini v. Las Vegas Metro.

Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[D]amage to reputation is not

actionable under § 1983 unless it is accompanied by ‘some more tangible

interests.’” (citation omitted)).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hussein’s

defamation claim because a reasonable person, hearing Miller’s statements in

context, would be likely to understand the statements to be an expression of

Miller’s opinion and not a statement of existing fact. See Pegasus v. Reno

Newspapers, Inc., 57 P.3d 82, 87-88 (Nev. 2003) (discussing factors for

determining whether a statement is actionable for purposes of defamation claim).

AFFIRMED.
YEAR UTILITY_ID UTILITY_NAME MAIL_STATE

2009 6957 Garkane Energy Coop, Inc UT

2009 9267 Hoosier Energy R E C, Inc IN

2009 13749 NorVal Electric Cooperative, Inc MT

2009 14712 Pemiscot-Dunklin Elec Coop Inc MO

2009 16529 Sac County Rural Electric Coop IA

2009 17698 Southwestern Electric Power Co OH

2009 18476 Tara Energy, Inc TX

2009 19281 Turlock Irrigation District CA

2009 40211 Wabash Valley Power Assn, Inc IN

2009 56258 TexRep2 LLC MA

2009 56315 EDF Industrial Power Services (TX), LLC TX

2009 56379 MC Squared Energy Services, LLC IL
OWNERSHIP MERGERDATE MERGERCOMPANY NEWPARENT

C 01-Jul-09 Twin Cities Municipal

C 07-Jan-09 Holland Energy, LLC Hoosier Energy REC, Inc.

C 01-Jan-09 Valley Electric Cooperative NorVal Electric Cooperative

C 01-Jan-09 AMEREN UE

C 01-Jan-10 Glidden REC Raccoon Valley Electric Cooperative

I 29-Dec-09 Oxbow Lignite Company, LLC Southwestern Electric Power Co

R 01-Sep-09 Fulcrum Power Services, LP Fulcrum Power Services, LP

P 15-Jul-09 Windy Point Turlock Irrigation District

C 07-Jan-09 Holland Energy LLC

R 01-Jun-09 Eagle Industrial Power Services TX, LLC Eagle Industrial Power Services TX, LLC

R 01-May-09 TexRep2, LLC Eagle Industrial Power Services (TX) LLC

R 01-Dec-09 RRI Energy Solutions East LLC RRI Energy Inc
MERGERADDRESS MERGERCITY MERGERSTATE MERGERZIP5 MERGERZIP4

RR 2 Beecher City IL 62444

1130 Hwy 2 West Glasgow MT 59230

ST LOUIS MO 63100

28725 Highway 30 Glidden IA 51443 0486

1 Riverside Plaza Columbus OH 43215

10010 Houston TX 77056

P.O. Box 949 Turlock CA 95381

P.O. Box 65 Beecher City IL 62414

Houston Pkwy Houston TX 77041

Pkwy N #250 Houston TX 77041

1000 Main Street Inc Houston TX 77002
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Transcript of the public hearing held on 2/19/13 in East St. Louis, 

Illinois.
#### Wenceslao Manuel LORA, Appellant, v. MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee.

No. 69-816.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 26, 1970.

Cristol & Rose, Miami, 'or appellant.

Stephens, Demos, Magill & Thornton, and Henry T. Courtney, Miami, for appel-lee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from a final summary judgment for the defendant, Maulé Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff sued the defendant for damages allegedly caused by its negligence. Defendant answered and alleged, inter alia, the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. After some discovery the defendant moved for and was granted a summary final judgment. The plaintiff has appealed.

The question on appeal is whether the trial court erred in ruling, and holding, as a matter of law that the plaintiff assumed the risk created by the negligence of the defendant. The trial judge stated “the record * * * establishes that he (plaintiff) assumed the risk here.”

The essential elements of the doctrine of assumption of risk are voluntariness of exposure to danger and knowledge and appreciation of the danger. 23 Fla. Jur. Negligence § 70 and Bartholf v. Baker, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 480.

Plaintiff concedes that the holding of the trial court may have been proper as to the voluntariness of exposure and knowledge of the danger. He argues that there was no evidence presented to show that he appreciated the nature, character and extent of the danger involved. We concur. While there may have been some evidence that plaintiff appreciated the danger involved we do not find that this necessary element was conclusively established by the defendant. See Bartholf, supra. A motion for summary judgment should be denied where the moving party fails to conclusively establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Holl v. Talcott, *744Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40; Shollenberger v. Baskin, Fla.App. 1969, 227 So.2d 79; Chirico v. Dew, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 597; and Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Fla.App. 1958, 105 So.2d 915.

There remains in this cause a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff appreciated the danger involved because the defendant did not conclusively carry its burden of establishing this element in its motion for summary judgment.

Having determined that the summary final judgment was improperly rendered, there is no need to comment on the other points plaintiff relies upon for reversal.

The summary final judgment for the defendant is reversed and the cause remanded for further action consistent herewith.

It is so ordered.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 666

To amend the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide that any rescission of budget authority proposed by the President take effect unless

specifically disapproved by the adoption of a joint resolution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 1993

Mr. DORNAN (for himself and Mr. SHAYS) introduced the following bill; which

was referred jointly to the Committees on Government Operations and Rules

A BILL

To amend the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide

that any rescission of budget authority proposed by the

President take effect unless specifically disapproved by

the adoption of a joint resolution.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF DEFINITION OF RESCISSION

4 BILL.

5 Paragraph (3) of section 1011 of the Impoundment

6 Control Act of 1974 is amended by striking out ‘‘rescinds,

7 in whole or in part,’’ and by inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘ex8 presses its disapproval of’’.
2

•HR 666 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO MAKE AVAILABLE FOR OBLI2 GATION.

3 Subsection (b) of section 1012 of the Impoundment

4 Control Act of 1974 is amended by striking out ‘‘rescind5 ing all or part of’’ and by inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘dis6 approving the rescission of’’.

7 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

8 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect

9 with respect to fiscal years beginning after September 30,

10 1993.

Æ