alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 08-2440 WEAVER'S COVE ENERGY, LLC, Plaintiff, Appellee,

v . RHODE ISLAND COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL; MICHAEL M. TIKOIAN, in his capacity as Chairman of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council; PAUL E. LEMONT, in his capacity as Vice Chairman of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council; THOMAS RICCI; DAVID ABEDON; DONALD GOMEZ; K. JOSEPH SHEKARCHI; NEIL GRAY; W. MICHAEL SULLIVAN; RAYMOND C. COIA; GERALD P. ZARRELLA; BRUCE DAWSON; in their capacities as Members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, Defendants, Appellants.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on October 26, 2009, is amended as follows: On page 4, line 13, delete the word "to" in the phrase "under the to NGA."
II 

Calendar No. 432 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1492 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2020 

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To update the map of, and modify the maximum acreage 

available for inclusion in, the Yucca House National 

Monument. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Yucca House National 

5 Monument Expansion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) NATIONAL MONUMENT.—The term ‘‘Na9 tional Monument’’ means the Yucca House National 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1492 PCS

1 Monument in Cortez, Colorado, established by Presi2 dential Proclamation 1549. 

3 (2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map en4 titled ‘‘Yucca House National Monument Proposed 

5 Boundary Addition’’, numbered 318/105,085A, and 

6 dated February 27, 2019. 

7 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

8 the Secretary of the Interior. 

9 SEC. 3. YUCCA HOUSE NATIONAL MONUMENT LAND ACQUI10 SITION. 

11 (a) ACQUISITION.—The Secretary may acquire by do12 nation the approximately 160 acres of land and any inter13 ests in the land that is identified on the map. 

14 (b) BOUNDARY.—On the acquisition of the land au15 thorized under subsection (a), the Secretary shall adjust 

16 the boundaries of the National Monument to include the 

17 acquired land. 

18 (c) ADMINISTRATION.—The land and any interests in 

19 land acquired under subsection (a) shall be administered 

20 as part of the National Monument. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 26, 

2020. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 432 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1492 

AN ACT 

To update the map of, and modify the maximum 

House National Monument. acreage available for inclusion in, the Yucca 

FEBRUARY 27, 2020 

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 834 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 834

   To require States and local educational agencies to report on the 
achievement of military-connected students in annual report cards under 
          the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 2015

   Mrs. Davis of California introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require States and local educational agencies to report on the 
achievement of military-connected students in annual report cards under 
          the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Helping Military Children Succeed in 
Schools Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORTING ON MILITARY-CONNECTED STUDENTS IN ANNUAL REPORT 
              CARDS.

    Section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(h)(1)(C)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (vii);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (viii) and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(ix) not later than the beginning of the 
                        2015-2016 school year, information on the 
                        number of military-connected students (students 
                        who are a dependent of a member of the Armed 
                        Forces, including reserve components thereof) 
                        in the State and how such military-dependent 
                        students achieved on the State academic 
                        assessments described in subsection (b)(2) 
                        compared to all students in the State.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART FOUR

ASSOCIATION OF THE OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES

ASSOCIATION OF THE OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES

Article 198

(ex Article 182 TEC)

(ex Article 182 TEC)

The Member States agree to associate with the Union the non-European countries and territories which have special relations with Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. These countries and territories (hereinafter called the ‘countries and territories’) are listed in Annex II.

The purpose of association shall be to promote the economic and social development of the countries and territories and to establish close economic relations between them and the Union as a whole.

In accordance with the principles set out in the preamble to this Treaty, association shall serve primarily to further the interests and prosperity of the inhabitants of these countries and territories in order to lead them to the economic, social and cultural development to which they aspire.

---
# EUR-Lex - 12012M010 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12012M010

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - TITLE II: PROVISIONS ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES - Article 10 **

*
Official Journal C 326, 26/10/2012, p. 0020 - 0020 *

Article 10

1. The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy.

2. Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament.

Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government and in the Council by their governments, themselves democratically accountable either to their national Parliaments, or to their citizens.

3. Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.

4. Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union.

