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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 781

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to ban activities

of political action committees in elections for Federal office and to

reduce the limitation on contributions to candidates by persons other

than multicandidate political committees.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1993

Mr. MAZZOLI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to

ban activities of political action committees in elections

for Federal office and to reduce the limitation on contributions to candidates by persons other than

multicandidate political committees.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 781 IH

1 SECTION 1. BAN ON ACTIVITIES OF POLITICAL ACTION

2 COMMITTEES IN ELECTIONS FOR FEDERAL

3 OFFICE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Federal Election

5 Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended

6 by adding at the end the following new section:

7 ‘‘BAN ON FEDERAL ELECTION ACTIVITIES BY POLITICAL

8 ACTION COMMITTEES

9 ‘‘SEC. 324. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision

10 of this Act, no person other than an individual or a politi11 cal committee may make contributions, solicit or receive

12 contributions, or make expenditures for the purpose of in13 fluencing an election for Federal office’’.

14 SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO

15 CANDIDATES BY PERSONS OTHER THAN

16 MULTICANDIDATE POLITICAL COMMITTEES.

17 Section 315(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Cam18 paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(A)) is amended

19 by striking out ‘‘$1,000’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

20 ‘‘$100’’.

Æ
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2240

___________ Stacey M. Brown, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States City of St. Louis Public Safety * District Court for the Department, * Eastern District of Missouri. * Appellee, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Steven Readye, * * Defendant. *

___________ Submitted: November 7, 1997 Filed: December 30, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, an d MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________The H onorable Lawrence O. Davis, United States Magistrate Judge for th e 1 Eastern Dis trict of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition b y consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2- PER CURIAM. Stace yBrown appeals from the district court & s order granting summary 1 judgme nt to her employer, the City of St. Louis Public Safety Department, in thi s hos tile environment sexual harassment action brought under Title VII of the Civi l Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17. We affirm.
In July 1 994, Brown, a correctional officer, complained to a supervisor tha t Brow n & s co-worker, Lieutenant Steven Readye, had on three occasions mad e unwelcome sexual comments to her, had once touched her inappropriately, and ha d blown ki sses at her. A meeting was immediately held at which Readye wa s reprimanded and required to apologize to Brown; Brown was told to report any further incidents. Approximately two weeks later, when Brown reported that Readye ha d kissed her on the ear, Readye was immediately transferred to another shift and wa s require dto enter the next sexual harassment training program; an investigation wa s begun that resulted in Readye & s eight-day suspension without pa y. No further incidents of harassment occurred.
As one element of her hostile environment sexual harassment claim, Brown was re quiredto prove the employer knew or should have known of the harassment, ye t failed to take “proper remedial action.” See Quick v. Donaldson Co. , 90 F.3d 1372 , 1377 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Davis v. Tri-State Mack Distribs., Inc. , 981 F.2d 340, 343-44 (8th Cir. 1992) (upon notice, the employer must take “ # prompt remedial action reasonably calculated to end the harassment & ”) (quoted case omitted). Under th e circumstances of this case, we agree with the district court that the employer & s response to the harassment was sufficient as a matter of law. See Barrett v. Omaha Nat & l Bank , 726 F.2d 424, 426-27 (8th Cir. 1984) (upholding district court & s factual finding of-3-

appropriate emplo yer response where shortly after complaint, employer investigated, placedalleged harasser on probation, and threatened termination if there was further mis conduct); cf. Davis , 981 F.2d at 341, 343 (finding requiring harasser to apologize insuf ficient response, where alleged harasser apologized twice, and his conduc t worsened after each apology). Accordingly we affirm. A true copy.
Attest:
CLE RK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT

.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 14, 2017

No. 04-17-00684-CV

Pamela A. POPEJOY,

Appellant

v.

Huebner Creek VILLAS, II,

Appellee

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

Trial Court No. 2017CV00533

Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief is GRANTED. We 

ORDER appellant to file her brief on or before December 27, 2017.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of November, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
# fAJ\-LOIO-OY14 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA hasthis proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted National Business Aircl":lft Association E.1i Cotli Regional Airline- Association Aircraft Owners & PilolS Association ATA DaveLotterer Robert Hackman Craig Fabian 

### Response
Case 8:22-cv-00868 Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 17 

Exhibit B 

p. 1 of 2
Case 8:22-cv-00868 Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 18 

Exhibit B 

p. 2 of 2
Exhibit 99(b)


                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 Beard Company's (the "Company")  Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period  ended  March 31,  2003,  as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, Herb  Mee,  Jr.,
President and 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, to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully  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.

