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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 556

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to improve the provision of trade

readjustment allowances during breaks in training, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 14 (legislative day, MARCH 6), 1995

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to improve the provision

of trade readjustment allowances during breaks in training, 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 ‘‘Trade Adjustment As5 sistance Program Improvement Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROVISION OF TRADE READJUSTMENT ALLOW7 ANCES DURING BREAKS IN TRAINING.

8 Section 233(f) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

9 2293(f)) is amended by striking ‘‘14 days’’ and inserting

10 ‘‘45 days’’.
2

•S 556 IS

1 SEC. 3. TRANSITIONAL ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PRO2 GRAM.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 250(d)(3)(B)(i) of the

4 Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2331(d)(3)(B)(i)) is

5 amended by striking ‘‘of such worker’s initial unemploy6 ment compensation benefit period’’ and inserting ‘‘after

7 such worker’s most recent qualifying separation’’.

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

9 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to workers covered

10 under a certification issued on or after the date of enact11 ment of this Act.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1756
ANNETTE BYNUM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. L. PETERSON, Deputy Sheriff; T. S. O’NEAL, Deputy Sheriff; DEPUTY SHERIFF STANLEY, Defendants - Appellees, and PITT COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; JOHNNY PORTER; GERALDINE PORTER, Defendants.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-97-229-4-H) Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 10, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Annette Bynum, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Coleman Barber, BARBER & ASSOCIATES, Greenville, North Carolina; JoAnne Keeler Burgdorff, PITT COUNTY LEGAL DEPARTMENT, Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Annette Bynum appeals the district court’s order and judgment granting summary judgment to the Appellees and dismissing her civilrights complaint alleging that excessive force was used to effectuate her arrest. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bynum v. Pitt County Sheriff Dep’t , No. CA-97-229-4-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 1999). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FURR'S
RESTAURANT GROUP. INCORPORATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED DECEMBER 28, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1999
<CASH>                                           5,172
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      972
<ALLOWANCES>                                        14
<INVENTORY>                                      6,544
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,535
<PP&E>                                         113,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,076
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,712
<BONDS>                                         55,219
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           488
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,650)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,463
<SALES>                                        188,060
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               188,060
<CGS>                                           56,036
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               124,228
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 349
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,447
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (23,815)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,262
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,262
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.19


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Marshall D. Sorokwasz, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended February 28, 2005 of Impreso, Inc. (the “Report”); 2.  Based on my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by the Report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in the Report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in the Report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b)  [Omitted in reliance on SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986 Section III.E.];  c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthe Report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by the Report based on suchevaluation; and  d)  Disclosed in the Report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting;
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information;and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
6.  Item 4 Controls and Procedures in the Company’s Form 10-Q is incorporated herein byreference.     Date: April 19, 2005  /s/ Marshall D. Sorokwasz      **Marshall D. SorokwaszChief Executive Officer and President**
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 549 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 99
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 549

                          [Report No. 104-76]

 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
 construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 14 (legislative day, March 6), 1995

  Mr. Bumpers introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

               April 27 (legislative day, April 24), 1995

              Reported by Mr. Murkowski, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
 construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES.

    Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of the Federal 
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
upon the request of the licensee for FERC projects numbered 4204, 4660, 
and 4659 (and after reasonable notice), is authorized, in accordance 
with the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of 
section 13 and the Commission's procedures under such section, to 
extend the time required for commencement of construction of the 
projects for a maximum of three consecutive two-year periods. This 
section shall take effect for the project upon the expiration of the 
extension (issued by the Commission under section 13) of the period 
required for commencement of such project.
                                     

                                                        Calendar No. 99

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 549

                          [Report No. 104-76]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
 construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.

