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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1122 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1122

 To authorize States to use assistance provided under the Hardest Hit 
  Fund program of the Department of the Treasury to demolish blighted 
                  structures, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 10, 2013

  Mr. Portman introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize States to use assistance provided under the Hardest Hit 
  Fund program of the Department of the Treasury to demolish blighted 
                  structures, 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 ``Neighborhood Safety Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. USE OF HARDEST HIT FUND AMOUNTS FOR DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES.

    Notwithstanding any provision of title I of the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5211 et seq.), any regulation, 
guidance, order, or other directive of the Secretary of the Treasury 
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary''), or any agreement 
(or amendment thereto) entered into under the Hardest Hit Fund program 
of the Secretary under such title I, any amounts of assistance that 
have been, or are, allocated for or provided to a State or State agency 
through the Hardest Hit Fund program may be used, without limitation, 
to demolish blighted structures.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                 POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature
appears below hereby constitutes and appoints Douglas J. Burgum and Terri F.
Zimmerman (with full power to act alone), as his or her true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full powers of substitution and
resubstitution, for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead, in any
and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 1998 of Great Plains Software, Inc., and to file the same, with
all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and
agents full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite or necessary to be done in and about the premises, ad fully to all
intents and purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying
and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or their substitute
or substitutes, lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

      Signature                              Title                           Date
      ---------                              -----                           ----

<S>                                <C>                                     <C>
/s/ Douglas J. Burgum
-------------------------          President, Chief Executive              August 7, 1998
Douglas J. Burgum                  Officer and Chairman of the Board


/s/ Terri F. Zimmerman
-------------------------          Chief Financial Officer and             August 7, 1998
Terri F. Zimmerman                 Group Vice President, Finance
                                   and Operations


/s/ Bradley J. Burgum
-------------------------          Director                                August 7, 1998
Bradley J. Burgum


/a/ Frederick W. Burgum
-------------------------          Director                                August 7, 1998
Frederick W. Burgum


/s/ William V. Campbell
-------------------------          Director                                August 7, 1998
William V. Campbell


/s/ Raymond F. Good
-------------------------          Director                                August 7, 1998
Raymond F. Good


/s/ J.A. Heidi Roizen
-------------------------          Director                                August 7, 1998
J.A. Heidi Roizen


/s/ Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr.
-------------------------          Director                                August 7, 1998
Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr.

</TABLE>
Deny and Opinion Filed this 19th day of June, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00795-CV

IN RE MITCHELL KAZU ASTALOS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-52696-06

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Moseley, Lang-Miers, and Brown 

Opinion by Justice Moseley

This petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition arises from a suit affecting the parent 

child relationship. The facts and issues are well-known to the parties, so we do not recount them 

here. The petition fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate procedure because is not 

properly authenticated and includes an incomplete record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j), 

52.7(a)(1). Relator has failed to establish he is entitled to the relief sought. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8. 

Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition.

140795F.P05 /Jim Moseley/

JIM MOSELEY

JUSTICE
#### Stanley J. SMITH v. DELTA EXPRESS, INC.

No. 62529.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1978.

In re: Stanley J. Smith, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Natchitoches. 359 So.2d 1066.

Granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### KINGSWOOD BUILDERS, INC., and James A. Morgan, Appellants, v. WALL PLUMBING & HEATING CO., INC., and Delia D. Elliott, Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Estate of Kingswood Builders, Inc., Bankrupt, Appellees.

No. 72-578.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 30, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1974.

Stephen R. Magyar, Winter Park, for appellants.

Kenneth M. Leffler, of Hutchison & Leffler, Sanford, for appellee Delia D. Elliott, Trustee in Bankruptcy.

PER CURIAM.

As conceded, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant James A. Morgan. Further, and different from plaintiff’s contentions, Morgan preserved his position and did not in anywise waive or submit to the jurisdiction. As a consequence, the final judgment is void as to Morgan and he should be dismissed as a party to this litigation.

None of the remaining appellate points have merit or require discussion.

