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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1694 

To allow the funding for the interoperable emergency communications grant 

program established under the Digital Television Transition and Public 

Safety Act of 2005 to remain available until expended through fiscal 

year 2012, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mrs. HUTCHISON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To allow the funding for the interoperable emergency communications grant program established under the Digital 

Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 

to remain available until expended through fiscal year 

2012, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PUBLIC SAFETY INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICA4 TIONS GRANTS. 

5 (a) Notwithstanding section 3006(a)(2) of the Digital 

6 Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 (47 

7 U.S.C. 309 note), sums made available to administer the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1694 IS 

1 Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Pro2 gram under section 309(j)(8)(E) of the Communications 

3 Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(E)) shall remain avail4 able until expended, but not beyond September 30, 2012. 

5 (b) The period for performance of any investment ap6 proved under the Program as of the date of enactment 

7 of this Act shall be extended by one year, but not later 

8 than September 30, 2011, except that the Assistant Sec9 retary of Commerce for Communications and Information 

10 may extend, on a case-by-case basis, the period of per11 formance for any investment approved under the Program 

12 as of that date for a period of not more than 2 years, 

13 but not later than September 30, 2012. In making a deter14 mination as to whether an extension beyond September 

15 30, 2011, is warranted, the Assistant Secretary should 

16 consider the circumstances that gave rise to the need for 

17 the extension, the likelihood of completion of performance 

18 within the deadline for completion, and such other factors 

19 as the Assistant Secretary deems necessary to make the 

20 determination. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 20300 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JAMES BALDEMORO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14

- CR

- 86

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent James Baldemoro has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Baldemoro h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. While counsel addresses the validity of Baldemoro ’s appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 22, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-20300 Document: 00513433632 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2016No. 15

- 20300

2 waiver, counsel does not discuss the district court’s compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedu re 11. An appeal waiver in the plea agreement does not waive the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 or the need to brief this issue adequately in an Anders brief. See United States v. Carreon

- Ibarra , 673 F.3d 358, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Brown , 328 F.3d 787, 789

- 90 (5th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, our independent review confirms that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntar y . We thus concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appell ate review. Accordingly , counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2

. Case: 15-20300 Document: 00513433632 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2016
THE kiTl.ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

tich ll, 1957

Han. Jack Welch, Chairman Opinion No. WW- 51 ccmstitutiona1Amendments clxllcittee House of Repvesentatives Re: Austin,Texas Effect of H.J.R. 32, which propmesa constitutional amendment

to conferprobate jurisdiction

on county Court8 Dear Mr. Welch: at Iaw,upcm the Texas Robate ssst=. Pour letterrequesting our opinion

relative

to the captioued

matter reads as follows:

"The above described resolutiou

proposes

two changes iu the articleand section referred

to above. The first change increases

the maximum couourrent jurisdiction

of the county oourts

with the district

courts frau $l,OOOto $5,000. The secondproposedchauge coufers probate jurisdiction on alI County Courts at Iaw. YYe Kocse Cohstitutional&nendmnts Ccmmittee

is concerned

with the imprct of the secoudproposalstated above upon the probate court system iu the State. A copy of the above described resolution

is enclosed

herewith.

"It will be greatly appreciated

if you will aualyse this proposalFn the light of the present law aud furnish us with your opinionin counectiou therewith.* The 54th Legislature by Chapter 55, adopteda probatecode by revising and rearranging the statutes

of this St&e pertaining to probateand related

matters. We have carefully examined

this "TexasProbate Codes and have been unableto find any provisions thereinthat will not be applicable to County Courts at Iaw in their exercise of probate

matters in the event H.J.R. 32 is adoptedand such courtsare given general jurisdiction of a Protetecourt.Hon. JackWelch, page 2 (WW- 51)

u(e) 'county

Cmrt and mobate COlLF,' 3:"Us;~-mn,ymouis md dcmotc:

couityCOUX%Y l.n

the exe1~&1~~

rii Lheir prokate jurisdic;ion and courts especiall;J creatadand organh3d for the sole purpose of exercisiq pr&ath jurisdiction. w(f) 'County

Judge,' 'Probate

Judge,'~and

*Judge' dcn.ote the presidiiig

j,udgc. ofmy court haviug original jurisdictio&ovez

probate

proceedings,

whether it be a co~u~ty~court

.tn the exerciseof its probate jurisdiction c@ a court &pe$&&i,v.created and organized

for the sole purpose,of

exercising

probate jurisdiction. *I(g;'Court'

denotes

and includes

both a couuty court in the exerciseof its probate jurisdiction and a court especially created

and organized

for the sole puqose of exercising probate jurisdicti0n.u If 1f.J.R.

32 is adoptedall County Courts at Isw will by force of the Crmstit~tion

bacme "Probate

CourtM. The cc-de statesthat *CountyLuxL%~~ and "Probate

Court" are synonymous and denote county courts in the exerci;e of their probate jurisdiction. A County Court at Law is in fact a cowity court with certaiu jurisdictional kitations. ,H.J.R. 72 reumves

part of these jurisdic~t,iomnal

.Limi.tat'ims

by givingthem the general jurisdiction of a ProbateCourt.

If H.J.R. 32 is adoptedthe Constit~ztim will confnr ~npon

County Courts at kw the general jurisdiction of a ProbateCourt, and all the provisions of the nTexasProbate Code" which are applicable will apply to such courts

m Yours very truly,

APPRCVRD;L. WIL.bWIIscN Attorney

General

H. Grady Chmdler, Gheirmn
WVG:gs W.~ V. Geppert Assistant
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

 

The undersigned, Johannes T. Petersen, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director of Century Petroleum Corp., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Century Petroleum Corp. for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007 (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 Century Petroleum Corp.

 

Dated:  September 14, 2007

 

 

/s/ Johannes T. Petersen                                                

Johannes T. Petersen

Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director

(Principal Financial Officer)

 

 

 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Century Petroleum Corp. and will be retained by Century Petroleum Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





This
certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
(the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 of China Clean Energy
Inc. (the “Company”).  I, Tai-ming Ou, the Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify that, based on my knowledge:





(1)
            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





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as of and for the periods covered in this
  report.





Date:
      May 17, 2010
            
            By:
            /s/
      Tai-ming
      OuName:
            Tai-ming
      OuTitle:
            President
      and Chief Executive Officer





The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q
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 Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
S. 1717 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine 

An Act 

To authorize major medical facility leases for the Department of Veterans Affairs 

for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2010 MAJOR MEDICAL 

FACILITY LEASES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may carry 

out the following fiscal year 2010 major medical facility leases 

at the locations specified, in an amount not to exceed the amount 

shown for that location: 

(1) Anderson, South Carolina, Outpatient Clinic, in an amount not to exceed $4,774,000. 

(2) Atlanta, Georgia, Specialty Care Clinic, in an amount not to exceed $5,172,000. 

(3) Bakersfield, California, Community Based Outpatient 

Clinic, in an amount not to exceed $3,464,000. 

(4) Birmingham, Alabama, Annex Clinic and Parking 

Garage, in an amount not to exceed $6,279,000. 

(5) Butler, Pennsylvania, Health Care Center, in an amount 

not to exceed $16,482,000. 

(6) Charlotte, North Carolina, Health Care Center, in an 

amount not to exceed $30,457,000. 

(7) Fayetteville, North Carolina, Health Care Center, in an amount not to exceed $23,487,000. 

(8) Huntsville, Alabama, Outpatient Clinic Expansion, in 

an amount not to exceed $4,374,000. 

(9) Kansas City, Kansas, Community Based Outpatient 

Clinic, in an amount not to exceed $4,418,000. 

(10) Loma Linda, California, Health Care Center, in an 

amount not to exceed $31,154,000. 

(11) McAllen, Texas, Outpatient Clinic, in an amount not 

to exceed $4,444,000. 

(12) Monterey, California, Health Care Center, in an 

amount not to exceed $11,628,000. 

(13) Montgomery, Alabama, Health Care Center, in an 

amount not to exceed $9,943,000. 

(14) Tallahassee, Florida, Outpatient Clinic, in an amount 

not to exceed $13,165,000. 

(15) Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Health Care Center, 

in an amount not to exceed $26,986,000. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for fiscal 

year 2010 or the year in which funds are appropriated for the 
S. 1717—2 

Medical Facilities account $196,227,000 for the leases authorized 

in subsection (a). 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4772]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that 
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings 
related to the transmission planning activities of the New York 
Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):

Joint Inter-Regional Planning Task Force/Electric System Planning 
Working Group

    February 27, 2012, 11 a.m.-4 p.m., Local Time.

Inter-Area Planning Stakeholder Advisory Subcommittee

    March 30, 2012, 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m., Local Time (conference call 
only).
    The above-referenced meetings will be held at: NYISO's offices, 
Rensselaer, NY.
    The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at www.nyiso.com.
    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters 
at issue in the following proceeding:
    Docket No. ER08-1281, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market 
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#206a414d45530e6541534f4e60464552430e474f56"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eda78c80889ec3a88c9e8283ad8b889f8ec38a829b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 22, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4772 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

(l,voumake clumges to the 1•ulues in the table hdow. you 111/ISI ensure the totals updute accordingly. (f" 

they clo not, click (or Tah) i11to u11d then out (?[the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) 

Do (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspect for installed 2.0 lj I 't $0 402875-05-01 PRS •II 47 ' : 

I ( ' 

l'' 

p .. .. ' ' 

I I ' r 

' ,. 

