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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3850

To provide for a study of human health risks associated with National

Weather Service doppler radar installations, and to prohibit the operation

of such an installation in Ojai, California, unless such study finds no

significant health risk.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 10, 1994

Mr. GALLEGLY introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Science, Space, and Technology and Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To provide for a study of human health risks associated

with National Weather Service doppler radar installations, and to prohibit the operation of such an installation in Ojai, California, unless such study finds no significant health risk.

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

3 SECTION 1. STUDY.

4 The Secretary of Commerce shall enter into a con5 tract with the National Academy of Sciences for the con6 duct of a study of the human health risks to National

7 Weather Service employees and the public associated with
2

•HR 3850 IH

1 the operation of doppler radar installations such as the

2 National Weather Service’s WSR–88D units. Such study

3 shall focus on the unit constructed on Sulphur Mountain

4 in Ojai, California, and shall examine the effect of radi5 ation emitted by such installations on National Weather

6 Service employees and on persons living in the vicinity of,

7 or otherwise required to be in the vicinity of, the installa8 tion. The Secretary of Commerce shall transmit the re9 sults of such study to the Congress within 1 year after

10 the date of enactment of this Act.

11 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

12 No Federal funds may be expended to operate the

13 National Weather Service doppler radar installation on

14 Sulphur Mountain in Ojai, California, unless the study

15 carried out under section 1 finds that there is no signifi16 cant health risk to National Weather Service employees

17 or the public associated with the operation of such an

18 installation.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 5.1

September 12, 2000


Composite Solutions, Inc.
3655 Nobel Drive, Suite 440
San Diego, CA  92122

Re:  Composite Solutions, Inc.
2000 Stock Incentive Plan
Registration Statement on Form S-8

Ladies and Gentlemen:

As legal counsel for Composite Solutions, Inc., a Florida corporation (the
"Company"), we are rendering this opinion in connection with the registration
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of up to 1,000,000 shares of the
Common Stock of the Company which may be issued pursuant to the Company's 2000
Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan"). We have examined all instruments, documents
and records which we deemed relevant and necessary for the basis of our opinion
hereinafter expressed. In such examination, we have assumed the genuineness of
all signatures and the authenticity of all documents submitted to us as
originals and the conformity to the originals of all documents submitted to us
as copies.

We are admitted to practice only in the State of California and we express no
opinion concerning any law other than the law of the State of California, and
the federal law of the United States.

Based on such examination, we are of the opinion that the options to be granted
and the 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock which may be issued pursuant to the
Plan when issued against payment of the consideration therefor in accordance
with the provisions of the Plan, will be validly issued, fully paid and
non-assessable.

We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement referred to above and the use of our name wherever it
appears in said Registration Statement.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ BLANCHARD, KRASNER & FRENCH

BLANCHARD, KRASNER & FRENCH
A Professional Corporation



                                       6
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MICHAEL F. MYERS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:06-cr-01275-HMH-1; 6:09-cv-70027-HMH) 

Submitted: October 28, 2009 Decided: November 12, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael F. Myers, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Michael F. Myers seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Myers has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Myers’ 

motion for 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
Exhibit-32.1 -- Certification per Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 906)

I am the Chief Executive and Financial Officer of JA Energy, a Nevada
corporation (the "Company").  I am delivering this certificate in connection
with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended February 28, 2011 and
filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("Form 10-Q").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  April 18, 2011
        --------------
                                           /s/ James Lusk
                                           ---------------------------
                                               James Lusk
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
#### The EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF the UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Catherine R. Best WAGONER, Respondent.

No. 43323.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 20, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 269 So.2d 747.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3619 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3619

 To amend the Revenue Act of 1987 to provide a permanent extension of 
     the transition rule for certain publicly traded partnerships.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 22, 1993

  Mr. Andrews of Texas (for himself, Mr. Sundquist, and Mr. Kopetski) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Revenue Act of 1987 to provide a permanent extension of 
     the transition rule for certain publicly traded partnerships.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF TRANSITION RULE FOR CERTAIN PUBLICLY 
              TRADED PARTNERSHIPS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 10211(c) of the Revenue 
Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-203) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section 
        shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1987, 
        except that such amendments shall not apply to any existing 
        partnership.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the provisions of section 10211 of the Revenue 
Act of 1987.

