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

Calendar No. 22 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 505 

To prohibit the use of drones to kill citizens of the United States within 

the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2013 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. PAUL, and Mr. LEE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read the first time 

MARCH 11, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of drones to kill citizens of the United 

States within the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DRONES. 

4 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

5 (1) the term ‘‘drone’’ means an unmanned air6 craft (as defined in section 331 of the FAA ModVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:34 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S505.PCS S505

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 505 PCS

1 ernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 

2 40101 note)); 

3 (2) the term ‘‘serious bodily injury’’ has the 

4 meaning given that term in section 1365 of title 18, 

5 United States Code; and 

6 (3) the term ‘‘United States’’ as used in a terri7 torial sense, has the meaning given that term in sec8 tion 5 of title 18, United States Code. 

9 (b) PROHIBITION.—The Federal Government may 

10 not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States who 

11 is located in the United States. The prohibition under this 

12 subsection shall not apply to an individual who poses an 

13 imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to an14 other individual. Nothing in this section shall be construed 

15 to suggest that the Constitution would otherwise allow the 

16 killing of a citizen of the United States in the United 

17 States without due process of law. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 22 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 505 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of drones to kill citizens of the 

United States within the United States. 

MARCH 11, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 12, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Ken desGarennesKen desGarennesChief Financial Officer
**Description 25**  **50 100**  Date 10/1/02 10/1/02 10/1/02 Time 9:00-10:40 13:20-13:40 14:10-14:18 Fired Pellets (gp2 Scale Tons) 481 479 477

Temperatures (°F)

BurnThru 642 689 707 WB12 Hood 798 807 815 WB14 Hood 1203 1241 1186 WB16 Hood 1388 1384 1380 WB18 Hood 2258 2255 2255 WB20 Hood 2211 2209 2214 WB22 Hood 2177 2203 2210 WB24 Hood 1648 1706 1674 UDD Hood 376 378 378 DDD Hood 412 425 415 Direct Recup Header 1657 1670 1697 WB R Fan Discharge 422 440 427

Pressures ("H2O)

UDD Hood -2.70 -2.53 -3.76 DDD Hood 0.60 0.56 0.72 Firing Hood -1.40 -1.36 -1.13 1st Cooling Hood -0.30 -0.30 -0.26 2nd Cooling Hood -4.10 -4.19 -1.57 UDD Header 14.5 14.6 19.4 WB E Header 18.6 18.6 19.8 WB R Header 25.5 24.9 27.5 CAF Header 19.7 20.2 16.2

S Chamber Gas (MCF/hr) 59.2 62.0 61.0 N Chamber Gas (MCF/hr) 57.0 56.0 51.0 Grate Speed (FPM) 10.6 10.2 10.2 Total Bed Depth (inches) 14.6 14.6 14.7 Hearth Layer Level (inches) 3.1 2.9 2.9

Limestone Rate (LTPH) 1.2 1.4 1.2 Limestone Addition Ratio 0.3 0.3 0.3 **At omizing A** **ir Fan Damper, % Open Table 3**  **Hibtac Line 3 Waste Gas Stack NOx Emission Testing**

**Plant Operating Data**

### S.P.

**Date Stack**  **AC FM**  **SCFM DSCFM**  **DB WB**  **"H2O Ac** **tual Standard**  **Dry Wet**  **Total** 9/10/02 HE #1 185,000 165,000 158,000 101 99 -0.80 0.0690 0.0773 12,208 533 12,741 9/10/02 HE #2 178,000 158,000 152,000 104 100 -0.60 0.0686 0.0773 11,725 523 12,248 9/10/02 WB E #3 173,000 152,000 145,000 111 104 -0.55 0.0676 0.0771 11,147 559 11,706 9/10/02 WB E #4 178,000 155,000 148,000 116 101 -0.70 0.0672 0.0774 11,456 497 11,953 9/10/02 Total 714,000 630,000 603,000 46,536 2,112 48,648 **Temerature Density (lbs/ft3)**  **Ma ss Flow (lbs/min)**  **Table 2**

**Waste Gas Stack A irflow Results**  **Hibtac Line 3 Waste Gas Stack NOx Emission Testing Atomizing**  **Air Fired**  **North South**  **North South**  **Fan %**  **Measured NOx Emissions Pellets**  **Chamber Chamber**  **Chamber Chamber**  **Damper Total**  **Stoichiometric Total**  **lbs/million Date**  **LTPH Burner**  **Burner Total**  **Burner Burner**  **Total %**  **Open ACFM**  **lbs/min Air**  **PPM lbs/hr**  **PPM lbs/hr**  **PPM lbs/hr**  **PPM lbs/hr**  **lbs/hr lbs/LTP**  **Btu's** 10/1/02 481 57.0 59.2 116.2 40.3 41.9 82.2 25 2,969 249 19.3 55 62 67 73 103 106 125 131 372 0.77 3.20 10/1/02 479 56.0 62.0 118.0 39.6 43.8 83.4 50 3,517 288 21.9 114 117 137 144 10/1/02 477 61.0 51.0 112.0 43.1 36.1 79.2 100 3,802 309 24.8 149 157 **Table 1**