_______________________________________________________________________

               April 27 (legislative day, April 24), 1995

                       Reported without amendment
```
**Exhibit 23.3**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

 

We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on FormS-3 (File No. 333-60975) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 2-91950, 2-93578, 33-18278,33-29014, 33-39215, 333-47268, 33-56420, 33-53303, 333-51073, 333-93803,333-93805 and 333-102321) of Mandalay Resort Group of our report dated January21, 2003 relating to the financial statements of the Elgin Riverboat Resort -Riverboat Casino, which appears in this Form 10-K/A of Mandalay Resort Groupfor the year ended January 31, 2003.

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

 

Chicago, Illinois

June 26, 2003

 

----
#### Clarence Edmond GOSS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27719.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 2, 1955.

No appearance for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*232DICE, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of a narcotic drug; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant was found in an unconscious condition in a room at the Roosevelt Hotel in the City of Amarillo, and from there was carried to a hospital. While at the hospital he was searched by two city policemen who found a vial in a sock on his foot. The testimony shows that the vial contained dilaudid, a derivative of morphine, a narcotic drug.

Appellant did not testify or offer any testimony in his own behalf.

We have not been favored with a brief on behalf of the appellant. However, we shall discuss certain exceptions appearing in the record.

By formal Bill of Exception No. I', and other informal bills, complaint is made to the exhibition before the jury of a spoon and hypodermic needle which Officer Carter first testified was found in the hotel room where appellant was discovered. The record shows that the spoon and the hypodermic needle were never introduced in evidence, and that after Officer Carter, upon being recalled as a witness, had testified that the syringe was found in an adjoining room, the court sustained appellant’s objection to the admission of the instruments in evidence and instructed the jury not to consider them for any purpose. We overrule appellant’s contention that the exhibition of the spoon and hypodermic needle before the jury prevents error notwithstanding the court’s instruction not to consider them for any purpose.

Informal Bill of Exception No. 2 presents appellant’s objection to Officer Carter testifying to the search of appellant at the hospital and to what was found in the search.

This bill does not reflect error because the record does not show that at such, time the officer did not have a warrant of arrest or search warrant. Pitcock v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 616, 266 S.W.2d 389; and Cadena v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 268 S.W.2d 472.

The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, and no reversible error appears in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Brenda Hall (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brenda Hall, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 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.

 /s/ Brenda Hall
------------------------------
Brenda Hall
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

DONALD SHIREY,

Petitioner

v.

THE BON TON STORES, INC. 

(WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD),

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 119 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of December, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the request to release .426 acres of federally obligated airport property at the Gwinnett County Airport.

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before March 13, 2024.

# ADDRESSES:

Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA to the following address: Atlanta Airports District Office Attn: Krishina Green, Planner, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 220, College Park, GA 30337.

In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to the Gwinnett County Airport Authority, Attn: Mr. Matt Smith, 600 Briscoe Blvd., Lawrenceville, GA 30046.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Krishina Green, Airport Planner, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 220, College Park, Georgia 30337-2747, (404) 305-6749. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA invites public comment on the request to release a parcel of land totaling 0.426 acres at the Gwinnett County Airport—Briscoe Field. The FAA determined this request to release submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the FAA and the release of the property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this notice.

Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on February 6, 2024.

Joseph Parks Preston,

Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 2024-02792 Filed 2-9-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 15, 2015

NO. 03-15-00460-CV

Kenneth Bryson and Sue Bryson, Appellants

v.

Thomas P. Allison, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT OF MILAM COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on July 15, 2015. Having reviewed 

the record, the Court holds that Kenneth Bryson and Sue Bryson have not prosecuted their appeal

and did not comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses 

the appeal for want of prosecution. The appellants shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both 

in this Court and in the court below.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131180 & (17) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131180 

 COA: 269209 

Lenawee CC: 97-007240-FH 

EUGENE KNIGHT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the March 31, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. The denial is without prejudice to the defendant’s right 

to file a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to MCR 6.500 et seq. that may include 

the issues whether the 15-year maximum sentence represents a violation of the plea 

agreement, which the circuit court in part characterized as the defendant agreeing to plead 

guilty to “the charge of perjury with the understanding that the initial sentence would be 

limited to a maximum of five years in prison”, and whether counsel was ineffective for 

failing to object on this ground. See Plea Transcript (April 30, 1997), at pp. 2-4, 8-9. 

s0716 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 23, 2008 

 Clerk
NORTH DAKOTA 

DEPARTMENT of HEALTH 

May 22, 2012 

Mr. Carl Daly (8P-AR) 

Director, Air Programs 

U.S. EPA, Region 8 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

Dear Mr. Daly: 

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION 

Gold Seal Center, 918 E. Divide Ave. 

Bismarck, NO 58501-1947 

701.328.5200 (fax) 

www.ndhealth.gov 

The North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) is providing this clarification pertaining to the 

April 12, 2010 submittal which certified that North Dakota's State Implementation Plan (SIP) is 

adequate to implement the 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 

With respect to Section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Clean Air Act, North Dakota sources have not 

been identified by EPA as having interstate or international impacts, under section 126 or section 

115, respectively, in any pending actions relating to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Further, North 

Dakota's SIP-approved PSD program (see NDCC 33-15-15) meets the notification requirements 

of Section 126(a), as the PSD program requires the State to notify any state, Federal land 

manager, or Indian governing body whose land may be affected by emissions from the new 

source or modification. 

Please contact Tom Bachman ofmy staff at (701)328-5188 ifyou need additional information. 

Sincerely, 

Terry L. O'Clair, P.E. 

Director 

Division of Air Quality 

TLO/TB:saj 

Environmental Health 

Section Chief's Office 

701.328.5150 

Division of 

Air Quality 

701.328.5188 

Division of 

Municipal Facilities 

701.328.5211 

Printed on recycled paper. 

Division of 

Waste Management 

701.328.5166 

Civision of 

Water Quality 

701.328.5210
Exhibit 32.1     Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc. & Subsidiaries 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 annual report of Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, Dr. Shelby Brewer hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:  (1) The annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date: April 15, 2008  /s/ Shelby T. Brewer Dr. Shelby T. Brewer Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer