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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 159 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 159

 Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and a 
        conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            November 1 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

   Mr. Lott submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and a 
        conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of business on 
Wednesday, November 1, 2000, or Thursday, November 2, 2000, on a motion 
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 
or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Tuesday, 
November 14, 2000, or until such time on that day as may be specified 
by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or 
adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and that when the House adjourns on the 
legislative day of Wednesday, November 1, 2000, or Thursday, November 
2, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by 
its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until noon on 
Monday, November 13, 2000, at 2 p.m., or until noon on the second day 
after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the Senate and the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the 
Members of the Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, 
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                 <all>
```
----

**Exhibit      21.1**

**Subsidiaries        of the Registrant**

|   | 1. | Method                  IQ, Inc., a Georgia corporation. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Personnel                  Resources of Georgia, Inc., a Georgia                  corporation. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | Viasys                  Services, Inc., a Florida                  corporation. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | Viasys                  Network Services, Inc., a Florida                  corporation. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 5. | Crochet                  & Borel Services, Inc., a Texas                  corporation. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 6. | Aeon                  Technologies Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation (formerly CCI Telecom,                  Inc). |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 7. | Digital                  Communication Services, Inc., a Kentucky                  corporation. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 8. | Cotton                  Telecom, Inc., a Delaware corporation (formerly Ayin Holding Company,                  Inc.). |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 9. | Cotton                  Restoration of Central Texas, LP, a Texas limited                  partnership. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 10. | Cotton                  Commercial USA, LP, a Texas limited                  partnership. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 11. | Cotton                  Holdings 1, Inc., a Delaware                  corporation. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### Larry L. SISSON, Appellant, v. The CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. M-84-444.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 25, 1986.

*1044Larry Sisson, pro se.

James R. Fuson, Acting Mun. Counselor, Marilyn S. Modin, Asst. Mun. Counselor, Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

Larry L. Sisson, appellant, was found guilty of failure to show proof of insurance, illegal or improper tag display, no current inspection sticker and no state driver’s license in possession in the Municipal Court of Oklahoma City in Case Nos. 84-3055425, 84-3055443, 84-30554434, and 84-3055416 and fined one hundred forty dollars ($140) plus ten dollars ($10) court costs, and he appeals.

Briefly stated the facts are that on November 30, 1983, appellant was stopped by an Oklahoma City police officer because appellant’s automobile displayed a homemade license tag. Subsequently, appellant was unable to produce a driver’s license; he refused to produce a proof of insurance form; and he failed to display a safety inspection sticker in the windshield. Therefore, the officer cited appellant for the four violations, and after appellant refused to sign the tickets, he was transported to jail until bond could be posted.

Appellant raises seven assignments of error on appeal; however, we note that appellant does not deny the charges brought against him and offers no legitimate defense, but simply raises patently frivolous constitutional issues in a rambling narrative which is unsupported by any authority. Contentions made without citation of authorities will not be considered on appeal. *Ward v. State,*628 P.2d 376 (Okl.Cr.1981).

For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.
#### Charles McGRATH, Director of the Division of Labor, as Administrator of the Major Medical Insurance Fund, Petitioner, and Hammel Sales Company, and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Interested Parties, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO and H. Conway Gandy, Hearing Officer of the Division of Hearing Officers, Department of Administration, and Robert James Gold, Respondents.

No. 83CA0333.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

March 8, 1984.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1984.

Certiorari Denied June 25, 1984.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. For-man, Sol. Gen., Christa D. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for petitioner.

Montgomery, Little, Young, Campbell & McGrew, P.C., J. Bayard Young, Engle-wood, for respondent Robert James Gold.

Duane Woodard, Atty: Gen., James R. Riley, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents Indus. Com’n of Colorado and H. Conway Gandy.

METZGER, Judge.

This is a review of a final order of the Industrial Commission of Colorado granting claimant, Robert James Gold, replacement of adaptive equipment for his van. We dismiss the petition.

On March 10, 1976, claimant, as the result of a work-related automobile accident, suffered a severe spinal cord injury which left him a quadriplegic. After the statutory maximum for medical benefits due from the employer’s insurance carrier was reached, claimant was admitted to the Major Medical Insurance Fund (Fund). The Fund authorized vocational rehabilitation counseling and other efforts including a ramp at claimant’s home and modifications to his van. When claimant abandoned his vocational rehabilitation efforts, the State Compensation Insurance Fund admitted total disability; the Fund continues to cover claimant’s medical benefits.