**HE Stack #2 WBE Stack #3**  **WBE Stack #4 Hibtac Pelletizing Line 3 Waste Gas Stack NOx Emissions**  **Measured at Atomizing Air Fan Damper Settings of 25% , 50%**  **and 100%**

**Open**

**Natural Gas (MCF/hr) Natural Gas (lbs/min)**  **Atomizing Air Fan HE Stack #1**
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1209

LOUISE BIGGERS,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JOHN G. STUMPF, doing business as Chairman, President and 

CEO, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; SAMUEL I. WHITE,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:15-cv-00682-JAG)

Submitted: June 30, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louise Biggers, Appellant Pro Se. Terry Catherine Frank, 

KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Christy Lee Murphy, 

Hunter Wilmer Sims, Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, 

Virginia; Benjamin Alexander Wills, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, 

Newport News, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Louise Biggers appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing her complaint seeking to enjoin the foreclosure of 

her home. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Biggers v. Stumpf, No. 3:15-cv-00682-JAG (E.D. Va. 

Feb. 3, 2016). 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.

DISMISSED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OLIVA ESTHER MORA DE ESCOBAR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70755

Agency No. A073-808-162

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Olivia Esther Mora De Escobar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. We

dismiss the petition for review.

FILED

MAR 09 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70755

We lack jurisdiction to review Mora De Escobar’s contention that she was

not advised of her rights before admitting to the charge of alien smuggling because

she failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust her

administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.

2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised

before the agency). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
Exhibit 10.67

 

	
 
    	
Effective   January 1, 2014
    


 

Michelle Vicary

[address]

 

Dear Ms. Vicary:

 

This will confirm our agreement to amend your employment agreement with Crown Media Holdings, Inc. (“Crown”) dated January 1, 2012 (the “Agreement”), as follows:

 

1.                                      Your new title will be “Executive Vice President, Programming and Network Publicity.”

 

2.                                      The term of the Agreement and your employment by Crown as set forth in Paragraph 2 of the Agreement is extended until December 31, 2016, unless otherwise terminated in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

 

3.                                      Your base salary as set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Agreement will increase to Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000.00) effective March 1, 2014.

 

Except as amended herein, all other terms of the Agreement will remain in full force and effect.

 

 

	
 
    	
Very truly   yours,
    
	
 
    	
Crown Media   Holdings, Inc.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ William   Abbott
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:   William Abbott
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    


 

	
Agreed and   Accepted:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Michelle   Vicary
    	
 
    
	
Michelle   Vicary
#### Arnold ROSENSTEIN, d/b/a Chatham Construction Co., Appellant, v. Jerald RATICOFF and Joan Raticoff, his wife, Appellees.

No. 71-922.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 25, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 25, 1972.

J. I. Watson, Hollywood, for appellant.

James A. Dixon, Jr., and Dixon, Dixon, Lane & Mitchell, Miami, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

While we agree with each of the abstract legal propositions advanced by appellant, we find that we are unable to apply them in the instant appeal and unable to determine that reversible error has been committed. The reason is that we have not been furnished with the record, or enough of it, whereby we can conclusively and definitively determine the whole factual basis for the trial court decisions. The judgment comes, of course, with a presumption of correctness and it is the duty of appellant to demonstrate error by furnishing the basis upon which the rulings were made in order that we may review same and decide their correctness. Belflower v. Risher, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 702; Warriner v. Doug Tower, Inc,, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 384; Brown v. Householder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 801.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and MAG-ER, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000924822
<NAME> MILLER INDUSTRIES, INC. /TN
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,331
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,109
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     77,912
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               184,860
<PP&E>                                         133,231
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 392,480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,411
<BONDS>                                        133,850
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           467
<OTHER-SE>                                     186,836
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   392,480
<SALES>                                        525,932
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               525,932
<CGS>                                          435,691
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  511,059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,395
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,478
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,272
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,206
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,206
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Alonzo Roshawn Primus, * From the 29th District Court

of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. 13606.

