alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 4689 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within 

the Northport Irrigation District in the State of Nebraska. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EARLY REPAYMENT OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 213 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390mm), any landowner within 

the Northport Irrigation District in the State of Nebraska (referred 

to in this section as the ‘‘District’’) may repay, at any time, the 

construction costs of project facilities allocated to the landowner’s 

land within the District. 

(b) APPLICABILITY OF FULL-COST PRICING LIMITATIONS.—On discharge, in full, of the obligation for repayment of all construction 

costs described in subsection (a) that are allocated to all land 

the landowner owns in the District in question, the parcels of 

land shall not be subject to the ownership and full-cost pricing 

limitations under Federal reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 

1902, 32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and 

amendatory of that Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.), including the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (13 U.S.C. 390aa et seq.). 

(c) CERTIFICATION.—On request of a landowner that has repaid, 

in full, the construction costs described in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior shall provide to the landowner a certificate 

described in section 213(b)(1) of the Reclamation Reform Act of 

1982 (43 U.S.C. 390mm(b)(1)). 

(d) EFFECT.—Nothing in this section— 

(1) modifies any contractual rights under, or amends or 

reopens, the reclamation contract between the District and 

the United States; or 

(2) modifies any rights, obligations, or relationships 

between the District and landowners in the District under 

Nebraska State law. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Carven Associates, Inc., et al., Appellants, v American Home Assurance Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Delro Industries, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

— In an action, *inter alia,*to enforce an insurance contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Green, J.), entered October 2, 1989, which granted the defen*791dant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint for their failure to comply with discovery demands and directives over a period of approximately two years. The plaintiffs inexplicably failed to timely seek review in the Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 3104 (d) of an October 1988 conditional order of dismissal made by a Judicial Hearing Officer appointed to supervise disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3104 (b). Therefore, the Supreme Court was warranted in refusing to review the propriety of that order. In any event, the sanction imposed, although a severe one, cannot be said to have been an improvident exercise of the court’s broad discretion *(see, Zletz v Wetanson,*67 NY2d 711; *Homburger v Levitin,*130 AD2d 715), as the record reveals that the plaintiffs engaged in conduct which was deliberately evasive with respect to the defendant’s discovery rights and marked by an inexactitude which operated to frustrate disclosure. Mangano, P. J., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

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

         In connection with the Annual Report of Cole National Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended February 1, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
such officer's knowledge:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
               expressed in the Report.


Date: May 16, 2003                    /s/ Jeffrey A. Cole
                                    --------------------------------
                                     Name: Jeffrey A. Cole
                                     Title:  Chief Executive Officer


                                     /s/ Lawrence E. Hyatt
                                    --------------------------------
                                     Name: Lawrence E. Hyatt
                                     Title:  Chief Financial Officer