We reverse as to appellant, James A. Morgan, and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., and POUL-TON, TIMOTHY P., Associate Judge, concur.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)








Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), the
undersigned, Michael E. DeDomenico, Chief Executive Officer of NuCO2 Inc., a
Florida corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to his knowledge,
that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2008 of the Company (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











/s/
      Michael E. DeDomenicoMichael
      E. DeDomenicoChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      12, 2008
251 La. 751

#### Francis Monroe MARCUS v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY.

No. 49062.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1968.

In re: The Kansas City Southern Railway Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 204 So.2d 676.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
COMPANY SANITIZED 

UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION 

Analysis Report 

NMC cathode material: Batch ref.: NMC-111-10-101024-F, 25.08.2011

Prep .: 1g solid susp in 100 ml of deionized H2O .; 10min. magnetic stirrer

Hydro G: Pu = 2500Upm, Rü = 500 rpm; E = 50ml Susp. in 830ml of deionized H2O

Ed .: G. Reuscher; Data Sheet No .: 952.2

Sample Material: Fraunhofer Dispersion Model: Hydro 2000G (A)

Obscuration: 12.66%

Particle RI: 0.000 Absorption: 0 Analysis Model: Universal Blue Light Attenuation: 8.67%

Dispersion Fluid: Water Measuring Range: 0.020 to 20000.0... um Fit (weighted): 0.426%

Fit (weighted): 0.429%

Fluid RI: 1.330 Emulation: Off

Concentration: 0.0185 %Vol Mean Volume D[4,3]: 12.391 um Specific Surface Area: 0.622 m2/g

Width: 1.111 Uniformity: 0.349 D[3,2]: 9.646 um

Distribution Type: Volume 

Particle Size Distribution 

Particle Size (μm) 

---- Batch ref.: NMC-111-10-101024-F, Bottling Date: 25.08.2011, Wednesday, 8. February 2012 10:22:07

Size > Passage (%) Size > Passage (%) Size > Passage (%) Size > Passage (%) Size > Passage (%) Size > Passage (%)

This document is directed to USEPA pursuant the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This document is the property of the sponsor and may be used only for that purpose intended by the sponsor and as authorized under applicable law. Every other or additional use, exploitation, reproduction, publication or submission to other parties requires the written permission of the sponsor, except as otherwise required by applicable law (e.g., TSCA ). The use of these studies/documents for regulatory, registration or other commercial purposes [including but not limited to Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical Substances (REACH))] by (i) private parties, or by (ii) authorities outside the US Government, without the express written permission of the sponsor is unauthorized and strictly prohibited.

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0922
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Patterson, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 616]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered March 24, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to move to vacate his plea *(see, People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Passero,*222 AD2d 858). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9; *People v McCann,*289 AD2d 703; *People v Rowe,*284 AD2d 796; *People v Otero,*199 AD2d 342). Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Prudenti, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1948

WILLIAM VERRINDER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. FRANK BLAIR WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as Clerk of the Wake County Estates and Wills Division; STACY PRETTY, in her official capacity as deputy clerk of the Wake County Estates and Wills Division; TYLER SMITH, in his official capacity as deputy clerk of the Wake County Estates and Wills Division; GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:22

- cv - 00167

- FL )

Submitted : February 16, 2023 Decided: February 21, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge , RUSHING , Circuit Judge , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

William Verrinder , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this ci rcuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1948 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
William Verrinder appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ve rrinder v. Williams , No.
5:22

- cv - 00167

- FL (E.D.N.C. Aug. 9, 2022) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRM ED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1948 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### R. Clinton PITTMAN v. Huguette PITTMAN.

No. 38506.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 219 So.2d 730.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15702]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 7921-007 and 7922-005]


Notice of Transfer of Exemptions: Tridam Energy LLC; Alpine 
Pacific Utilities Hydro, LLC

