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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 524 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 524

To amend the National Trails System Act to provide for the study of the 
                     Pike National Historic Trail.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2013

   Mr. Bennet (for himself and Mr. Udall of Colorado) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Trails System Act to provide for the study of the 
                     Pike National Historic Trail.

    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 ``Pike National Historic Trail Study 
Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. WESTERN STATES TRAIL STUDY.

    Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(46) Pike national historic trail.--The Pike National 
        Historic Trail, a series of routes extending approximately 
        3,664 miles, which follows the route taken by Lt. Zebulon 
        Montgomery Pike during the 1806-1807 Pike expedition that began 
        in Fort Bellefontaine, Missouri, extended through portions of 
        the States of Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, New Mexico, and 
        Texas, and ended in Natchitoches, Louisiana.''.
                                 <all>
```
1

Order entered October 4, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00215-CV

SULMA GONZALES, Appellant

V.

THE DALLAS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND THE APPRAISAL REVIEW 

BOARD OF DALLAS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND LYONS EQUITIES, 

INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-09665

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s September 28, 2016 “motion for correction of transcripts 

filed by court reporter and for extension of time to file brief of appellant.” This is appellant’s 

fourth request for an extension of time to file her brief. In addition to seeking a thirty-day 

extension of time to file her brief, appellant asks the Court to “allow the court reporter to correct 

the transcripts for the December 9, 2013 hearing” so that they include “the transcripts for the 

Motion to Vacate two Judgments.” Appellant indicates that she requires the extension to file her 

brief because she needs time to review “all court transcripts.”

Our records show that all transcripts requested by appellant have been filed and the 

reporter’s record is complete. On August 12, 2016, appellant filed a third motion for extension 
2

of time to file her brief in which she contended she “could not initiate the appeal work” because 

the reporter’s record has not been filed. She asked the Court compel Ms. Martin to prepare and 

forward all requested transcripts to the Court and send a copy to appellant. On August 16, 2016, 

we granted appellant’s motion, ordered the court reporter, Ms. Sheretta L. Martin to prepare and 

file the transcripts for hearings held on December 9, 2013, November 30, 2015, and March 21, 

2016 no later than August 31, 2016, and warned appellant that, absent exigent circumstances, her 

appeal would be dismissed if she failed to file her brief by September 30, 2016. 

Ms Martin filed the reporter’s record on August 30, 2016 in accordance with this Court’s 

August 16, 2016 order. The transcript of the December 9, 2013 hearing is Volume 1 of the 

reporter’s record that was filed on August 30, 2016. The trial court’s docket sheet shows that the 

trial court heard appellant’s motion for new trial and motion to vacate two judgments at the 

December 9, 2013 hearing. The court reporter certified Volume 1 of the reporter’s record as a 

complete transcript of all proceedings and evidence requested by the parties to be included in the 

transcript of the December 9, 2013 hearing. Accordingly, if any arguments were made on the 

motion to vacate, they would be included in the transcript filed by the court reporter on August 

30, 2016. Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s motion for correction of transcripts.

We GRANT appellant’s fourth motion to extend time to file appellant’s brief. 

Appellant’s brief shall be filed on or before October 31, 2016. We caution appellant that no 

further extensions will be granted absent exigent circumstances and that failure to file the brief 

may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
Page 1 of 1 

Particulate Summary 

Parker, James M 

to: 

Vanessa Hinkle, Aaron Worstell 

11/18/2011 04:26 PM 

Hide Details 

From: "Parker, James M" <jmparker@pplweb.com> 

To: Vanessa HinkleIR8IUSEPAlUS@EPA, Aaron WorstellIR8IUSEPAlUS@EPA 

History: This message has been replied to. 

1 Attachment 

...il...·...·,..• 13!!J 

PM Summary.xls 

Vanessa and Aaron ­

Per your request, here is a summary spreadsheet with the measured particulate fractions from recent source tests 

on our plants. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Thanks! 

Jim 

The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the 

recipient(s) named above. Ifthe reader ofthis message is not the intended recipient or an agent 

responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this 

document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly 

prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete 

the original message. 

