alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
February 7, 2014

David Webster, Chief

Water Permits Branch

U.S. EPA Region 1 (OEP06

- 1)

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100

Boston, MA 02109

- 3912

RE: CZM Federal Consistency Review of NPDES General Permit for Stormwater

Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (Multi

- Sector General Permit); Statewide.

Dear Mr. Webster :

The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) has completed its review of

the NPDES General Permit for S tormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (Multi

Sector General Permit

)

.

Based upon our review of applicable information, we concur with your certification and find

that the activity as proposed is consistent with the CZM enforceable progra m policies.

If the above

- referenced permit is modified in any manner, including any changes resulting

from permit, license or certification revisions, including those ensuing from an appeal, or the project

is noted to be having effects on coastal resources or uses that are different than originall y proposed,

it is incumbent upon the proponent to notify CZM, submit an explanation of the nature of the

change pursuant to 15 CFR 930, and submit any modified state permits, licenses, or certifications.

CZM will use this information to determine if furth er federal consistency review is required.

Thank you for your cooperation with CZM.

Sincerely,

Bruce K. Carlisle

Director

CZM # 13639

cc: Todd Callaghan, CZM

David Ferris

, Mass DEP Boston

Thelma Murphy, EPA
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1907

To provide for daylight saving time on an expanded basis, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 26, 1996

Mr. SIMPSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To provide for daylight saving time on an expanded basis,

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Daylight Saving time

5 Extension Act of 1996’’.

6 SEC. 2. DAYLIGHT SAVING EXTENDED TO START IN MARCH

7 AND END IN NOVEMBER.

8 Section 3(a) of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15

9 U.S.C. 260a(a)) is amended—
2

•S 1907 IS

1 (1) by striking out ‘‘first Sunday of April’’ and

2 inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘third Sunday of March’’;

3 and

4 (2) by striking out ‘‘last Sunday of October ’’

5 and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘first Sunday of No6 vember’’.

7 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE ON EXISTING STATE ELECTIONS.

8 Any law in effect on the date of the enactment of

9 this Act—

10 (1) adopted pursuant to section 3(a)(2) of the

11 Uniform Time Act of 1966 by a State with parts

12 thereof in more than one time zone, or

13 (2) adopted pursuant to section 3(a)(1) of such

14 Act by a State that lies entirely within one time

15 zone,

16 shall be held and considered to remain in effect as the

17 exercise by that State of the exemption permitted by such

18 Act unless that State, by law, provides that such exemp19 tion shall not apply.

20 SEC. 4. ADJUSTMENT OF OPERATING HOURS OF DAYTIME

21 BROADCASTERS.

22 (a) Notwithstanding any other law or any regulation

23 issued under any such law, the Federal Communications

24 Commission shall, consistent with any existing treaty or

25 other agreement, make such adjustment by general rules,
3

•S 1907 IS

1 or by interim action pending such general rules, with re2 spect to hours of operation of daytime standard amplitude

3 modulation broadcast stations, as may be consistent with

4 the public interest, including the public’s interest in receiv5 ing interference-free service.

6 (b) Such general rules, or interim action, may include

7 variances with respect to operating power and other tech8 nical operating characteristics.

9 (c) At any time subsequent to the adoption of such

10 general rules, such general rules may be varied with re11 spect to particular stations and areas because of the ex12 igencies in each case.

13 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

14 This Act shall take effect 60 days after the date of

15 the enactment of this Act, except that if such effective

16 date occurs in any calendar year after March 1, this Act

17 shall take effect on the first day of the following year.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1895 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1895

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain cash rent 
   farm landlords to deduct soil and water conservation expenditures.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 20, 1996

 Mr. Grassley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain cash rent 
   farm landlords to deduct soil and water conservation expenditures.

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

SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION EXPENDITURES 
              EXTENDED TO CERTAIN CASH RENT LANDLORDS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 175 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to soil and water conservation 
expenditures) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(4) Cash rent landlords.--A taxpayer shall be treated as 
        engaged in the business of farming with respect to any land 
        used in farming if such taxpayer rents such land (regardless of 
        the basis for the rental payment) to a member of the taxpayer's 
        family (as defined in section 2032A(e)(2)).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 1996, in taxable years 
ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Charles S. Hilliard, Executive Vice President,Finance and Chief Financial Officer of United Online, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(a)   theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(b)   the information contained in such report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

Dated:November 9, 2005
| /s/ CHARLES  S. HILLIARD            |     |
|-------------------------------------|----------|
| Charles S. Hilliard                 |     |
| *Executive Vice President, Finance* | * * |
| *and Chief Financial Officer*       | * * |

 

----
#### Billy L. FANCHER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30182.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 10, 1958.

