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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 621

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Great Western

Trail for potential addition to the National Trails System, and for

other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 24 (legislative day, MARCH 23), 1995

Mr. BENNETT (for himself, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. BROWN, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr.

STEVENS, and Mr. HATCH) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the

Great Western Trail for potential addition to the National Trails System, 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. DESIGNATION OF THE GREAT WESTERN TRAIL

4 AS A STUDY TRAIL.

5 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16

6 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended—

7 (1) by redesignating paragraph (36), as added

8 by Public Law 103–145, as paragraph (37); and

9 (2) by adding at the end the following:
2

•S 621 IS

1 ‘‘(38) The Great Western Scenic Trail, a system of

2 trails to accommodate a variety of travel users in a cor3 ridor approximately 3,100 miles in length extending from

4 the Arizona-Mexico border to the Idaho-Montana-Canada

5 border, following the approximate route depicted on the

6 map entitled ‘Great Western Trail Corridor, 1988’, which

7 shall be on file and available for public inspection in the

8 Office of the Chief of the Forest Service, Department of

9 Agriculture. The trail study shall be conducted by the Sec10 retary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary

11 of the Interior, in accordance with subsection (b) and shall

12 include—

13 ‘‘(A) the current (as of the time of the study)

14 status of land ownership and potential use along the

15 designated route;

16 ‘‘(B) the estimated cost of acquisition of lands

17 or interests in land, if any; and

18 ‘‘(C) an examination of the appropriateness of

19 motorized trial use along the trail.’’.

Æ
**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements Nos.
      333-127717 and 33-136728 on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-140246 and 333-141934 on
      Form
      S-3 of our report dated September 29, 2008, with respect to the consolidated
      balance sheets of IsoRay, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2008 and 2007,
      and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders’
equity and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the
      Form
      10-K filing for IsoRay, Inc. to be filed on September 29, 2008.





/s/
      DeCoria, Maichel & Teague, P.S.





Spokane,
      Washington


September
      29, 2008
Exhibit 99.1

                                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 Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Dated this 12th day of November, 2002.




                                       /s/ Merrill W. Sherman
                                       ---------------------------
                                           Merrill W. Sherman
                                           President and
                                           Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
Exhibit 31.01 AND 31.02

POWER SAVE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATION
I, Scott Balmer, certify that:
1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Power Save
International, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
prepared;
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this quarterly
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
and
6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: August 18, 2003                               /S/ Scott Balmer
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 13717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03690]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-112]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed February 12, 2024 10 a.m. EST Through February 16, 2024 10 a.m. 
EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20240029, Draft, GSA, AK, Alcan Land Port of Entry Expansion 
and Modernization Draft Environmental Impact Statement Alcan, Alaska, 
Comment Period Ends: 04/11/2024, Contact: Aaron Evanson 206-445-5876.
EIS No. 20240030, Final, NRCS, PRO, ADOPTION--PROGRAMMATIC--Habitat 
Restoration Activities Implemented throughout the Coastal United 
States, Review Period Ends: 03/25/2024, Contact: Angela Trahan 337-291-
3142.

    The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has adopted the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Final EIS No. 
20150171 filed 06/11/2015 with the Environmental Protection Agency. The 
NRCS was not a cooperating agency on this project. Therefore, 
republication of the document is necessary under Section 1506.3(b)(1) 
of the CEQ regulations.

EIS No. 20240031, Final, TVA, TN, Kingston Fossil Plant Retirement, 
Review Period Ends: 03/25/2024, Contact: Chevales Williams 423-751-
7316.

    Dated: February 20, 2024.
Julie Smith,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2024-03690 Filed 2-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, John R. Cooper,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of AvocentCorporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2004fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Avocent Corporation.  

 
| Date: | August 9, 2005 |
|-------|---------------------|

 
|   | By:/s/ John R. Cooper                      |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: John R. Cooper                       |
|   | Title:   Chief Executive Officer |

 

I, Edward H. Blankenship,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of AvocentCorporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2004fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Avocent Corporation.  

 
| Date:  | August 9, 2005                                                                |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                               |
|   | By:/s/ Edward H.  Blankenship                                                      |   |
|   | Name: Edward H.  Blankenship                                                       |
|   | Title:   Senior Vice President of Finance, Chief  Financial Officer, and |
|   | Assistant Secretary                                                                |
|        |                                                                                    |  |  |

 

1

----
#### Ignacio PALACIO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28569.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 9, 1957.