file://C:\Documents and Settings\vhinkle\Local Settings\Temp\notes7A42A6\-web2747.htm 2/1/2012 
PPL Montana
 

Summary of EPA Method 202 Particulate Sta

November, 2011
 

Filterable Condensable 

Particulate Particulate Total Particulate 

Unit Date (#/MMBtu) (#/MMBtu) (#/MMBtu) 

Av

pro

particul

runs, r

Colstrip 1 Apr-11 0.0155 0.0214 0.0369 

Avg 

Colstrip 3 Jun-10 0.0226 0.0049 0.0275 respo

Corette Apr-11 0.07 0.007 0.077
----

----

I Mitteilungen

Rat

----

SCHLUSSFOLGERUNGEN DES RATES

vom 21. Februar 2005

zur allgemeinen und beruflichen Bildung im Rahmen der Halbzeitüberprüfung der Lissabonner Strategie

(2005/C 85/01)

DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN UNION —

eingedenk

HEBT FOLGENDES HERVOR:

ERINNERT AN FOLGENDES:

EMPFIEHLT FOLGENDES:

ERSUCHT DEN EUROPÄISCHEN RAT

----

----

SCHLUSSFOLGERUNGEN DES RATES

vom 21. Februar 2005

im Rahmen der Halbzeitüberprüfung der Lissabonner Strategie

(2005/C 85/02)

DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHE UNION —

unter Berücksichtigung

BETONT

TEILT

VERTRITT DIE AUFFASSUNG, DASS

ERSUCHT DEN EUROPÄISCHEN RAT,

----

Kommission

----

Euro-Wechselkurs (1)

6. April 2005

(2005/C 85/03)

1 Euro= 

----

(1)

Quelle: Von der Europäischen Zentralbank veröffentlichter Referenz-Wechselkurs.

----

----

Liste der entsprechenden Befähigungszeugnisse, die nach dem Verfahren des Artikels 18 Absatz 3 der Richtlinie 2001/25/EG über Mindestanforderungen für die Ausbildung von Seeleuten anerkannt wurden (1)

(Stand 31. Dezember 2004)

(2005/C 85/04)

(Text von Bedeutung für den EWR)

----

(1)  Die Niederlande und das Vereinigte Königreich erkennen nicht bestimmte Seefahrtsschulen und -ausbildungsstellen an, sondern alle im jeweiligen Drittstaat zugelassenen Seefahrtsschulen und -ausbildungsstellen.

----

----

Vorherige Anmeldung eines Zusammenschlusses

(Sache COMP/M.3773 — Lehman Brothers/Europe Realty/IHG Portfolio)

Für das vereinfachte Verfahren in Frage kommender Fall

(2005/C 85/05)

(Text von Bedeutung für den EWR)

----

(1)ABl. L 24 vom 29.1.2004, S. 1.

(2)  Zu finden auf der Internetseite der Generaldirektion Wettbewerb:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----

Berichtigungen

----

Berichtigung der Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen für indirekte FTE-Maßnahmen im Rahmen des spezifischen Programms für Forschung, technologische Entwicklung und Demonstration Ausgestaltung des Europäischen Forschungsraums

(Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 63 vom 15. März 2005)

(2005/C 85/06)

Seite 15, im Anhang, Punkt 8, in der Tabelle, erste Spalte:

anstatt:

„1.2.4.2.2“

muss es heißen:

„1.2.3.3“.

Seite 16, im Anhang, Punkt 13, in der Tabelle, Titel der zweiten Spalte:

anstatt:

„Bereich 1.2.4.2.1“

muss es heißen:

„Bereich 1.2.3.3“.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 632 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 632

  To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to repeal a 
   duplicative program relating to inspection and grading of catfish.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2013

  Mr. McCain (for himself, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Nelson, Ms. 
Ayotte, Mr. Kirk, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Warner, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Crapo, and 
  Mr. Risch) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to repeal a 
   duplicative program relating to inspection and grading of catfish.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DUPLICATIVE PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Effective on the date of enactment of the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.), section 
11016 of that Act (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2130) and the 
amendments made by that section are repealed.
    (b) Application.--The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 
1621 et seq.) and the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.) shall be applied and administered as if section 11016 of the 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 
Stat. 2130) and the amendments made by that section had not been 
enacted.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1







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 Report of Z Holdings Group, Inc. a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ending    March 31, 2013 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Scot Scheer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to
my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



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







/s/ Scot Scheer

Scot Scheer

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer



Date:

March 15, 2013
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3985

To amend the Federal Rules of Evidence with respect to the rule of privileges

in civil cases.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 9, 1994

Mr. CRANE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Federal Rules of Evidence with respect to

the rule of privileges in civil cases.

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

3 That rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is amend4 ed by inserting ‘‘and in civil actions under section 1979

5 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C.

6 1983),’’ after ‘‘rule of decision’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of
Principal Executive OfficerPursuant 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 Bridgeway Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
July 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Keri B. Bosch,
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: September 14, 2011 |  | /s/ Keri B. Bosch          
|------------------------ |  | ---------------------------
|                         |  | Name: Keri B. Bosch        
|                         |  | Principal Executive Officer
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Thomas SOLIS, Respondent.