In 1981 claimant requested that the Fund replace the worn and unsafe adaptive equipment for his van. The Director of the Division of Labor denied the request. Claimant appealed, and a hearing officer for the Department of Administration ordered the Fund to replace the van’s adaptive equipment. The Industrial Commission affirmed; the Director of the Division of Labor, as Administrator of the Fund, seeks review.

Claimant asks that we dismiss the petition on the grounds that the Major Medical Insurance Fund is not a legal entity which can sue or be sued. We agree and conclude that the statutory provisions creating the Major Medical Insurance Fund, § 8-66-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1983 Cum.Supp.) con*811-813tain no authorization for the fund to initiate or defend any lawsuit.

Consequently, for reasons similar to those expressed in *Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Baca,*670 P.2d 1244 (Colo.App.1983) *(cert. granted*September 6, 1983); *Black Mountain Spruce Inc. v. Johnson,*670 P.2d 1241 (1983) *(cert. granted*October 11, 1983); and *St. Thomas More Hospital v. Industrial Commission,*674 P.2d 993, (Colo.App.1983) (ce*rt. granted*January 9, 1984), the petition is dismissed.

PIERCE and BERMAN, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-4628 GREGORY OXENDINE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-559) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 4, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTNZER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Debra Owens Jackson, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Robert H. Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Gregory Oxendine pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846(1994), and was sentenced to a term of ninety-two months incarceration, but was continued on bond to allow him to continue cooperation with the government. The government later moved for a reduction ofsentence pursuant to Rule 35(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, based on his substantial assistance. The district court granted the motion and reduced Oxendine's sentence to sixty months. Oxendine appeals the reduced sentence, challenging the extent of the district court's reduction. We find that we lack jurisdiction to review the extent of the reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3741(a) (1994); see also United States v. Pridgen , 64 F.3d 147, 149-50 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that § 3742(a) governs appeals of rulings on Rule 35(b) motions); United States v. Hill , 70 F.3d 321, 323-24 (4th Cir. 1995) (findingthat appellant review of extent of downward departure is not authorized under § 3742(a)).We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
2
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 138 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 138

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 28, 2000

          Referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress that a day of peace and sharing should 
             be established at the beginning of each year.

Whereas human progress in the 21st century will depend upon global understanding 
        and cooperation in finding positive solutions to hunger and violence;
Whereas the turn of the millennium offers unparalleled opportunity for humanity 
        to examine its past, set goals for the future, and establish new 
        patterns of behavior;
Whereas the people of the United States and the world observed the day 
        designated by the United Nations General Assembly as ``One Day in Peace, 
        January 1, 2000'' (General Assembly Resolution 54/29);
Whereas the example set on that day ought to be recognized globally and repeated 
        each year;
Whereas the people of the United States seek to establish better relations with 
        one another and with the people of all countries; and
Whereas celebration by the breaking of bread together traditionally has been the 
        means by which individuals, societies, and nations join together in 
        peace: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) each year should begin with a day of peace and sharing 
        during which--
                    (A) people around the world should gather with 
                family, friends, neighbors, their faith community, or 
                people of another culture to pledge nonviolence in the 
                new year and to share in a celebratory new year meal; 
                and
                    (B) Americans who are able should match or multiply 
                the cost of their new year meal with a timely gift to 
                the hungry at home or abroad in a tangible 
                demonstration of a desire for increased friendship and 
                sharing among people around the world; and
            (2) the President should issue a proclamation each year 
        calling on the people of the United States and interested 
        organizations to observe such a day with appropriate programs 
        and activities.

            Passed the Senate October 27 (legislative day, September 
      22), 2000.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
50275.

#### BRUCE et al. v. FOSTER.

Pannell, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from judgment of the court below based on a jury finding that a common law marriage existed between Neva J. Foster and Willie Foster, the deceased; the result of which established her as the sole heir at law of said Willie J. Foster. *Held:*

1. Enumeration of errors 2, 3 and 4 relate to the sustaining of objections to questions generally as to who was the wife of Willie Foster. The validity of the marriage was the ultimate question of fact to be decided by the jury. The trial judge did not err in excluding questions which involved, as here, the province of the jury. Any answer stating who the wife was would be a conclusion of the witness. *Brown v. Brown,*89 Ga. App. 428, 435 (6) (80 SE2d 2).