On Motion to Reform Sentence March 13, 1957.

Reynold M. Gardner, Amarillo for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the possession of marijuana; the punishment, seven years.

The record has now been perfected, and the order dismissing the appeal is set aside.

Upon a former trial, this conviction was reversed because of the absence of probable cause to authorize the arrest and the incident search of the appellant’s automobile. Palacio v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 283 S.W.2d 765.

Unlike the prior trial, facts were sufficiently developed to show that the officers were authorized to arrest the appellant because he was intoxicated in a public place and was driving while intoxicated. McEathron v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 294 S.W.2d 822, and cases there cited.

There was an issue made at the trial as to whether or not the appellant was intoxicated; the trial court resolved the conflict in the evidence against the appellant, and a careful review of the record fails to reveal that he abused his discretion in admitting the marijuana in evidence.

The legality of the arrest was and is the only serious question advanced by the appellant.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On State’s Motion to Reform Sentence

Our attention has now been directed to a variance between the judgment and the sentence.

*945The'verdict of the jury assessed the appellant’s punishment at seven years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The judgment followed the verdict and assessed his punishment at seven years..

However, the sentence provided that he should serve not less than two nor more than five years.

The sentence is now reformed so as to read that the appellant shall be confined in the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than seven years.

It is so ordered.
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

          - [DOCKET NO. 24-11]

                    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (the “Commission”) by OL USA LLC (the “Complainant”) against Maersk A/S (the “Respondent”). Complainant states that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 40101*et seq.*                     and personal jurisdiction over the Respondent as an ocean common carrier as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102.                

Complainant is a limited liability company formed and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with a principal place of business in Westbury, New York, and a shipper, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(17), in the business of providing non-vessel-operating common carrier services.

Complainant identifies Respondent as a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of Denmark with a principal place of business in Copenhagen, Denmark, and an ocean common carrier as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(18).

Complainant alleges that Respondent engaged in unreasonable and deceptive acts that violated 46 U.S.C. 40501 and 46 CFR part 520. Complainant alleges these violations arose from a dysfunctional online tariff platform maintained by the Respondent, and the platform prevented access to and review of Respondent's tariffs.

An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 25 days after the date of service.

                    The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's electronic Reading Room at                     *https://www2.fmc.gov/​readingroom/​proceeding/​24-11/​.*                     This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding judge shall be issued by February 14, 2025, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by August 29, 2025.                

David Eng,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-03517 Filed 2-20-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6130

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. CALVIN LEE EVERETTE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00068-BO-1; 5:04-cv-00358-BO)

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Lee Everette, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Calvin Lee Everette seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his “Motion for Rule 60(b)(1) & (6).” The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Everette has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                      ----------

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

The undersigned have executed this certification in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006. The undersigned hereby
certify that to our 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.


Dated:   March 29, 2007             /s/Raul S. McQuivey
                                    -------------------------------------
                                    Raul S. McQuivey
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)




Dated:   March 29, 2007             /s/Sidney C. Hooper
                                    -------------------------------------
                                    Sidney C. Hooper
                                    Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
                                    (Principal Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ITEM 8 TO THE INTEGRATED RESOURCES HIGH EQUITY PARTNERS,
SERIES 85 1996 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       4,870,517
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  158,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,290,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,811,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,290,185
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,888,016
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,139,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,865,130
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,134,717
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,134,717
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,134,717
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Jack FOLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee (three cases).

Nos. 28538, 28540, 28541.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 31, 1956.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal. ■ . ...

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

PER CURIAM.

The offense is felony theft; the punishment, 6 years in the' penitentiary.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception: All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing ’ is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
#### DEREK J. JACKSON *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(14405)

Landau, Spear and Hennessy, Js.

Argued January 16

decision released February 13, 1996

*Mark Rademacher,*special public defender, with whom, on the brief, was *Paula Mangini Montonye,*assistant public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).

*Roland G. Weller,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were *Michael Dearington,*
      *925state’s attorney, and *Christopher Alexy,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.2





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the use of our reports dated February 23, 2023, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Pfizer Inc. and Subsidiary Companies and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, incorporated herein by reference.





/s/ KPMG LLP








New York, New YorkFebruary 24, 2023