                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4011 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4011

                   For the relief of Anil K. Sharma.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 1994

   Mr. Rose introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Anil K. Sharma.

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

SECTION 1. FOREIGN RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT WAIVER FOR ANIL K. SHARMA.

    (a) In General.--Anil K. Sharma is deemed, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, to be eligible to apply for any 
benefit under such Act for which he qualifies without need to obtain a 
waiver of the two-year residence requirement of section 212(e) of such 
Act.
    (b) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) 
shall apply only if Anil K. Sharma applies for a visa or for a change 
or adjustment of status and pays the appropriate fees within 2 years 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Education

          - [Docket No. ED-2018-ICCD-0072]

# AGENCY:

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

# ACTION:

Notice of cancellation.

# SUMMARY:

                        On July 3, 2018, the Department of Education (ED) published a 60 day comment period notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         with FR DOC #2018-14441 (Page 31383, Column 2 and 3; Page 31384, Column 1 and 2) seeking public comment for an information collection entitled, “2019-20 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:20) Field Test Institution Contacting and Enrollment List Collection” conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The Department of Education would like to cancel that public comment period notice. NCES intends to conduct the NPSAS:20 full-scale study as planned from October 2019 to November 2020. In March 2019, NCES will publish a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         for a 60-day public comment period followed by a 30-day comment period for NPSAS:20 Full-Scale Institution Contacting and Enrollment List Collection clearance request.                    

The NPSAS:20 full-scale study will use methods and survey items that have already been used in previous cycles of NPSAS. In addition, NCES is developing a cognitive testing plan that will allow pre-testing of a subset of questions from the planned NPSAS:20 student interview. NCES expects to submit a clearance request for these cognitive testing activities by July 2019.

The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management, hereby issues a cancellation notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Dated: August 27, 2018.

Kate Mullan,

Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.

[FR Doc. 2018-18840 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Exhibit 20.1

MONTHLY SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK

TARGET CREDIT CARD MASTER TRUST
SERIES 1997-1

The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Retailers National Bank, as Servicer ("RNB") pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 13, 1995 (as may be
amended, from time to time, the "Agreement") as supplemented by the Series 1997-1 Supplement (as amended and supplemented, the "Series Supplement"), among RNB, Target Receivables Corporation and Wells
Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association, does hereby certify as follows:



Class
A            5.208



Class
A            0.000



Class
A            5.208



RETAILERS NATIONAL BANK,as servicerBy:    /s/ Terrence J. ScullyName: Terrence J. ScullyTitle:  Secretary
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

1800 Washington Boulevard .Baltimore MD 21230 

MDE 410-537-3000 • 1-800-633-6101 

Martin O'Malley Shari T. Wilson 


Governor Secretary 


Anthony G. Brown Robert M. Summers , Ph.D. 

Lieutenant Governor Deputy Secretary 

April 22, 2009 

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin 


Regional Administrator (3RAOO) 


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 


Region III 


1650 Arch Street 


Philadelphia PA 19103-2029 


Dear Mr. Garvin: 

The purpose of this letter is to submit the enclosed State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision 

# 10-03 concerning adoption of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) for industrial cleaning solvents. This SIP Revision includes new Regulation 

.09-1 under COMAR 26.11 .19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes. 

The Notice of Proposed Action for this SIP Revision was published in the Maryland Register on 

December 18, 2009. A public hearing was held on January 21 , 2010. The regulation was 

adopted on March 21 , 2010. The Notice of Final Action was published on April 9, 2010 and the 

regulation became effective on April 19, 2010. All administrative procedures were properly 

followed throughout the adoption process. 

If you have any questions concerning this SIP submittal, please feel free to call me at (410) 537­

3084 or Mr. George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr., Director of the Air and Radiation Management 

Administration, at (410) 537-3255. 

Sincerely, 

~'7z1- _ 

Shari T. Wilson 

Secretary 

STW:dhr 


Enclosures 


Recycled Paper www.mde.stale.m<ius TTY Users 1-800-735-2258 

Via Maryland Relay Service
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 10163-005]

                    1. By letter filed August 22, 2018, Vincent J. Purple, President, L.P. Athol Corporation, exemptee informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Cresticon Project No. 10163, originally issued February 12, 1988 [1]                                          has been transferred to MassGrow, LLC. The project is located on Millers River in Worcester County, Massachusetts. The transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.                