2. Enumeration of error no. 5 is to the refusal of the trial judge to permit a question over objection. Counsel withdrew the question as the judge was considering the objection. Therefore, there is nothing for this court to pass upon.

3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. The judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Quidian and Clark, JJ., concur.*

*686Submitted March 10, 1975

Decided April 8, 1975

Rehearing denied April 30, 1975

*Boatright & Boatright, J. Laddie Boatright,*for appellants.

*Preston & Preston, M. L. Preston,*for appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-697]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 12848-002 and 14081-000]


 FFP Project 6, LLC and Northland Power Mississippi River LLC; 
Notice Announcing Preliminary Permit Drawing

    The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications 
deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,\1\ for proposed 
projects to be located on the Mississippi River, near the town of New 
Orleans, in Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The applications were filed by 
FFP Project 6, LLC for Project No. 12848-002, and Northland Power 
Mississippi River LLC for Project No. 14081-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any 
document received after regular business hours is considered filed 
at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2) 
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the 
Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine 
the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The 
Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided 
in section 4.37 of its regulations.\2\ The priority established by this 
drawing will be used to determine which applicant, among those with 
identical filing times, will be considered to have the first-filed 
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 4.37 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the 
Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 
20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing 
the results of the drawing.

    Dated: January 10, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-697 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Mary A. NOLAN, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO, Charles McGrath, Director, Division of Labor, Safeway Stores, Self-Insured and Travelers Insurance Company, Respondents.

No. 82CA0624.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Dec. 30, 1982.

Certiorari Denied May 23, 1983.

Douglas R. Phillips, P.C., Douglas R. Phillips, Denver, for petitioner.

J.D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Robert C. Lehnert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents Indus. Com’n of Colorado, Charles McGrath, Director, Div. of Labor.

Watson, Nathan & Bremer, P.C., Anne Smith Myers, Denver, for respondent Safeway Stores.

The Law Firm of Thomas J. de Marino, Mark E. Macy, Thomas J. de Marino, Denver, for respondent Travelers Ins. Co.

PIERCE, Judge.

Mary A. Nolan seeks review of an order of the Industrial Commission in which it ruled that evidence submitted by her was insufficient to warrant the reopening of her *254claim. In arriving at this decision, the Commission reversed some of the findings made by the referee and entered its own findings based on the record. We set aside the order and remand.

The principal issue presented is whether the 1981 statutory amendment to § 8-53-106(2)(b), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.), which forbids the Commission from reversing evidentiary findings of a referee unless the findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence, applies here. We rule that it does.

The ruling by the referee was rendered on December 8, 1980. The amendment in question became effective on May 26, 1981.

The Commission argues the appeal process began when respondent’s motion for extension of time to file a petition for review with the Commission was filed on December 19, 1980, more than five months prior to the effective date of the amendment. According to the Commission, therefore, the amendment, which does not include language indicating any legislative intent for retroactive application, does not apply.

The review procedures commenced on December 19,1980, were peculiar to the Industrial Commission. Section 8-53-106, C.R.S. 1973. No final review was completed by the Commission until 1982, and it was not until May 18, 1982, that a final order, ripe for this court’s review was entered by the Commission. Section 8-53-108, C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.). The Commission erred in ruling that the amendment to the statute was inapplicable during its review and entry of the final order herein. Since the amendment was in effect prior to the Commission’s final order, it was bound by it in regard to all of its orders subsequently entered.

Because the findings of the referee are vague, on remand to the Industrial Commission, a redetermination of the factual issues should be referred to a referee for hearing and the findings then reviewed by the Industrial Commission in accordance with our ruling as to the applicability of the statutory amendment.

The order is set aside and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

SMITH and TURSI, *JJ.,*concur.

*253Rehearing Denied Jan. 27, 1983.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 149 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.149
                                      Agreed to October 12, 2000        

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the enrollment of 
the bill (H.R. 3244) to combat trafficking of persons, especially into 
the sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in the United 
States and countries around the world through prevention, through 
prosecution and enforcement against traffickers, and through protection 
and assistance to victims of trafficking, shall make the following 
correction:
        In section 2002(a)(2)(A)(ii), strike ``June 7, 1999,'' and 
    insert ``December 13, 1999,''.
  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.

  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```