         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-89489) pertaining to the Asyst Technologies, Inc. 1993 Stock
Option Plan, the Palo Alto Technologies, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan and the
Progressive System Technologies, Inc. 1995 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan
filed by Asyst Technologies, Inc., of our report dated May 7,1999, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Progressive System
Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiary (not presented separately herein)
included in the Form 10-K, for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Austin, Texas
June 28, 2000
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6061]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mr. BLUMENAUER:
        H.R. 6413.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       This bill modifies the Social Security Act, which Congress 
     enacted pursuant to its powers under the commerce clause of 
     the U.S. Constitution, as well as its powers to tax and spend 
     for the general welfare. Congress has the power under those 
     provisions to enact this legislation as well.
```
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 1106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00212]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, 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 Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; Center Core Grant for Vision Research (P30).
    Date: February 20, 2024.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Eye Institute, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, 
MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Brian Hoshaw, Ph.D., Designated Federal 
Official, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 6700 B Rockledge Dr., Rockville, MD 
20892, 301-451-2020, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d45425e454c5a4f6d404c444103434445034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d15120e151c0a1f3d101c141153131415531a120b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; Clinical Applications.
    Date: February 27, 2024.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Eye Institute, 6700 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, 
MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Ashley Fortress, Ph.D., Designated Federal 
Official, Division of Extramural Activities, National Eye Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 6700 B Rockledge Dr., Bethesda, MD 
20817, (301) 451-2020 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4322302b2f263a6d252c313731263030032d2a2b6d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="711002191d14085f171e030503140202311f18195f161e07">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.867, Vision 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 4, 2024.
Victoria E. Townsend,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-00212 Filed 1-8-24; 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>
# C_2009044EN.01003602.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/36

---

Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-557/08)

(2009/C 44/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and A.A. Gilly, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

1

| — | order the United Kingdom to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 April 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 255, p. 11.

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DWAYNE RODNEY WOODRUFF,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00141-CR

Appeal from the

384thDistrict Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20170D02504)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s fourth motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until February 15, 2020. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Eduardo Solis, the Appellant’s attorney, prepare the 

Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 15, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27

th day of December, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6029

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DONALD WAYNE MELTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-00-490; CA-03-596)

Submitted: April 28, 2006 Decided: May 18, 2006

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Wayne Melton, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Donald Wayne Melton seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b). To appeal an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion in a

postconviction proceeding, Melton must establish his entitlement to

a certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363,

369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Melton

has not made the requisite showing.

To the extent that Melton’s notice of appeal and informal

brief can be construed as a motion for authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See United

States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, we deny Melton’s motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 3 -

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Opinion # WW-1239 was never issued.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40420

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HUMBERTO GARCIA-TOSCANO, also known as Humberto Garcia,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:03-CR-674-1

Before WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Humberto Garcia-Toscana (Garcia) challenges the 360-month sentence he

received following his conviction by jury for conspiracy to possess with the intent

to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 846, possession with the intent to distribute more than 100 but less than 1,000

kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), money laundering, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A), engaging in monetary transactions in

property derived from specified unlawful activity, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 27, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-40420 Document: 00511185986 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2010
No. 09-40420

§ 1956(a)(1)(B), and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from

specified unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Garcia argues that

his sentence is invalid because it was imposed under the formerly mandatory

version of the Guidelines, based on facts that were neither admitted by him nor

found by a jury. He also contends that the district court erred in enunciating an

alternate sentence.

Garcia’s assertion of sentencing error is meritorious. See United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). He preserved this error by raising an objection to

his sentence grounded in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). See

United States v. Garza, 429 F.3d 165, (5th Cir. 2005). When, as is the case here,

a Booker error has been preserved in the district court, we “will ordinarily vacate

the sentence and remand, unless [this court] can say the error is harmless under

Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” United States v. Pineiro,

410 F.3d 282, 284 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). The Government has not met its “arduous” burden of demonstrating

“beyond a reasonable doubt that the Sixth Amendment Booker error did not

affect the sentence that [Garcia] received.” Id. at 285, 287. Further, it would not

be appropriate for us to impose the alternate sentence articulated by the district

court. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 233 (5th Cir. 2006); United

States v. Adair, 436 F.3d 520, 524, 527-29 (5th Cir. 2006). Consequently,

Garcia’s sentence is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED FOR

RESENTENCING. His convictions are AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 09-40420 Document: 00511185986 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2010
#### Surf & Turf Restaurant Corp. et al., Appellants, v Pegasus Agency, Inc., et al., Respondents.

— In an action to recover damages for negligence, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), entered July 13, 1989, which, upon an order granting the defendants’ motion for judgment during trial as a matter of law, is in favor of the defendants dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

As a general rule, an employer is not liable for the torts of an independent contractor *(Whitaker v Norman,*75 NY2d 779). We reject the plaintiffs’ contentions that the trial court should have submitted to the jury the question of whether the relationship between the defendants and Frank Giordano was *803that of an employer/independent contractor or that of master/servant. Based on the evidence adduced at trial, no rational finder of fact could have concluded that the relationship was one of master/servant *(see, Dolitsky v Bay Isle Oil Co.,*111 AD2d 366). Accordingly, it was appropriate for the trial court to award judgment in favor of the defendants as a matter of law and dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### FRANCISCO CAPOZZI, COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT, v. FRED N. CAPOZZI, ET ALS., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Argued March 7, 1949

Decided March 14, 1949.

*528
      *Mr. Samuel S. Ferster*argued the cause for the defendants-appellants *(Mr. George H. Rosenstein*on the brief).

*Mr. Herbert A. Kuvin*argued the cause for the complainant-respondent *(Mr. Adam*Alvine, attorney).

Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Vice Chancellor Bigelow in the former Court of Chancery.

*For affirmance:*Chief'JusticeVANDEBBii/r, and Justices Case, Heher, Wacheneeld, Burling and Ackerson—6.

*For reversal:*None.
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


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 (the “Report”) of MCG Capital Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Richard W. Neu, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:


|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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




/s/    RICHARD W. NEUName:Richard W. NeuTitle:Chief Executive OfficerDateMay 3, 2012
#### Application of Jack Henry OWENS, for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No. A-12840.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 17, 1960.

*767Carroll Samara, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

James W. Berry, County Atty., Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, for respondent.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

This is an original action in habeas corpus by Jack Plenry Owens, in which he alleges that he is illegally restrained of his liberty in the county jail of Oklahoma County. The verified petition alleges that the petitioner was charged in the justice court of Elmo McCallister, justice of the peace sitting as an examining magistrate, with the crime of robbery with firearms; that he was duly arraigned on said charge, entered a plea of not guilty and was remanded to the county jail without bail. That petitioner presented an application for bail to the district court of Oklahoma County, and such petition was denied.

A rule to show cause was issued and a hearing held in connection with said petition.

The punishment fixed by the statute for a conviction on a charge of robbery with firearms is not less than five years in the State Penitentiary, and a maximum punishment of death. 21 O.S.19S1 § 801.

At the time of hearing before this Court, the petitioner went on the stand and testified at length, and was cross-examined by the county attorney of Oklahoma County; and he produced other witnesses in support of his defense of an alibi.

We do not desire to make any comment upon the weight of the evidence, but it is our conclusion after consideration of the evidence produced in open court, that the petitioner has made a sufficient showing to entitle him to be admitted to bail.

It is therefore ordered that said petitioner be admitted to bail in the reasonable sum of Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollars, to be conditioned as provided by law, and upon the execution of such bond, and the approval of the same by the Court Clerk of Oklahoma County, said petitioner be discharged from custody, pending the action of the district court of Oklahoma County.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.