Vs. No. 11-17-00284-CR * April 19, 2018

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal 

is dismissed.
# Official Journal C 63E/15 M

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 63E |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4815 March 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 63E

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4815 March 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Council |
| 2005/C 063E/1 | Common Position (EC) No 11/2005 of 9 December 2004 adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, with a view to adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) Nos 3820/85 and 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities (1) | 1 |
| 2005/C 063E/2 | Common Position (EC) No 12/2005 of 9 December 2004 adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, with a view to adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 | 11 |
| 2005/C 063E/3 | Common Position (EC) No 13/2005 of 9 December 2004 adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, with a view to adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels | 26 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Council

2005/C 063E/1

Common Position (EC) No 11/2005 of 9 December 2004 adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, with a view to adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) Nos 3820/85 and 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities (1)

1

2005/C 063E/2

Common Position (EC) No 12/2005 of 9 December 2004 adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, with a view to adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98

11

2005/C 063E/3

Common Position (EC) No 13/2005 of 9 December 2004 adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, with a view to adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels

26

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-93630, No. 33-93652, No.333-4206, No. 333-4026,
No. 333-43461, and No. 333-65239) of Citation Corporation and subsidiaries of
our reports dated December 1, 1999 relating to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedules, which appear in this Form 10-K.
We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Selected Consolidated
Financial Data" in this Form 10-K.  However, it should be noted that
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has not prepared or certified such "Selected
Consolidated Financial Data" in this Form 10-K.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-4 (No. 333-86763 and No. 333-89431) of  Citation
Corporation and subsidiaries of our reports dated December 1, 1999 relating to
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules, which
appear in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the references to us under the
headings "Independent Accountants" and "Selected Consolidated Financial Data" in
such registration statements. However, it should be noted that
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has not prepared or certified such "Selected
Consolidated Financial Data" in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, Alabama
December 29, 1999

                                      235
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of FS Energy and Power Fund (the "Company") for the three
months ended March 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), Michael C. Forman, as Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Edward T. Gallivan, Jr., as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



Dated: May 15, 2013/s/ MICHAEL C. FORMAN Michael C. Forman Chief Executive Officer/s/ EDWARD T. GALLIVAN, JR. Edward T. Gallivan, Jr. Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
#### Norah DORSEY, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-654.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 21, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT TRISTAN HAMILTON, DOC #129942 ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-1360 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed March 2, 2018.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. Simone Lennon, of Simone Lennon, PA, Clearwater, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kiersten E. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
SILBERMAN, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
EX-10.9



 Exhibit 10.9 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 

IMS HEALTH INCORPORATED EMPLOYEE PROTECTION PLAN 

(as amended and restated effective September 1, 2009) 

Effective January 1, 2012, the IMS Health Incorporated Employee Protection Plan, as amended and restated effective September 1, 2009
and as amended by a First Amendment thereto effective January 1, 2011 (the “Plan”), is further amended as follows: 
 The
paragraph under the subtitle “Plan Coverage” is amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
 The Plan covers all full-time salaried
employees and regular part-time salaried employees of the Corporation and any affiliated company that the Committee has designated to participate in the Plan (collectively referred to as the “Corporation”) who incur an “Eligible
Termination” (as defined below). These employees are referred to in this summary as “Eligible Employees.” Notwithstanding the foregoing, (a) an employee who has entered into an agreement with the Corporation which expressly
excludes such employee from participation in this Plan (e.g., by naming this Plan or excluding participation in Company-sponsored severance plans generally) and which remains in effect at the date of such employee’s termination of employment
shall not be an Eligible Employee; and (b) an employee who otherwise would qualify but who is not on the United States payroll shall be an Eligible Employee only if so determined by the Plan Administrator, and such Eligible Employee, and any
employee of an affiliated company who qualifies as an Eligible Employee shall be subject to such additional terms and limitations as the Plan Administrator may consider necessary or advisable; and (c) a worker who has signed an agreement with
the Corporation stating that he or she is not eligible to participate in the Plan and any worker that the Corporation treats as an independent contractor, during the period that the worker is so treated, regardless of whether such worker may be
determined to be an employee by administrative, judicial or other decision, shall not be an Eligible Employee; and (d) effective January 1, 2012, an employee of SDI Health LLC on December 31, 2011 shall not be an Eligible Employee
until November 1, 2012. Each Eligible Employee shall be designated as within one of the groups specified as “Selected Executives,” “Level A,” “Level B,” or “Level C” as described in Section III below.

 In all other respects the Plan remains in full force and effect. 

The authorized officers of IMS Health Incorporated have caused this instrument of amendment to be executed this 16th day of November, 2011. 
  

			
	
	/s/ Paul Thomson
	By:	 	Paul Thomson
	Title:	 	 Senior Vice President, Human
 Resources &
Administration
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 14, 2016

NO. 03-15-00777-CR

Herman Lee Kindred, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction signed by the trial court. Having reviewed the 

record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay 

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.