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

Calendar No. 144 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1336 

To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to permit States 

to require proof of citizenship for registration to vote in elections for 

Federal office. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 18, 2013 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. VITTER, Mr. LEE, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. COBURN, 

Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, 

and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

ordered placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to 

permit States to require proof of citizenship for registration to vote in elections for Federal office. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STATES PERMITTED TO REQUIRE PROOF OF 

4 CITIZENSHIP FOR VOTER REGISTRATION. 

5 Section 6 of the National Voter Registration Act of 

6 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg–4) is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following new subsection: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1336 PCS

1 ‘‘(e) PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP.—Nothing in subsection 

2 (a) shall be construed to preempt any State law requiring 

3 evidence of citizenship in order to complete any require4 ment to register to vote in elections for Federal office.’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 144 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1336 

A BILL 

To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 

eral office. ship for registration to vote in elections for Fed1993 to permit States to require proof of citizenJULY 18, 2013 

Read twice and ordered placed on the calendar 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4
 
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-44399, 33-80993, 33-80995, 33-91506 and 33-93148) on Form S-8 and the
Registration Statements (Nos. 333-03351 and 333-03766) on Form S-3 of Cox
Communications, Inc. of our report dated January 30, 1998, except for Note 8, as
to which the date is February 25, 1998 (relating to the combined consolidated
financial statements of Cox Communications PCS, L.P. and subsidiaries and Cox
Communications PCS, Inc. and subsidiary), appearing in the Annual Report, as
amended, on Form 10-K\A of Cox Communications, Inc. for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1997.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Costa Mesa, California
    
March 26, 1998
#### MIAMI GRAY LINE BOATS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 66-451.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 14, 1967.

Scott, McCarthy, Steel, Hector & Davis and James H. Sweeny, III, Miami, for appellant.

Thomas C. Britton, County A tty., and James J. Kenny, Asst. County Atty., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Mayflower, Inc. v. Suskind, Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 394; Southeastern Sales & Service Co. v. T. T. Watson, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 239; Wise v. Quina, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 590; Jackson Grain Company v. Kemp, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 513; 25 Fla.Jur., Pleadings, § 80.
#### Lonnie WILLIAMS v. V. W. SAVELL.

No. 50860.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 19, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 9, 1978.

Laurel G. Weir, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Alford, Mars & Thomas, Robert L. Thomas, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and WALKER, J.

AFFIRMED.
#### Willie Clyde SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-288.

District Court,of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 11, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
No. 11184.

#### Potter *v.*Beverstock et al.

Decided January 25, 1910..

Error to Circuit Court *553of Wood county. *Mr. P. C. Prentiss*and *Messrs.*

*Baldwin & Harrington,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. James & Kelly; Mr. Edward Beverstock*and *Messrs. Troup & Riegle,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, C. J., Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
#### SOUTHERN LAND RECOVERY CORPORATION v. Ophelia Castille PELLERIN et al.

No. 53517.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 11, 1973.

In re: Southern Land Recovery Corporation applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Martin. 274 So.2d 875.

Writ denied. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law.
#### SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY and Reynolds G. Bryan, Appellants, v. Louise BLANKENSHIP, Appellee.

Nos. 71-814, 71-834.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 20, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### SOUTHEASTERN TELEPHONE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CENTRAL TRUCK LINES, INC., Appellee.

No. P-248.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 14, 1971.

H. O. Pemberton, of Keen, O’Kelley & Spitz, and J. Marshall Conrad, of Ausley, Ausley, McMullen, McGhee & Carothers, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Madigan, Parker, Gatlin & Swedmark, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs filed herein, and our consideration thereof requires a conclusion that no error was committed in the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ„ concur.
#### TURPIN, JACOB AND CHARLES WRIGHT *vs.*WILLIAM N. POLK, adm’r. d. b. n. of WILLIAM RICHARDS, decceased.

A statement in writing made by a person, though hot on oath, admitted to contradict his deposition.

Case. Pleas; non assumpsit; payment and discount, and act limitations.

This was an action for goods sold and delivered, money paid for the use of deft., and for the non-performance of a contract for the delivery of a quantity of bark. The declaration contained six counts; the first three on the following contract: *“5*May, 1831. Received of T. J. & C. Wright $1, in part payment of fifty cords of Spanish bark at $9 25 per cord,' $80, to be paid in goods, and the balance in money on delivery.” The fourth count was a special one for money paid the Farmers’ Bank by plffs. for the use of deft.; and the ■other two were general for goods sold and money paid, &c.

Tbe plffs. were drawers of a promissory note for $350, dated 10 May, 1831, in favor of Richards, which was endorsed by him and negotiated at the Farmers’ Bank, and the money paid to him. This note was paid on 20 September, 1831, by *the drawers.*

The plffs. offered in evidence an acknowledgment under seal, by Richards, that the note was discounted for his use and promising to pay the discount. It was objected to; because, being under seal, it changed the character of the transaction and of the remedy. The court admitted it saying that no action could be framed upon it except for the discount.