                    2. MassGrow, LLC is now the exemptee of the Cresticon Project No. 10163. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Mr. Frank Perullo, COO, MassGrow, LLC, 137 Lewis Wharf, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-721-5844, Email:                     *fp@novus-grp.com*

Dated: August 28, 2018.

Kimberly D. Bose,

 Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             Order Granting Exemption From Licensing (5 MW or Less).                         *Cresticon, Inc.,*                         42 FERC ¶62,110 (1988).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2018-19087 Filed 8-31-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 A0 08 3

. TI PTON SCOTT M ASTE R S O N v . NATI ONAL C OLLEGI ATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2 0 0 3 -1

.

On No v em

b er 1 6
, 20 1 6
, t h e t ri al co u rt g r a n t ed Nat i o nal Co ll eg i at e St u d en t
Lo an Tru s t 2 0 0 3 -1 ’ s m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary j u d gm en t ag ai n s t T i p t o n Sco t t Mas t ers o n. On Ap ri l 5
, 2 0 17
, M as t ers on fi l e h i s n ot i ce of ap p eal s eek i n g t o ap p eal t h at t ri al co u rt

o rd er. W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. To b e t i m el y , a n o t i ce of ap p eal m us t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 day s aft er en try o f t h e

o rd er o n ap p eal

. See O CGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). T he p ro p er an d t i m el y fi li n g o f a no t i ce o f

ap p eal i s an ab s ol ut e req u i rem en t t o co n fer ju ri s d i ct i o n o n t h i s Co u rt

. See Co u ch v. Un i ted Pa per wo r ker s In t l

. Un i o n , 2 2 4 Ga. Ap p. 72 1
, 7 21 (4 8 2 SE2 d 7 0 4 ) (1 9 9 7 ). Here, M as ters o n ’ s n o t i ce o f ap p eal was fi l ed 1 4 0 day s aft er en t ry o f t h e o rd er h e

s e e k s t o ap p eal

. Acco rd i ng l y , t h is u n t i m el y ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r l ack

o f ju ri s d ict i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. August 16, 2017

08/16/2017
#### In the Matter of Frank Nuzzolese et al., Respondents, v Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to compel the Board of Assessors and the Board of *612Assessment Review of the County of Nassau to calculate transitional assessments for two parcels of real property owned by the petitioners for the 1985/1986 tax year, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McGinity, J.), dated October 23, 1989, which granted the petition and directed the Board of Assessors and the Board of Assessment Review of the County of Nassau to calculate the transitional assessments and to issue the petitioners an appropriate refund with statutory interest.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioners own two parcels of real property in Nassau County. Beginning with the 1967/1968 tax year the property was classified by the Board of Assessors as "Class 1” and, as such, was entitled to a depreciation factor on its land value. By 1985 the property had been converted from residential to commercial use. Thus, beginning with the 1985/1986 tax year, the depreciation factor was removed and the property reclassified as "Class 4”. The reclassification resulted in a 100% increase in the total taxable assessment of the subject parcels. The petitioners requested that the increase be phased-in over a five-year period pursuant to the transition assessment provisions of RPTL 1805. The Board of Assessors and the Board of Assessment Review of the County of Nassau (hereinafter the appellants) denied the request and this proceeding ensued.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the petitioners were entitled to the requested transitional assessments and that a CPLR article 78 proceeding was the proper vehicle to challenge the County’s refusal to calculate them. Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the petitioners were not required to pursue a remedy by way of an RPTL article 7 tax certiorari proceeding *(see,*RPTL 700 *et seq.).*The petitioners did not seek review of the appellants’ valuation of the subject property. Rather, they disputed the appellant’s interpretation of RPTL 1805 and sought to compel the appellants to perform a duty imposed upon them by that statute. Therefore, the challenge was properly brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 *(see, Hewlett Assocs. v City of New York,*57 NY2d 356; *Matter of Town of Arietta v State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment,*56 NY2d 356; *Matter of Krugman v Board of Assessors,*141 AD2d 175; *Matter of 22 Park Place Coop. v Board of Assessors,*102 AD2d 893).

We have examined the appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Hooper, JJ., concur.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0735

_____________________________

THEODORE R. SURRENCY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Baker County.

James M. Colaw, Judge.

February 28, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, BILBREY, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Theodore R. Surrency, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.