No. 42399.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 25, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 262 So.2d 9.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
February 20, 2013 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Exemption 6916, Docket No. FAA-2001-8878 

Ladies/Gentlemen: 

Pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) §11.61 American Airlines petitions the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) for an extension of an amendment to Exemption 6916 (Docket No. 

FAA-2001-8878). This exemption is due to expire July 31, 2013. 

Exemption 6916 provides relief from FAR §121.434(c)(1)(ii) to permit American Airlines 

to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector, to 

observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC), while that PIC is performing prescribed 

duties during at least one flight leg, that includes a takeoff and a landing when completing 

initial or upgrade training, as specified in §121.434. 

The conditions and circumstances, in regard to public interest and equivalent level of safety, which 

warranted the original grant of exemption, continue to exist. This exemption has been in use for 

almost fourteen years with no known compromise of safety. 

In accordance with the provisions of FAR §11.87, “Circumstances in which the FAA may decide 

not to publish a summary of my petition for exemption”, American Airlines requests that a finding 

of good cause be made for waiving publication in the Federal Register. Since similar extensions 

have been granted to other Part 121 Air Carriers, no precedents will be set by granting the requested 

relief. Therefore, American requests that the publication and comment period be waived. 

A summary of this petition is attached as required by FAR §11.81. Please advise if you require any 

addition information in order to evaluate or act on this petition. 

 Sincerely, 

 Christopher K. Broom 

 Managing Director 

 Flight Training 
 2 

Docket FAA-2001-8878 

Attachment 

February 20, 2013 

SUMMARY OF AMERICAN AIRLINES PETITION 

 Petitioner: American Airlines (AAL) 

 Regulations Affected: FAR § 121.434 (c)(1)(ii). 

Description of Relief Sought: American Airlines requests an extension and 

amendment of Exemption No. 6916 (Docket No. 

29207) which is due to expire on July 31, 2013. This 

exemption provides relief from FAR 

§121.434(c)(1)(ii) to permit AAL to substitute a 

qualified and authorized check airman in place of an 

FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in 

command (PIC) while that PIC is performing 

prescribed duties during at least one flight leg that 

includes a takeoff and a landing when completing 

initial or upgrade training as specified in §121.424.
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eastern Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Rozelle, President 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, to the best of my knowledge that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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: My 13, 2011





/s/ Joseph RozelleJoseph Rozelle

President

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)











The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
----

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 22 June 2004

in Case C-151/03 P: Karl L. Meyer against the Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Appeal - Action for damages - Compensation for losses suffered due to maladministration by the Commission - Application of the decisions relating to the association of the OCTs)

(2005/C 6/40)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-151/03P: Karl L. Meyer, residing at Uturoa (Island of Raiatea, French Polynesia) (lawyer: J.-D. des Arcis) the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and M.B. Martenczuk) – appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2003 in Case T-333/01 Meyer v Commission [2003] ECR II-117, asking for that judgment to be set aside – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of J. N. Cunha-Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and K. Schiemann, Judges; Advocate General: A. Tizzano, Registrar: R. Grass, has given an order on 22 June 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2014 (the Report) of Solar Senior Capital Ltd. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, MICHAEL S. GROSS, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|      |  |                         
|----- |  | ------------------------
|      |  | /S/     MICHAEL S.
GROSS
|Name: |  | Michael S. Gross        
|Date: |  | August 4, 2014
#### John Panso et al., Appellants, v Triboro Coach Corp., Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), entered August 24, 1989, which *814granted the motion of the defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On September 3, 1984, the plaintiff John Panso was crossing the street at the corner of Hobart Street and 30th Avenue in Queens, when he tripped and fell into a steep pothole by the curb at a bus stop. The pothole allegedly measured approximately 17 by 20 inches and four or more inches in depth. As a result of the fall, John Panso suffered a fracture of his left hip, which left him with some permanent disability. He commenced the instant action, alleging, *inter alia,*that the use by the defendant Triboro Coach Corp. of the bus stop area tended to create potholes so as to cause hazardous and unsafe conditions. The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention on appeal, the defendant was under no duty to the plaintiff John Panso to maintain the road in the bus stop area. It is well established that the nondelegable duty to maintain the roads and highways in a reasonably safe condition rests with the governmental entity charged with this obligation, be it the State, county or municipality *(see, Lopes v Rostad,*45 NY2d 617, 623; *see also, Friedman v State of New York,*67 NY2d 271, 286). Before liability can be imposed on a defendant for his or her conduct, it must be demonstrated that the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and that there was a breach of that duty *(see, Pulka v Edelman,*40 NY2d 781, 782). The plaintiffs here failed to establish that the defendant owed the plaintiff John Panso a duty to maintain the road in the bus stop area *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562).

In addition, we find that the defendant did not owe a duty to the plaintiffs to notify the City of New York of the defective condition existing in the bus stop area. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.