--------------------------------------------------
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6239** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. FREDDIE L. D. MORGAN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. James R. Spencer , District Judge. ( 3:10

- cr - 00288

- JRS

- 1 )

Submitted : April 24 , 2012 Decided: May 24, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Freddie L. D. Morgan, Appellant Pro Se. Brandon Michael Santos, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Freddie L. D. Morgan appeals the distr ict court ’ s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) (2006) motion
. The foregoing provision permits modification of a defendant’s term of imprisonment when such term is “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Comm ission , ” in accordance with the Commission’s statutory auth ority to review and revise the Sentencing G uidelines. See id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 994(o)). Morgan’s sentence, however,
was not based on the Guidelines, but was instead premised on 21
U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(B)(iii), in conformance with the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment therein prescribed at the time he commit ted the offenses of conviction. Prior to Morgan’s trial and sentencing, § 841 was amended to increase the threshold quantity of certain controlled substances triggering specific mandatory minimums, yet Morgan pursued no appeal. Section 3582 , which by its terms is limited to modification of Guidelines sentences, is not the appropriate vehicle to seek relief from a mandatory minimum sentence imposed by statute. See United States v. Munn , 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A] defendant who was convicted of a crack offense but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2).”) (ci tation omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of3 relief
. United States v. Morgan , No. 3:10

- cr - 00288

- JRS

- 1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 20, 2012) . 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.
AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus II Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2005 (the Report), I, Anthony R. Moore, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                         |  |  |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                         |  | 
|Dated: November 14, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    ANTHONY R. MOORE
|                         |  |  |  | Anthony R. Moore       
|                         |  |  |  | Chairman               
|                         |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT:

ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS:

RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

Including:

Regulatory Impact Analysis

January 2001

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary,

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Office of Building Research and Standards

Washington, DC 20585

 EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 311
This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy

by staff members of

Arthur D. Little, Inc.

and

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Energy Analysis Department

 EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 311
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 27

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          49,382,000
<SECURITIES>                                    31,870,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  136,775,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,415,000
<INVENTORY>                                     90,608,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               329,590,000
<PP&E>                                         316,759,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 166,163,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 721,952,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          170,041,000
<BONDS>                                         72,995,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        47,205,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     311,951,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   721,952,000
<SALES>                                        668,872,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               684,672,000
<CGS>                                          253,447,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  638,428,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,802,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,492,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,244,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,035,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,209,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,209,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                          .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .62



</TABLE>
Draft Proposal E-5 

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Existing Buildings Code (IEBC).   

Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft code

change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/iebc_concepts

Fenestration Energy Requirements (E-5) 

Objective: Require fenestration in repairs, alterations or additions to meet the provisions of the 

International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). 

Suggested Code Change Proposal 

Revise Section 406 and [B] 406 as follows: 

SECTION 406 GLASS FENESTRATION

[B] 406.1 Conformance. The installation or replacement of glass shall be as required for 

new installations. Fenestration installed to replace existing fenestration or being added to 

new openings in the building thermal envelope shall meet the provisions of the IECC 

Reason: The current code provisions correctly address replacement of glass. The definition of 

“fenestration” is broader and includes other materials. As such, it is likely that in applying the 

current code provisions, either other glazing materials would be excluded and not subject to the 

code or, more likely, addition of fenestration products (assemblies) as opposed to just changing 

a pane of glass would also be excluded. The proposed text retains the current criteria 

associated with glass but further ensures that the broader subject of fenestration, of which glass 

is a part, is also clarified and is required to meet the 2012 IECC. 

Cost Impact: There is no cost impact other than ensuring that maybe something that might not 

have been considered would now through clarification be considered.
# Pennsylvania_county_differentia
#### CONNERS MARINE CO., Inc., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., Appellee.

No. 105.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 11, 1939.

John E. Purdy, of New York City, for appellant.

F. Herbert Prem, of New York City, for appellee.

Before L. HAND, CHASE, and PATTERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed on authority of Standard etc. Works v. Travelers Ins. Co., 4 Cir., 107 F.2d 373.
Exhibit 32.1

       Form of Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                 of Title 18 of the United States Code


I, Joseph F. Kruy, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of
Cambex Corporation, certify that

(i) This annual report on Form 10KSB for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and

(ii) The information contained in this annual report on Form 10KSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Cambex Corporation.


Dated: March 30, 2004        /s/ Joseph F. Kruy
                             Joseph F. Kruy
                             President and Treasurer
                             [principal executive officer and
                              principal financial officer]


This certification accompanies this quarterly report pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00218-CR

RAFAEL SUAREZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 82nd District Court

Falls County, Texas

Trial Court No. 9279

A B A T E M E N T ORDER

A jury convicted Appellant Rafael Suarez of continuous sexual abuse of a young 

child, and the trial court assessed his punishment at sixty years’ imprisonment. This 

appeal ensued. In his first issue, Suarez contends that the trial court violated his Sixth 

Amendment right to an open trial because his family members were excluded from the 

courtroom on the first day of the proceedings. 

To rebut the presumption of openness and to allow closure of an 

accused’s trial, or any part thereof,
Suarez v. State Page 2

[(1)] the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an 

overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, [(2)] the 

closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that 

interest, [(3)] the trial court must consider reasonable 

alternatives to closing the proceeding, and [(4)] it must make 

findings adequate to support the closure.

Lilly v. State, 365 S.W.3d 321, 328-29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (quoting Waller v. Georgia, 

467 U.S. 39, 48, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984)). The Court of Criminal Appeals has 

described the trial court’s findings as the “linchpin of the Waller test.” Id. at 329. 

The State has filed a motion to abate this appeal to allow the trial court to issue

written findings under Waller. See, e.g., Steadman v. State, 360 S.W.3d 499, 501 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2012). It appears from the record that no written findings were requested 

by the parties or issued by the trial court. The trial court provided only oral responses 

to Suarez’s complaint. We therefore grant the State’s motion, abate this appeal, and 

remand this case to the trial court so that it can issue written findings. 

The trial court is ordered to issue its written findings within twenty-one days of 

the date of this Order. The trial court clerk shall file a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing the written findings within thirty-five days after the date of this Order.

The State’s first motion for extension of time in which to file its brief is granted. 

The State’s brief is due thirty days after the date the supplemental clerk’s record is filed 

with this Court.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and
Suarez v. State Page 3

Justice Scoggins

Motions granted, cause abated

Order issued and filed April 16, 2015

Do not publish
#### Larry HERNANDEZ, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 4842.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 18, 1978.

*644Wyatt R. Skaggs, Director, Natrona County Public Defender, Casper, for appellant.

V. Frank Mendicino, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen. and Allen C. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee.

Before GUTHRIE, C. J., and McCLIN-TOCK, RAPER, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

During the trial of this cause the trial court received the testimony of Officer Hedstrom, who repeated an admission made by appellant that the marijuana and “stuff” on the dressing table was his, this statement being made at the time of the arrest.

Prior to the admission of this statement, appellant’s counsel objected and requested that the court have a hearing in camera for the purpose of determining whether this statement had been voluntarily made or whether defendant had voluntarily waived his rights; and even called certain Wyoming authorities to the court’s attention. The trial court proceeded without a separate hearing, and the statement was received in evidence. The State suggests that this was not prejudicial error and that the statement was not of such character as to require a voluntariness hearing. With these contentions we do not agree, and it appears necessary, because of its supervisory responsibility, that the court consider this matter.

This court has made clear that the rule in this jurisdiction requires “a separate hearing, out of the presence of the jury, to determine the legality and voluntariness of the defendant’s statements and confessions,” *Raigosa v. State,*Wyo., 562 P.2d 1009, 1014; *Dodge v. State,*Wyo., 562 P.2d 303, 308; *Lonquest v. State,*Wyo., 495 P.2d 575, certiorari denied 409 U.S. 1006, 93 S.Ct. 432, 34 L.Ed.2d 299; and this has been referred to as an “accepted practice” in *Richmond v. State,*Wyo., 554 P.2d 1217, 1225. In face of these pronouncements, we cannot ignore the failure to comply therewith. It may also be observed that adherence to this rule can prevent possible prejudicial error and avoid possible mistrials.

Appellant, with commendable ethical fairness, has conceded that this court has two alternatives in this particular, i. e., reversal or a remand for a full evidentiary hearing to determine this matter. This can be done without the necessity of the grant of a new trial, *Swenson v. Stidham,*409 U.S. 224, 93 S.Ct. 359, 362, 34 L.Ed.2d 431, modified in other respects 410 U.S. 904, 93 S.Ct. 955, 35 L.Ed.2d 266.

To avoid a piecemeal disposal of this matter, this court retains jurisdiction of this appeal to make final disposal hereof, but this matter is hereby remanded to the district court with instructions to hold a full evidentiary hearing immediately to determine whether such statement was voluntarily made and is properly receivable in evidence; and the judge shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law which demonstrate the basis for the reception or rejection of this evidence. These findings and conclusions shall then be returned to this court, along with the record, for final disposal.

Remanded with instructions.
# C_2016202EN.01030801.xml

| | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/308 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/308

---

PROTOCOL (No 27)

ON THE INTERNAL MARKET AND COMPETITION

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

CONSIDERING that the internal market as set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted,

HAVE AGREED that:

To this end, the Union shall, if necessary, take action under the provisions of the Treaties, including under Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

This protocol shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---