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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 144 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 144

Commemorating the 200th anniversary of the first meeting of Congress in 
                            Washington, DC.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 5 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
       concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Commemorating the 200th anniversary of the first meeting of Congress in 
                            Washington, DC.

Whereas November 17, 2000, is the 200th anniversary of the first meeting of 
        Congress in Washington, DC;
Whereas Congress, having previously convened at the Federal Hall in New York 
        City and at the Congress Hall in Philadelphia, has met in the United 
        States Capitol Building since November 17, 1800;
Whereas President John Adams, on November 22, 1800, addressed a joint session of 
        Congress in Washington, DC, for the first time, stating, ``I 
        congratulate the people of the United States on the assembling of 
        Congress at the permanent seat of their Government; and I congratulate 
        you, gentlemen, on the prospect of a residence not to be changed.'';
Whereas, on December 12, 1900, Congress convened a joint meeting to observe the 
        centennial of its residence in Washington, DC;
Whereas since its first meeting in Washington, DC, on November 17, 1800, 
        Congress has continued to cultivate and build upon a heritage of respect 
        for individual liberty, representative government, and the attainment of 
        equal and inalienable rights, all of which are symbolized in the 
        physical structure of the United States Capitol Building; and
Whereas it is appropriate for Congress, as the first branch of the government 
        under the Constitution, to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the 
        first meeting of Congress in Washington, DC, in order to focus public 
        attention on its present duties and responsibilities: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
    (1) November 17, 2000, be designated as a day of national 
observance for the 200th anniversary of the first meeting of Congress 
in Washington, DC; and
    (2) the people of the United States be urged and invited to observe 
such date by celebrating and examining the legislative process by which 
members of Congress convene and air differences, learn from one 
another, subordinate parochial interests, compromise, and work towards 
achieving a constructive consensus for the good of the people of the 
United States.
                                 <all>
```
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-17-00385-CV

CHARLES GLEN HYDE, NORTHWEST 

REGIONAL AIRPORT, INC., TEXAS AIR 

CLASSICS, INC., DREAMSHIPS, INC.,

AND HYDE-WAY, INC., Appellants

V.

NORTHWEST REGIONAL AIRPORT 

PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,

INC., Appellee

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 16th District Court

of Denton County (16-05997-16)

December 20, 2018

Opinion by Justice Meier

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the final judgment of the trial 

court is reversed, and we render a declaratory judgment in favor of the Appellants, 

Charles Glen Hyde, NW Regional Airport, Inc., Texas Air Classics, Inc., Dreamships, 

Inc., and Hyde-Way, Inc., that the Integrated Deed Restrictions are invalid and 

unenforceable and that the Appellee, Northwest Regional Airport Property Owners 

Association, Inc., lacks the authority to financially obligate the property owners at the 
Northwest Regional Airport, and the case is remanded to the trial court to reconsider 

its award of attorneys’ fees.

It is further ordered that Appellee Northwest Regional Airport Property 

Owners Association, Inc. shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution 

issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
EXHIBIT 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Mercury Finance Company:

                         RE:  REGISTRATION STATEMENTS ON FORM S-8

                         o    Employee Stock Purchase Plan
                         o    1989 Stock Option and Incentive Compensation Plan
                         o    401(k) Plan

We consent to incorporation by reference in the subject Registration Statements
(filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 1989, May 11, 1989
and June 26, 1989) of Mercury Finance Company of our report dated February 12,
1996 except as to notes 5, 14 and 17 which are dated as of October 27,
1997, relating to the consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 1995, which
report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of Mercury
Finance Company.

                                   /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 20, 1998
From: Zekovich, Alex
To: Gregasz, Attila ; Kordzi, Joe
Cc: Cusick, Sean Subject: RE: Tolk cooling system converison study
Date: Thursday, August 27, 2015 12:59:38 PM
Attachments: removed.txt

Hi Joe:

A couple of points.

Xcel had preferred option 4, which was denoted as “var. Sep(X) ND-W”. This is the “separate circuit” utilizing the natural draft tower.

Per your note to Sean (regarding the use of a “rough order of magnitude” indication of pricing for the system if someone asks from the public domain, you could say a single unit (supply and installed) could be anywhere between $60M and $110M: there is such a variation between designs (e.g., single circuit or separate circuit) and design targets (i.e., if you wanted a 60/40 or an 80/20), and even variations in pricing/labor between one year/region and the next, that it would be difficult to estimate without some analysis.

From: Gregasz, Attila
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:42 AM
To: Kordzi.Joe@epa.gov
Cc: Zekovich, Alex <Alex.Zekovich@gea.com>; Cusick, Sean <Sean.Cusick@gea.com> Subject: Tolk cooling system converison study

Hello Joe,

Referring to the telephone conversation with Sean and Alex today, I hereby would like to send you the redacted and unredacted version of the above mentioned cooling system conversion study for your reference.

Please bear in mind that the price numbers were based on 2012 price level and contains assumptions to a certain extent.

Best regards,

Attila Gregasz Business Development Manager

GEA EGI Contracting/Engineering Co. Ltd. Phone +36 1 225 6199, Fax +36 1 225 6193 Mobile +36 30 632 1339attila.gregasz@gea.com www.brand-change.com

emailsignatur

4-20 Irinyi J. Str, Science Park, Bldg."B", Budapest, H-1117, Hungary; Postal Address: P.O. Box 192, Budapest, H-1507, Hungary Registered Office: Budapest; Court of Registration: Budapest Metropolitan Court, Cg. 01-10-041888 Executive Board: András Balogh (President & CEO), László Ludvig, Tamás Lelkes, János Hangyál

Confidentiality note This e-mail, including any attachment, may contain confidential and privileged information. If you have received it by mistake, please notify us by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail and any attachment from your system. Thank you!
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 132 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 132

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, in consonance with section 132(a) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946, when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the 
close of business on Thursday, July 27, 2000, Friday, July 28, 2000, or 
on Saturday, July 29, 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, September 5, 2000, or 
until noon on Wednesday, September 6, 2000, or until such time on 
either 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 Thursday, July 27, 2000, or Friday, 
July 28, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent 
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned 
until 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 6, 2000, 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.

            Passed the Senate July 27, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 132

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and 
        conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.
```
#### Rollin MOORE, Sr. v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 58499.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 21, 1989.