    1. By letter filed July 9, 2018, Alpine Pacific Utilities Hydro, 
LLC informed the Commission that two projects were transferred to them 
from Tridam Energy LLC, effective July 2018. The projects are: (1) Otis 
Falls Project No. 7921, originally issued March 11, 1985 \1\ located on 
the Souhegan River in Hillsboro County, New Hampshire and (2) 
Chamberlain Falls Project No. 7922, originally issued March 11, 1985 
\2\ located on the Souhegan River in Hillsboro County, New Hampshire. 
Transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Order Granting Exemption from Licensing of a Small 
Hydroelectric Project 5 Megawatts or Less. Alden T. Greenwood, 30 
FERC ] 62,267 (1985).
    \2\ Order Granting Exemption from Licensing of a Small 
Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less. Alden T. Greenwood, 30 
FERC ] 62,257 (1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Alpine Pacific Utilities Hydro, LLC is now the exemptee of the 
Chamberlain Falls Project No. 7921 and the Otis Falls Project No. 7922. 
All correspondence should be forwarded to: Mr. Justin D. Ahmann, 
President, Alpine Pacific Utilities Hydro, LLC, 75 Somers Road, Somers, 
Montana 59932, Phone: 406-393-2127, Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#513b242225383f11302134327c6d3071392334376c" http: mt.com">mt.com</a>">justin@apec-mt.com</a>.

    Dated: July 17, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15702 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Joseph C. JAMES v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53596.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1973.

In re: Joseph C. James applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our jurisdiction.

•TATE, J.,

concurs on the basis of the trial court’s statement in his reasons for ruling on the present application that the defendant had executed a pre-arraignment statement in which he had been offered and refused counsel, although such pre-arraignment statement is not included in the application before us.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12


                    GE GLOBAL INSURANCE HOLDING CORPORATION
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                      Nine months ended September 25, 1999

                                   (Unaudited)


(In millions)

Earnings:
   Earnings before income taxes                            $  897
   Fixed charges:
      Minority interest in net earnings of
         consolidated subsidiaries (1)                         66
      Interest expense (2)                                     81
                                                           ------
                                                           $1,044
                                                           ======

Fixed charges:
   Minority interest in net earnings of
      consolidated subsidiaries (3)                        $   92
   Interest expense (2)                                        81
                                                           ------
                                                           $  173
                                                           ======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                           6.03
                                                           ======


(1)  Minority  interest in net earnings of  consolidated  subsidiaries  includes
     dividends on subsidiary's preferred stock.

(2)  Interest  expense  includes an amount for one-third of the rental  expense,
     which the Company  believes is a reasonable  approximation  of the interest
     factor for such rentals.

(3)  The  fixed  charges  amount  for  minority  interest  in  net  earnings  of
     consolidated subsidiaries represents the pretax earnings amount which would
     be required to cover such fixed charges as calculated below:

                Subsidiary's Preferred Stock Dividend Requirement
                -------------------------------------------------
                             100% - Income Tax Rate

     The  income  tax rate is based on the  relationship  of the  provision  for
     income taxes to earnings before income taxes for the respective period.


                                        9
#### George P. WETHERELL, Petitioner, v. RITZ PLAZA HOTEL et al., Respondents.

No. 42159.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 30, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Charles Edward MURRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-821.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 5, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          37,141
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,329,261
<ALLOWANCES>                                   977,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,565,805
<PP&E>                                       1,316,166
<DEPRECIATION>                                 862,305
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,580,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,681,504
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,727,305
<COMMON>                                       196,435
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,580,566
<SALES>                                      8,799,431
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,799,431
<CGS>                                        7,015,664
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,029,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             298,564
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (442,412)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    30,830
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (473,242)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (473,242)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)



</TABLE>
#### Robert W. BOIKE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-240.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 27, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
261 La. 817

#### CITY OF JENNINGS v. Howard MIRE.

No. 52431.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 10, 1972.

In re: Howard Mire applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ denied. Adequate remedy in case of conviction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from (a) the
Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet and condensed consolidated
statement of operations as of and for the three months ended March 31, 1997 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such (b) quarterly report on Form
10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,610
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                       833
<INVENTORY>                                        940
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,432
<PP&E>                                             991
<DEPRECIATION>                                     436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,884
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            8,930
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,251)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,416
<SALES>                                         11,832
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,832
<CGS>                                            7,584
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,041
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   338
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  38
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,204
<INCOME-TAX>                                       370
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                834
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       384
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
#### Willie James WATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-638.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 1974.

R. C. Langford, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Baya Harrison III .and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the rationale of Manning v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1967, 203 So.2d 360.

McNULTY, Acting C. J., and BOARD-MAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.