Plffs. also gave in evidence a receipt dated May 21, 1831, for $371, and signed by Richards, on account of bark contract. They claimed, therefore, damages for the non-performance of the contract ■to deliver the bark; repayment of this sum of $371, paid in advance •on account of the bark; and also the $350, the amount of the note discounted by the bank for deft’s, use, and paid by plffs. at maturity. The defts. contended that the receipt and note referred to each other *324and were all one transaction; that the $371, included a repayment of the note discounted in bank. This was the principal matter in dispute, and it was very much contested before the jury. On tke subject of damages for the non-delivery of the bark, plffs. offered the deposition of Samuel Neall a commission merchant in Philadelphia, to prove the price of bark there at the time stated. It was objected to and admitted. The jury can estimate the valúe of the article at Seaford from the price at Philadelphia or other usual market. The measure of damages for non-delivery of goods is the difference between the contract price and the price at the time in the market.

*Cullen*and *Frame*for plaintiffs.

*Rodney*and *Robinson*for defendant.

The deft, offered in evidence a statement made by Samuel Neall, of bark sold by him in September, 1831. It was signed by him and his signature proved. Objected to, as not being upon oath; but the court admitted it on the gronnd that the previous declarations of a witness are always admitted to contradict his testimony.

The plffs. had a verdict and judgment for damages, $887 21.
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                            AMENDMENT

                               TO

                      THE CONSOLIDATED EDISON

                    DISCOUNT STOCK PURCHASE PLAN



                      Effective January 2, 1996





<PAGE>
<PAGE>

     Pursuant to resolutions adopted by the Board of Trustees of
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. on June 23, 1987,
the undersigned hereby approves the following amendments to The
Consolidated Edison Discount Stock Purchase Plan effective
January 2, 1996:

1.  Section 10 is hereby amended by inserting the following words
in the first sentence of subdivision (a) after the word "Plan"
and before the semi-colon:

"and, pursuant to resolutions adopted by the Board of Trustees of
the Company at a meeting duly called and held on June 23, 1987,
the Chairman of the Board, the Vice Chairman of the Board, the
Vice President-Employee Relations and the Treasurer of the
Company are each authorized to make such changes from time to
time in the Plan as such officer may approve as necessary or
desirable to comply with law or to facilitate the administration
of the Plan".

2.  A new Section 16 is hereby added to read as follows:

"16.  Actions by Employees.

Effective January 2, 1996, or as soon thereafter as practicable
as determined by the Plan Director, any actions to be taken,
authorizations to be granted or directions or instructions to be
given under the Plan by an Employee shall be taken, granted or
given through an electronic data gathering and voice response
system or through such other means as may be approved by the Plan
Director."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto subscribed
his name this 29th day of December, 1995.



                                   RICHARD P. COWIE
                                   Richard P. Cowie
                                   Vice President-
                                   Employee Relations
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Dan Edward ROBERTSON v. Ross MAGGIO, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 62509.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: Dan Edward Robertson applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.

DIXON and CALOGERO, JJ., would grant the writ.
##### 



Exhibit 32(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 Quarterly Report of CheckFree Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David E. Mangum, Executive Vice 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:

(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 results of operations of the
Company.

Date: November 13, 2003
    
    
    
    /s/ David E. MangumDavid E. MangumExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerCheckFree Corporation


This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the
date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
#### PREFERRED RISK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. David Alan SMITH, Jewell E. Smith, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-874.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 9, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Richard H. Cooper, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0635 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-081-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model EC225LP Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): Three Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to detect corrosion or a crack in the swashplates, 

which could lead to failure of the swashplates and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

Costs:

 Inspecting the rotating and stationary swashplates for corrosion or a crack requires 8 

work-hours for a cost of $680 per helicopter and $2,040 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle. 

Making and installing the placard requires 0.5 work-hour, for a cost of $43 per helicopter. The 

labor cost of installing paper in the flight manual is negligible for a helicopter.