James D. Franks, Hernando, for appellant.

Mike Moore, Atty. Gen. by Harrison S. Ford, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, DeSoto County; Andrew C. Baker, Judge.

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ANDERSON, PITTMAN and BLASS, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**Certification**

I, John Fitzpatrick, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of WII Components, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge,the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) for the registrant and have:

a.             Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b.             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c.             Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a.             All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b.             Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| **Date: May 23, 2007** |                                   |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                   | /s/  John Fitzpatrick                  |   |
|                   | John  Fitzpatrick                      |
|                   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
Exhibit
32.1




SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION




The
undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Israel
Growth Partners Acquisition Corp. (the “Registrant”) for the fiscal quarter
ended April 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of the
Registrant.




Dated:  June
      15, 2009
              /s/
      Abhishek JainAbhishek
      JainChairman
      & Chief Operating Officer
Exhibit
10.1


[First Tennessee Letterhead]


May
12, 2005


Mr. Andrew Clarke

Forward Air Corporation

P.O. Box 1058

Greeneville, TN 37744


Re: Forward Air Corporation Credit
Facility


Dear Andy:


Concerning the terms of the Loan
and Security Agreement date September 10, 1998 ,and the Modification Agreement
dated June 18, 2002 First Tennessee Bank (“The Bank”) agrees to the following:


	
  

  	
  

  
	
 1.

  	
 The Bank extends the maturity date on the $20,000,000
  Master Secured Promissory Note dated September 10, 1998 (the “Line of
  Credit”) to April 30, 2007.

  



This agreement constitutes a one
time modification to the specific items addressed above. All other terms and
agreements of the Loan Documents remain in full effect and force. 


Sincerely,


/s/ Steve Mears

Steve Mears

Senior Vice President


Accepted as of the 17th day
of May, 2005


	
  

  	
  

  	
  

  
	
 By: /s/ Andrew C. Clarke 

  
	
  

  	

  



  	
  

  
	
  

  
	
  

  	
 Andrew Clarke, Chief Financial Officer

  
	
  

  
	
  

  	
    Forward Air Corporation
#### Inez DISON, et al. v. Charles DISON, Jr., et al.

No. 88-CC-1714.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 17, 1988.

PER CURIAM.

Considering the representation of the parties that Darleen M. Jacobs has withdrawn as counsel and will not perform any more legal services herein, the writ granted herein is withdrawn and the application is dismissed as moot.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Universal Travel Group (the
"Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: August 2007                                       /s/ Xin Zhang
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Xin Zhang
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
Simulated successive-night southward migration of H. 

zea from the Corn Belt in 1983
#### BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR the ATCHAFALAYA BASIN LEVEE DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Grover Wade BURDIN, Jr., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 87-761.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Oct. 5, 1988.