. " . ()Ill! II fi 

tl 1•1 

•' II< . \ •;i, 

II' • 1! i t'l I II 

fl · . 

' 

, ·" 1 C·l I 

' ,, . .,. '·' ' I 

,;( illl I 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $7,990 

Costs covered under warranty (!f known) $0 

On-Condition Costs: ~ . -

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Replace with the 1.0 402875-03-01 PRS .. Unknown 

., I I' 

. , ... . 
Special conside•·ations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to e;'Cplain warranty costs): The workhours estimate includes the hours to inspect for the PRS patt number (PIN) including access. The 

on-condition work-hours includes the hours to replace one PRS PIN 402875-05-01 with PRS PIN 

402875-03-01 and to do the PRS System Test. Some operators may need to replace additional 

PRS, up to 4 on an airplane, if PRS PIN 402875-05-01 is installed in multiple PRS locations. 

Replacing each additional PRS would take approximately l hour. Also, if operators are able to 

verify, through a check of maintenance records, that PRS PIN 402875-03-01 is installed in all 

four PRS locations, no airplane inspection is required. 

The cost estimate does not include parts cost for the Pitch Rate Sensor (PIN 402875-03-01), 

because the PRS are considered "Parts and Materials Supplied by the Operator". Up to four PRS 

may be required. 

Boeing warranty remedies are not available for the configuration changes given in the service 

bulletin. 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?. 

YES* 0 NO IZ] 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? ~ 

YES* 0 NO IZ] 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

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

either a Yes or No an wer. · 

YES 0 NO IZ] 

Explanation: This AD is for transport aircraft that are primarly operated by large commercial 

airlines. 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? • 

YES* 0 NO IZ] 

*Explanation:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5303]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: Notice of Closed 
Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel; Sickle Cell Disease Program Project Grant 
Review.
    Date: March 20, 2012.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Kristin Goltry, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and 
Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7198, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-435-0297, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4d3dbd8c0c6cddfd8f4d9d5ddd89adadddc9ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f790989b83858e9c9bb79a969e9bd9999e9fd9909881">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel; Sleep Research Resource Project.
    Date: March 21, 2012.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Giuseppe Pintucci, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and 
Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7192, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-435-0287, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abfbc2c5dfdec8c8c2ccebc5c3c7c9c285c5c2c385ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c090a9aeb4b5a3a3a9a780aea8aca2a9eeaea9a8eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 22, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-5303 Filed 3-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### William Eugene BINGHAM, Appellee, v. Werva Jeanette BINGHAM, Appellant.

No. 62158.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March 8, 1988.

Jerry V. Beavin, Robinson & Bower, Inc., Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Eric S. Gray, Kirk & Chaney, Oklahoma City, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ALMA WILSON, Justice:

The parties were granted a decree of divorce on March 31, 1982. On December 1, 1983, appellant filed a motion to modify the support alimony provisions of the-1982 divorce decree, pursuant to 1983 Okla.Sess. Laws, ch. 86, § 1 (effective November 1, 1983), codified in 12 O.S. § 1289. The ap-pellee filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted for the reason that the provisions of the 1983 amendment to 12 O.S. § 1289 applied prospectively.

Title 12 O.S.1981, § 1289 has been amended three times. The issue is whether § 1289(E), which permits modification of support alimony upon proof of changed circumstances, applies to an order of support alimony imposed in a decree of divorce rendered prior to the effective date of the statute.

In *Nantz v. Nantz,*749 P.2d 1137, 59 OBJ 335 (Okla.1988) this Court construed the same statute, subsection D. The issue in *Nantz*was whether § 1289(D) could be applied retrospectively in order to consider a motion to modify the support alimony provisions of a divorce decree granted prior to the effective date of the statute. Subsection D allows modification when the supported party cohabits with a member of the opposite sex. This Court found that wording of the subsequent amendments evidenced a clear intent from the legislature that the statute be given retrospective affect. As the rationale in *Nantz*applies equally to this case, we hold that § 1289(E) must be given retrospective effect.

We therefore reverse the order of the trial court, and remand this case for consideration of the appellant’s motion to modify the support alimony provisions of the decree of divorce.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOOLIN, C.J., HARGRAVE, V.C.J., and HODGES and LAVENDER, JJ., concur.

*733OPALA and KAUGER, JJ., for the reason expressed in *Nantz v. Nantz,*749 P.2d 1137, and SUMMERS, JJ., dissent.