 Replacing the MRH assembly requires 24 work-hours, and parts cost $5,000, for a total 

cost of $7,040 per helicopter.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Gary Roach
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 Quarterly Report of Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report), I,
Karen M. Spaun, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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



By:        /s/ Karen M. Spaun
    ---------------------------------

Karen M. Spaun
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003
Table 4.  Estimates of the Total Housing Inventory for the
                United States:  Third Quarter 2003 and 2004

(Estimates are in thousands and may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                    Third     Third    Standard
                                   quarter   quarter   error on  Standard     2004
Type                                 2003      2004      2004    error on   Percent
                                   estimate  estimate  estimate difference  of total

All housing units.................  121,030   122,373       215        305       100

  Occupied........................  105,499   106,870       227        322        87
    Owner occupied................   72,178    73,772       228        322        60
    Renter occupied...............   33,321    33,098       180        256        27

  Vacant..........................   15,531    15,503       131        185        13
    Year-round vacant.............   11,796    11,848       116        163        10
      For rent....................    3,713     3,798        67         94         3
      For sale only...............    1,411     1,321        40         57         1
      Rented or sold,
      awaiting occupancy..........    1,072     1,050        36         50         1
      Held off market.............    5,600     5,679        82        115         5
        For occasional use........    1,951     1,955        48         68         2
        Temporarily occupied
        by persons with
        usual residence elsewhere.      950     1,026        35         49         1
        For other reasons.........    2,699     2,698        57         80         2

    Seasonal vacant...............    3,735     3,655        66         94         3

NOTE:  The Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancies and Homeownership (CPS/HVS) estimates are now controlled to
       independent housing unit estimates.  This should make the CPS/HVS estimate of housing units more 
       comparable to other Census Bureau housing surveys.
Gischia, Scott

From: Osmundson, Mike

Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:05 PM

To: Wagner, Dennis

Cc: Gischia, Scott; Korpi, Jim; 'George Pruchnofski'

Subject: RE: Northshore Mining Company (Furnace and Process Boilers) Draft BART Report

DMW — the second paragraph indicates that in the preheat section of the furnace, the temperature is not critical to pellet

quality — this is not true and should be re-worded — the ramp up of temperature through the furnace zones are all

important to machine operation for achieving good pellet quality, not just the ignition section. Oxidation of the ore occurs

mainly in the preheat sections on the top sections of the bed, thereby setting the stage to effectively indurate the

remaining pellets through the remaining bed — this temperature ramp up sequence to burn the ore is the basis of

induration machine design for both straight grates and grate kilns processing magnetite. New ones are more efficient of

course by use of high temperature recuperated air for gas combustion and continued induration of lower bed pellets — e.g.

HTC & Minorca — they also produce much more NOx because of it.

Also, minor reducing conditions in these furnaces at any location adversely impacts pellet quality with magnetite —

especially the NSM machines. This has been demonstrated using very small amounts of carbon addition to pellets that

simulates a short term reduction / oxidation sequence during induration. The reduction is endothermic, impacting local

temperature, and also results in crystal changes that are destructive. The objective is to oxidize and utilize the mineral

energy to fuse the particles — reduction disrupts this process. I think this part is covered OK in the script.

That's all. MDO
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joe Edward WILLIAMS.

No. 62507.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: Joe Edward Williams, applying for writs of review. Parish of Ouachita.

*1295Denied. Applicant has an adequate remedy by appeal in the event of conviction.

DIXON, CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
# C_2011302EN.01000102.xml

| 13.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6313 — Ashland/International Specialty Products)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 302/02

On 18 August 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6313. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6313. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western 1 District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1057

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Russell Neal Clark, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 27, 1998 Filed: December 3, 1998

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Russell Neal Clark was previously sentenced to a total of sixty month s imprisonment and three years superv ised release for drug and firearm offenses. While he was serving his supervised release, he admitted violating various supervised-release conditions. The distric t court then revoked Clark’s supervised release and sentenced 1 him to ni ne months imprisonment and two additional years supervised release. ClarkBased upon the parties’ written stipulation, the district court attributed 65.0 7 2 grams of c ocaine base to Clark at his original sentencing in 1993. See 21 U.S.C

. § 84 1(b)(1)(A) (providing for maximum term of life imprisonment for offense s inv olving 50 grams or more of mixture or substance containing cocaine base); 1 8 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(1) (unless otherwise specified in section defining it, offense is Class A felony if maximum penalty is life imprisonment). -2- ap peals, arguing that the district court was not authorized to impose the additiona l supervised release. We affirm. When a district court revokes supervis ed release and sentences the defendant to imprisonment

that is “less than the maximum term of imprisonment authorized under [18 U.S.C. § 3583] (e)(3), the court may include a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term

of supervised release after imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). In this case, Clark was subject to a prison term of up to five years upon revocation of his supe rvisedrelease. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (authorizing up to five year s imprisonment upon

revocation of supervised release if offense that resulted in term of supervised release is Class A felony). Because the nine-month prison sentence Clark 2 received was less than the maximum authorized, the district court was entitled t o im pose additional supervised release so long as the imprisonment plus additiona l supervised release did not exceed Clark’s original term of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h); United States v. St. John , 92 F.3d 761, 766 (8th Cir. 1996) (original te rm of supervised release caps maximum period of time defendant & s freedom can be restrainedupon revocation of supervised release). The total revocation sentence did not exceed Clark & s original thre e-year term of supervised release, and his argument on appeal thus fails. Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.-3- Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.