*708Clay Coggins, Roby, for appellant.

H. F. Grindstaff, County Atty., Roby, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This conviction is for driving while intoxicated upon a public highway, with punishment assessed at a fine of $250 and thirty days in jail.

■The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction is challenged.

After being notified that a wreck had occurred, peace officers went to the scene thereof. Two men were standing beside an overturned automobile as the officers arrived,'and one of them — the appellant— approached and told them that he was the driver of the car and that it had gone out of control on a sharp curve onto a soft shoulder of the road.

The officers were of the opinion, and so testified, that appellant was at that time under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Appellant was arrested and placed in jail.

After being informed that the accusation was for drunk driving, he asked for and sought to have a blood test made to determine if he was intoxicated.

No blood test was given him, the request being denied.

The other man at the scene of the wreck was never identified or taken into custody.

Testifying as a witness, appellant denied that he was the driver of the car which he said belonged to him. He testified that another person was the driver of the car at the time. He denied that he was intoxicated at the time.

Under such facts, appellant insists that proof of the allegation that he was the driver of the automobile is shown only by the officers’ testimony that he told them •he was the driver of the automobile. He relies upon the case of Threet v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 497, 250 S.W.2d 200, as supporting that contention.

There is no question but that a conviction will not be sustained where the proof of the corpus delicti is shown only by the extrajudicial confession of the accused.

Appellant testified as a witness in his own behalf that the automobile belonged to him. By that testimony he supplied ¿ very material element of the corroboration necessary.

The rule as to corroboration of extrajudicial confessions does not apply to a judicial confession, which is one made in the course of a judicial proceeding while testifying as a witness. Martin v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 3 S.W.2d 90.

Appellant’s intoxication was sufficiently shown by the testimony of the officers. That he was the owner of the automobile was shown by his own sworn judicial statement.

Appellant’s presence at the scene of the wreck and his ownership of the automobile, together with the foregoing facts, are deemed sufficient to corroborate his extrajudicial confession to the officers that he was the driver of the automobile.

*709In the Threet case the absence of any proof of ownership of the truck or the presence of the accused at the scene of the wreck was pointed out as the element upon which the conclusion was there reached.

The conclusion is reached, here, that the facts warranted the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          42,203
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,482
<INVENTORY>                                     15,569
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,965
<PP&E>                                         730,593
<DEPRECIATION>                                 277,766
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 644,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          115,752
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                     315,497
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   644,226
<SALES>                                        328,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               328,072
<CGS>                                          225,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  288,653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,169
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,250
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,100
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $1.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $1.61


</TABLE>
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2087

To direct the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is

operating to provide rescue diver training under the Coast Guard helicopter rescue swimming training program.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 17, 1996

Mr. KERRY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the department in which the

Coast Guard is operating to provide rescue diver training

under the Coast Guard helicopter rescue swimming training program.

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 ‘‘Rescue Diver Training

5 Act of 1996’’.
2

S 2087 IS

1 SEC. 2. RESCUE DIVER TRAINING FOR SELECTED COAST

2 GUARD PERSONNEL.

3 The Secretary of the department in which the Coast

4 Guard is operating may provide rescue diver training to

5 selected Coast Guard personnel, under the helicopter res6 cue swimming program conducted under section 9 of the

7 Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1984 (14 U.S.C. 88

8 note).

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NO. 2-03-063-CR

EX PARTE

DONALD WALTER BOWEN 

	----------

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant's “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.  See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: July 24, 2003
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 19

To amend title IV of the Social Security Act to enhance educational opportunity, increase school attendance, and promote self-sufficiency among

welfare recipients.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. HELMS, Mr. SMITH, and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title IV of the Social Security Act to enhance

educational opportunity, increase school attendance, and

promote self-sufficiency among welfare recipients.