Date:    May 13, 2003               By: HERB MEE, JR.
                                        Herb Mee, Jr.
                                        President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1



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




     The undersigned, James A. McIntyre, the Chief Executive Officer of Fremont
General Corporation (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, hereby
certifies that, to the best of my knowledge:

          (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
     2004 of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (ii) the financial statements and disclosures contained in the Report
     fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
     results of operations of the Company.


Dated:  May 10, 2004


                                      /s/   JAMES A. McINTYRE
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      James A. McIntyre, Chief Executive Officer
#### EASTERN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. Thomas EGAN, Respondent.

No. 41171.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 29, 1972.

Rehearing Denied May, 17, 1972.

Robert A. Jarvis, Jr., of Shutts & Bowen, Miami, for petitioner.

Frates, Floyd, Pearson & Stewart, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. After argument and upon further consideration, we have determined the writ was improvidently issued. The writ must be and is discharged and the petition is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, CARLTON, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, C. J., dissents with opinion.

ROBERTS, Chief Justice

(dissenting) :

I respectfully dissent because in my opinion it was error to strike the defense of statute of limitations which would have barred the claim. The respondent-plaintiff had too little, entirely too late.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, W. Roger Haughton, Chief Executive Officer of The PMI Group, Inc. (Company), hereby certify that
the Annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                                  
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 14, 2006 |  | /S/    W. ROGER
HAUGHTONW. Roger
Haughton Chief Executive Officer
|                     



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6638

ROBERT LEWIS DURANT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CA-02-451-2)

Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lewis Durant, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lewis Durant seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Durant that failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Durant failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Durant has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

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.

DISMISSED
#### Phillip OPPLEMAN, Appellant, v. Betty Eve OPPLEMAN, Appellee.

No. 73-271.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 22, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
FEATHER RIVER AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

IN RE: 

RESOLUTION ADOPTING 

RULE 3.19, 

RESOLUTION NO. 1998-__ 6_ 

VEHICLE AND MOBILE EQUIPMENT 

COATING OPERATIONS 

WHEREAS, various provisions of division 16 of the Health & Safety Code authorize 

the Feather River Air Quality Management District Board to adopt, amend, or repeal 

rules and regulations; and 

WHEREAS, the Board seeks the implementation of consistent air quality planning 

through the reduction of emissions of volatile organic compounds by the application of 

controls to vehicle and mobile coating operations as identified in Rule 3.19; and 

WHEREAS, the Board has held a public hearing soliciting comments, concerns and 

recommendations on proposed rule 3.19. 

NOW, THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS HAVE BEEN MADE: 

1. It has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Feather River Air 

Quality Management District Board that a need exists to adopt Rule 3.19. 

2. Health and Safety Code section 40702 authorizes the adoption of rules and 

regulations necessary to execute the powers and duties of the District. 

3. There is no indication at this time that Rule 3.19 is not written in such 

a manner that the persons affected by it can easily understand it. 

4. The regulation has been reviewed by the Air Resources Board which has 

determined the regulation is consistent with existing statutes, court 

decisions, and state and federal regulations. Any duplication with 

existing state or federal regulations is necessary or proper to execute 

the powers and duties of the Feather River Air Quality Management 

District. 

5. Adoption of Rule 3.19 will fulfill one of the commitments made in the 1997 

District Attainment Plan for reduction of ozone precursors. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Rule 3.19 - Vehicle and Mobile Equipment 

Coating Operations, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated 

herein by this reference, is hereby adopted. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Feather River Air Quality Management District at a 

special meeting on August 3, 1998 by the following vote: 

AYES: Directors Munger, Schrader, Akin, Helder and Cartoscelli. 

NOES: None 

ABSENT: Directors Amaro ABSTAIN: None
Attachment 1

WVPA Wabash Water Balance Diagram

Attachment 2

WVPA Wabash Presentation







[The remainder of the WVPA Wabash presentation is held as Confidential Business Information]
#### Arthur Lee McKEEVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 77-1808, 77-1809 and 77-1810.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 14, 1978.

*906Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Stephannie DaCosta, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

Arthur McKeever appeals the revocation of his probation, which was predicated upon three charged violations. Because one of the charged violations was not established and the other two were technical violations, we reverse.

Appellant was placed on probation for three separate offenses, grand larceny and two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny. During the probationary period, affidavits and warrants were filed charging him with.having violated his probation by (1) failing to file three of his required monthly reports, in violation of condition 2; (2) shoplifting, in violation of condition 4; and (3) failing to make four of the required monthly payments for the cost of his supervision, in violation of condition 10.

At appellant’s probation revocation hearing, appellant admitted allegations (1) and (3) (the reporting and monetary violations— conditions 2 and 10), but denied allegation (2) (the shoplifting violation of condition 4). No evidence was offered to establish that appellant violated condition 4.

At the conclusion of the revocation hearing the trial court sentenced appellant to five years imprisonment on each of the underlying offenses, two of the sentences to run concurrently and the third to run consecutive to the first two. The trial court did so without expressly stating which conditions it found him to have violated.

The probation revocation orders which were subsequently entered by the trial court recite that appellant violated conditions 2, 4, and 10 of his probation.

Inasmuch as the allegation charging appellant with a shoplifting-violation of condition 4 was neither admitted nor proved, the trial court could not properly find that appellant violated that condition or base the revocation of appellant’s probation upon such a finding. *See Bernhardt v. State,*288 So.2d 490 (Fla.1974). While it is undisputed that appellant violated the terms of his probation by failing to file monthly reports and failing to make monthly payments, we are uncertain whether the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the sentence it did solely on those grounds. Accordingly, the order of revocation is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. *See Tuff v. State,*338 So.2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

GRIMES, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-495549, No. 333-30473, No. 333-89908 and No.33-
64477) and Form S-3 (No. 333-44559, No. 333-30473, No. 333-70937 and No. 333-
45463) of our report dated April 20, 1999, except as to Note 13 to the
consolidated financial statements, which is as of March 30, 2000 appearing in
P-Com, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the Fiscal year ended December 31,
1998.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
March 30, 2000
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1113

JOY A. ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ARGENBRIGHT, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-00-821-A) Submitted: August 10, 2001 Decided: October 9, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sheila Venable, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Charles A. Hawkins, Sheldon W. Snipe, TROUTMAN SANDERS, L.L.P., Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Joy A. Anderson appeals the district court order granting summary judgment to Argenbright, Inc., denying her motion for summary judgment and dismissing her employment discrimination complaint. Anderson also appeals the district court’s failure to award her punitive damages and to defer ruling on a motion in limine. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s findings from the bench and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. Argenbright, Inc. , CA-00-821-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2000). 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         000935499
<NAME>                        zrtn7xm#

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         2,337,675
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  9,754
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    16,688
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,376,035
<PP&E>                                         1,640,022
<DEPRECIATION>                                 194,943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,918,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,794,205
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    32,856
<COMMON>                                       29,980
<OTHER-SE>                                     20,794,657
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,918,266
<SALES>                                        1,696,679
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,627,245
<CGS>                                          1,813,234
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,491,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             175,248
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,352,035
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,894,464
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                512,429
<CHANGES>                                      198,846
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,550,881
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.18






</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23
[ERNST & YOUNG LLP LETTERHEAD]


                   Independent Accountants' Review Report


Board of Directors
Friedman Industries, Incorporated

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Friedman Industries, Incorporated as of December 31, 1995, the related
consolidated statements of earnings for the three-month and nine-month periods
ended December 31, 1995 and 1994 and the consolidated statements of cash flows
for the nine-month periods ended December 31, 1995 and 1994. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. 

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted
in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, which will be
performed for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion
regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not
express such an opinion.
        
Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that
should be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements
referred to above for them to be in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles. 
        
We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Friedman Industries, Incorporated
as of March 31, 1995 and the related consolidated statements of earnings,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein); and in our report dated May 26, 1995, we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the
information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet
as of March 31, 1995 is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to
the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.
        
February 12, 1996                                     /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP