alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Elizabeth L. BATES and Jessie T. Miller. STATE of Louisiana v. Bonnie BRANCH. STATE of Louisiana v. Marion F. FARMER and John Cosse. STATE of Louisiana v. Mary J. RICHARDSON, Mary B. McIntyre and Mardell Stephens.

No. 61884.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 28, 1978.

In re: Elizabeth Bates, Jessie T. Miller, Bonnie Branch, et al. applying for writ of review. Parish of Caddo.

Granted.

• The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable William J. Fleniken, Judge of the First Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Caddo, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 12th day of May, 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.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 13, 2016

jam 

# Order

Clerk October 13, 2016

1 54407

EUGENE MCKINNEY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 154407

COA: 332893

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Montcalm CC: 2016

- 021040

- AH

and CARSON CITY CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY WARDEN,

Defendants

- Appellees.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff

- appellant having failed to pay the

partial filing fee as required by the order of September 15, 2016, the Clerk of the Court is

hereby directed to close the file.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Boy Elijah O’STEEN, Appellee.

No. M-101.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 13, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

' A. C. Soud, Jr., Jacksonville, for appel-lee.

*442PER CURIAM.

This court having consolidated for appeal this case and 14 others wherein the same defendant was charged with 15 separate offenses arising out of one search and seizure and one arrest, and the same principles of law being applicable, the order appealed from in this case is reversed pursuant to our decision in State of Florida v. O’Steen, 238 So.2d 434, opinion filed this date.

Reversed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Frank F. Khulusi, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PCM, Inc.; and

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

 
| Date:   April 30, 2015 | /s/   Frank F. Khulusi    |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------|
|                        | Frank   F. Khulusi        |
|                        | Chief   Executive Officer |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Hyperdynamics Corporation (Hyperdynamics), on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Ray Leonard, Chief Executive Officer of Hyperdynamics, does hereby certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to his knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date: September 13, 2011

 

 
| By:    | /s/ Ray   Leonard         |   |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | Ray   Leonard             |   |   |
|   | Chief   Executive Officer |   |   |

 

1

----
H. Res. 179

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

May 25, 1993.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (S. 1) to amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend the programs of the National Institutes of

Health, and for other purposes. All points of order against

the conference report and against its consideration are

waived.

Attest:

Clerk.
Text of Proposed Amendments to

Regulation 61-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards

July 24, 2009

Text of Proposed Amendments to Regulation 61-62 for Public Comment:

Legend: Highlighted text = new text.

Strikeout text = text being deleted.

R.61-62.5, Standard No. 2 - Ambient Air Quality Standards:

Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 2 shall be revised as follows:

The following table constitutes the ambient air quality standards for the State of South Carolina. 

The analytical methods to be used will be those applicable Federal Reference Methods published 

in 40 CFR 50, Appendices A-N as revised July 18, 1997. In the case of fluorides, either the 

double paper tape sampler methods (ASTM D-3266-79) or the sodium bicarbonate-coated glass 

tube and particulate filter method (ASTM D3268-78) may be used.

Pollutant Measuring Interval Micrograms Per Cubic Meter

Unless Noted Otherwise (1) (2)

Sulfur Dioxide 3 hours

24 hours

annual

1300 (4)

365 (4)

80

Total Suspended Particulates Annual Geometric 

Mean

75

PM10 24 hours

annual

150 (3)

50 (3)

PM 2.5 (Primary and Secondary 

Standards)

24 hours

annual

35 (3)

15 (3)

Carbon Monoxide 1 hour

8 hour

40 mg per cubic meter

10 mg per cubic meter

Ozone 1 hour 0.12 ppm (3)

Ozone 8 hours

8 hours

0.08 ppm (3)(5)

0.075 ppm (3)

Gaseous Fluorides (as HF) 12 hr. avg.

24 hr. avg.

1 wk. avg.

1 mo. avg.

3.7

2.9

1.6

0.8

Nitrogen Dioxide annual 100

Lead Calendar Quarterly 1.5
Pollutant Measuring Interval Micrograms Per Cubic Meter

Unless Noted Otherwise (1) (2)

Mean

Rolling 3-month 

Average

0.15

(1) Arithmetic Average except in case of total suspended particulate matter

(2) At 250 C and 760 mm Hg.

(3) Attainment determinations will be made based on the criteria contained in 40 CFR 50 

Appendices H, I, K and N.

(4) Not to be exceeded more than once a year.

(5) The 1997 standard – and the implementation rules for that standard – will remain in 

place for implementation purposes as EPA undertakes rulemaking to address transition from the 

1997 ozone standard to the 2008 ozone standard.
UNITED STATES

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                             _______________________

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT
                             _______________________

                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):

                                 February 3, 2009

                       Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

                                      Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)

             000-24498                              65-0190407
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Commission File Number)         (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

      325 John H. McConnell Blvd, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio         43215
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                    (Zip Code)

Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code:   (614) 255-3333

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

<PAGE>

Item 8.01.    Other Events
----------   --------------------------------------------

          As of January 31, 2009, preliminary assets under management totaled
$4.240 billion.  Following is a summary as of January 31, 2009 (in millions):

				         Equity    Fixed Income	    Total
Individually Managed Accounts 	        $ 1,046	      $   54       $ 1,100
Mutual Funds 			          2,837	          97	     2,934
Private Investment Funds	   	    206            0           206
                                        -------       ------       -------
Total			       	        $ 4,089       $  151       $ 4,240

Investment Strategy
-------------------
Small and Small-Mid Cap         $    462
Large Cap and Select		   1,440
Long-Short		           2,187
Strategic and Fixed Income     	     151
				--------
Total			           4,240


                                    SIGNATURE
                                    ---------

     Pursuant to the  requirements  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant  has duly  caused  this  report  to be  signed  on its  behalf
by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                        DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.


Date: February 3, 2009	                    By: /s/ James F. Laird
                                            -------------------------------
                                            James F. Laird, Chief Financial
                                            Officer and Secretary
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 914 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 914

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments 
  of the Red River in Kentucky as components of the national wild and 
             scenic rivers system, and for other purposes.






103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 914

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments 
  of the Red River in Kentucky as components of the national wild and 
             scenic rivers system, 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 ``Red River Designation Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) the natural, scenic, and recreational qualities of the 
        Red River in Kentucky are unique and irreplaceable resources; 
        and
            (2) the majority of the Red River corridor is within the 
        Red River National Geologic area, which contains sedimentary 
        rock formations unique to Kentucky and the United States, and 
        should therefore be preserved for public enjoyment.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF RIVER.

    Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``( )(A) Red river, kentucky.--The 19.4-mile segment of the Red 
River extending from the Highway 746 Bridge to the School House Branch, 
to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture in the following 
classes:
            ``(i) The 9.1-mile segment known as the `Upper Gorge' from 
        the Highway 746 Bridge to Swift Camp Creek, as a wild river. 
        This segment is identified as having the same boundary as the 
        Kentucky Wild River.
            ``(ii) The 10.3-mile segment known as the `Lower Gorge' 
        from Swift Camp Creek to the School House Branch, as a 
        recreational river.
    ``(B) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
necessary to carry out this paragraph.''.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION.

    Nothing in this Act, or in the amendment to the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act made by this Act, shall be construed as authorizing any 
acquisition of any scenic easement that without the consent of such 
landowner would affect any regular use of relevant lands that was 
exercised prior to the acquisition of such easement.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 18, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
#### Gerald Lee BENEDETTI v. STATE.

No. 46458.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 18, 1971.

Darryl A. Hurt, Lucedale, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gil-foy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

SMITH, Justice:

Gerald Lee Benedetti was indicted for intentionally pointing and aiming a gun at another, discharging the gun so intentionally pointed and aimed, thereby injurying such other. The crime charged was that defined and proscribed by Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2013 (1956). Ben-edetti’s trial in the Circuit Court of George County resulted in his conviction, and he was sentenced to serve a term of 8 years in the penitentiary.

The evidence of guilt reflected by the record, including appellant’s own testimony, was ample to support the jury’s verdict of guilty.

The action of the trial court in overruling objections to questions propounded to appellant, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, as to his prior criminal convictions, is assigned as error.

Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 1693 (1956) provides as follows:

> Any witness may be examined touching his interest in the cause or his conviction of any crime, and his answers may be contradicted, and his interest or his conviction of a crime established by other evidence; * * *

In Simmons v. State, 241 Miss. 481, 492, 130 So.2d 860, 865 (1961), where the defendant testified as a witness in his own behalf, this Court said:

> We have repeatedly held that the State can show that the defendant had been *672convicted of criminal offenses to discredit him as a witness, provided details of the same are not given. * * *

*See also*Brooks v. State, 192 Miss. 121, 4 So.2d 886 (1941) and Brown v. State, 96 Miss. 534, 51 So. 273 (1910).

The action of the trial court in overruling objections to questions propounded to appellant touching former convictions was not error.

Other matters assigned for reversal are without merit and we find no prejudicial error in the record affecting the validity of appellant’s conviction. However, it is clear that he was indicted and tried under the provisions of Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2013 (1956), under which the maximum penalty is 5 years confinement. The sentence of 8 years imposed upon appellant was improper. The conviction of appellant of a violation of Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2013 (1956) is affirmed but the case will be remanded in order that the trial court may impose sentence under that section not to exceed the maximum of 5 years.

The conviction is affirmed and the case is remanded for the single purpose of the imposition of a proper sentence.

Affirmed as to the conviction, reversed as to the sentence imposed, and remanded for the purpose of resentencing.

ETHRIDGE, C. J., and PATTERSON, INZER and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 927 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 65

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 927

                          [Report No. 103-169]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the Pittsburgh Aviary in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as the 
                     National Aviary in Pittsburgh.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 13, 1993

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                  House Calendar No. 65
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 927

                          [Report No. 103-169]

 To designate the Pittsburgh Aviary in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as the 
                     National Aviary in Pittsburgh.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 17, 1993

  Mr. Coyne introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

                             July 13, 1993

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Pittsburgh Aviary in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as the 
                     National Aviary in Pittsburgh.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Pittsburgh Aviary in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is designated as 
the ``National Aviary in Pittsburgh''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

    Any reference in any law, regulation, document, record, map, or 
other paper of the United States to the aviary referred to in section 1 
is deemed to be a reference to the ``National Aviary in Pittsburgh''.
```
March 23 , 2015

Mr. Joseph Osipenko

The Shadowlight Group

34 Zimmerman Rd

Leola, PA 17540

Dear Mr. Osipenko :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your December 23 , 2014 exemption request on behalf of the Shadowlight Group

into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 14

- 110 3 ) , but we are unable to process your request any

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

• Any ad ditional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) re quires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9521

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8212 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8212

   To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct studies on 
    alternative work schedules for employees of the Veterans Health 
                 Administration, and for other matters.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 11, 2020

  Mr. Cunningham (for himself and Mr. Banks) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct studies on 
    alternative work schedules for employees of the Veterans Health 
                 Administration, and for other matters.

    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 ``VA Expanded Care Hours Act'' or the 
``ECHO Act''.

SEC. 2. STUDIES ON ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES FOR EMPLOYEES OF VETERANS 
              HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.

    (a) Study of Veterans.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
        the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
        shall conduct a study on the attitudes of eligible veterans 
        toward the Department of Veterans Affairs offering appointments 
        outside the usual operating hours of facilities of the 
        Department, including through the use of telehealth 
        appointments.
            (2) Eligible veteran defined.--In this subsection, the term 
        ``eligible veteran'' means a veteran who--
                    (A) is enrolled in the patient enrollment system of 
                the Department under section 1705(a) of title 38, 
                United States Code; and
                    (B) received health care from the Department at 
                least once during the two-year period ending on the 
                date of the commencement of the study under paragraph 
                (1).
    (b) Department Study.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
        the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study 
        on the feasibility and advisability of offering appointments 
        outside the usual operating hours of facilities of the 
        Department.
            (2) Study of employees.--The study required by paragraph 
        (1) shall include a study of the opinions of employees of the 
        Veterans Health Administration, including clinical, 
        nonclinical, and support staff, with respect to offering 
        appointments outside the usual operating hours of facilities of 
        the Department, including through the use of telehealth 
        appointments.
                                 <all>
```