Writ Denied Dec. 2, 1988.

Bauer, Darnall & Boudreaus, Newman Trowbridge, Jr., Franklin, for plaintiff-appellant.

Joseph A. Cole, Jr., Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.

Joseph M. Thibaut, Asst. Dist. Atty., New Roads, for defendant-appellee.

*983Before DOUCET, LABORDE and YELVERTON, JJ.

YELVERTON, Judge.

For the reasons discussed in the consolidated case of *Burdin v. Board of Commissioners for the Atchafalaya Basin Levee District,*533 So.2d 977 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1988), the judgment of the trial court establishing the fair market value of the subject property at $123,541 is affirmed. The Board of Commissioners for the At-chafalaya Basin Levee District shall pay all costs of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.
#### Grady BOUTWELL v. STATE.

3 Div. 370.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 8, 1986.

*34Grady Boutwell, pro se.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and J. Elizabeth Kellum, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PATTERSON, Judge.

Appellant, Grady Boutwell, was convicted on April 12, 1965, of murder in the second degree and was sentenced to thirty years in the state penitentiary. His conviction was affirmed without opinion by this court and affirmed with opinion by the Alabama Supreme Court. *Boutwell v. State,*279 Ala. 176, 183 So.2d 774 (1966).

On November 1, 1985, appellant filed a pro se pleading styled “Motion for Jail Time,” in the Circuit Court of Escam-bia County, Alabama. Appellant alleged that he spent thirteen months in jail awaiting trial and that this time was not credited to his sentence as required by § 15-18-7, Code of Alabama 1975. The trial court summarily denied appellant’s “motion.” Appellant then filed a “Motion for a Written Statement as to Findings of Facts,” seeking the court’s reasons for denying his motion for jail time credit; this motion was also denied.

“A petition for writ of habeas corpus is a proper procedure to test whether the State has properly calculated the amount of time the inmate must serve in prison.” *Mead v. State,*475 So.2d 645 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). Appellant’s motion was properly sworn to and we will view it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, although not properly designated as such.

The State offered no facts which contradict those set out in the petition. Therefore, the unrefuted facts set out in the petition must be taken as true. *Giles v. State,*462 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), and cases cited therein. Section 15-18-5, Code of Alabama 1975, states:

> “Upon conviction and imprisonment for any felony or misdemeanor, the sentencing court shall order that the convicted person be credited with all of his actual time spent incarcerated pending trial for such offense. The actual time spent incarcerated pending trial shall be certified by the circuit clerk or district clerk on forms to be prescribed by the board of corrections.”

Section 15-18-7 states that § 15-18-5 “shall be applicable to any prisoner presently incarcerated who comes within the purview of sections 15-18-5 and 15-18-6.” (No issue pertaining to § 15-18-6 has been raised.)

Appellant’s unchallenged petition is meritorious on its face in view of §§ 15-18-5 and 15-18-7; therefore, he is entitled to habeas corpus relief if the asserted matters are true. The trial court should not have dismissed the petition without a hearing on the merits to ascertain facts sufficient to apply the applicable law.

We conclude that the trial court erred in summarily denying appellant’s petition. Therefore, the trial court’s judgment is hereby reserved, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur.
#### Robert J. PRESTON v. Kenneth GRANGER and State Farm Insurance Company. Arne V. OLSEN, Jr. v. Kenneth GRANGER and State Farm Insurance Company.

No. 88-C-0042.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Preston, Robert J.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 87-CA-0454, 87-CA-0455; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “M”, Nos. 282-013, 287-622.

Prior report: La.App., 517 So.2d 1125.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Ryan K. Wuerch, Director and Chief Executive Officer of Motricity, Inc. (the Registrant), hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:



|1. | The Registrants quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1
(the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: May 4, 2011



/s/ Ryan K. WuerchRyan K. WuerchChief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 50 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 50

To disapprove a final rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection 
                   Agency concerning water pollution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 17, 2000

Mr. Crapo (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. 
Craig, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gramm, and Mr. Inhofe) 
  introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
To disapprove a final rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection 
                   Agency concerning water pollution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to water 
pollution under the total maximum daily load program (65 Fed. Reg. 
43586), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```