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 ‘‘Children’s Education

5 Opportunity Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. STATE OPTION TO ESTABLISH LEARNFARE PRO7 GRAMS.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 402(a) of the Social Secu9 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 602(a)) is amended—
2

•S 19 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

2 (44);

3 (2) by striking the period at the end of para4 graph (45) and inserting ‘‘and;’’; and

5 (3) by adding at the end the following new

6 paragraph:

7 ‘‘(46) at the option of the State, provide that

8 the needs of an individual will not be taken into con9 sideration (or will be taken into consideration only

10 in part) under paragraph (7) for any month, if such

11 individual—

12 ‘‘(A) is over the age specified in the appli13 cable State compulsory school attendance law at

14 which a child must begin to attend school, but

15 under the age of 19, and

16 ‘‘(B) has, as determined by the State agen17 cy, failed without good cause to regularly attend

18 an elementary, secondary, vocational school, or

19 other appropriate school,

20 but if the needs of an individual are not considered

21 (or are considered only in part) by reason of this

22 paragraph, such individual shall still be considered

23 to be receiving aid under this part for purposes of

24 determining the eligibility for such aid of any other

25 individual to whom paragraph (7) applies, and for
3

•S 19 IS

1 purposes of determining eligibility for medical assist2 ance under the State’s plan approved under title

3 XIX.’’.

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

5 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 30 days

6 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

NITEKA MONIQUE BUIE

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee.

No. 2D 2023

- 2100

May 22, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Laura E. Ward

, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew J. Salvia , Assistant

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee

.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SLEET, C.J., and ATKINSON and SMITH, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
JOHN OLIVER WESTBROOKS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 1326

_ ____________________________/

Opinion filed July 12, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jan Shackelford , Judge

.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamel a Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

June 12, 2009

Mr. Timothy Patton

Timothy Patton, PC

11 Lynn Batts Lane,  Suite 120

San Antonio, TX 78218

Mr. Kevin Patrick Yeary

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

300 Dolorosa, Suite 4030

San Antonio, TX 78205-3030

RE:Case Number:  07-0322

Court of Appeals Number:  04-07-00050-CV

Trial Court Number:  1995-JUV-01540

Style:IN RE  JAMES ALLEN HALL

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-0322Page 1**
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-108352 and 333-74508) pertaining to the Novoste Corporation 2001 Stock Plan, as amended, the Novoste Corporation 2002 Broad-Based Stock Plan, the Novoste Corporation 2002 Chief Executive Officer StockOption Plan, and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended, of our report dated March 14, 2005 with respect to the 2004 and 2003 consolidated financial statements and schedule of Novoste Corporation, included in this Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 29, 2006
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Terax Energy, Inc.
  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed
  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
  I, Lawrence Finn, Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Terax Energy, Inc. and will be retained by Terax Energy, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ Lawrence J. Finn
  Lawrence J. Finn 
  President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) 
  and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

August 9, 2006

---
Exhibit 23.2




Consent
    of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm







(Form S-4 No. 333-156921)












|               |  |                                                                      
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|April 20, 2009 |  | /s/ Kost Forer Gabbay & Kaiserer
    A member of Ernst & Young Global
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 04, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 04, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22I0056. COURSON'S TIRE CENTER, INC. d/b/a COURSON TIRE et al. v. ANNIE 

PEARL BLACK.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

SUS2019000624
II

Calendar No. 561

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2007

To clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the Federal carjacking

prohibition.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 1996

Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. KOHL, Mr. GRASSLEY,

Mrs. BOXER, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN) introduced the

following bill; which was read the first time

AUGUST 1, 1996

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

A BILL

To clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the Federal

carjacking prohibition.

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 ‘‘Carjacking Correction

5 Act of 1996’’.
2

•S 2007 PCS

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF INTENT OF CONGRESS WITH RE2 SPECT TO THE FEDERAL CARJACKING PRO3 HIBITION.

4 Section 2119(2) of title 18, United States Code, is

5 amended by inserting ‘‘, including any conduct that, if the

6 conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial

7 jurisdiction of the United States, would violate section

8 2241 or 2242 of this title’’ after ‘‘(as defined in section

9 1365 of this title)’’.

Calendar No. 561

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2007

A BILL

To clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the

Federal carjacking prohibition.

AUGUST 1, 1996

Read the second time and placed on the calendar