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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1846 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1846

     To amend titles 23 and 49, United States Code, to repeal wage 
 requirements applicable to laborers and mechanics employed on Federal-
      aid highway and public transportation construction projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2011

   Ms. Foxx introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend titles 23 and 49, United States Code, to repeal wage 
 requirements applicable to laborers and mechanics employed on Federal-
      aid highway and public transportation construction projects.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Highway Trust Fund Reform Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. PREVAILING RATE OF WAGE REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) Repeals.--The following provisions are repealed:
            (1) Section 113 of title 23, United States Code (and the 
        item relating to such section in the analysis for chapter 1 of 
        such title).
            (2) Section 5333(a) of title 49, United States Code.
    (b) Applicability.--
            (1) Effective date.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
        amendments made by this section shall take effect on the 31st 
        day following the date of enactment of this Act.
            (2) Existing contracts.--The amendments made by this 
        section shall not affect any contract in existence on the date 
        of enactment of this Act or made pursuant to an invitation for 
        bids outstanding on such date of enactment.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0593 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-238-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Exhibit 31.4


Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934


I, Gustavo Pimenta, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.; and


2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.


Date:April 30, 2018/s/ Gustavo PimentaGustavo PimentaChief Financial Officer














1
#### Bessie COUNTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 35507.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 20, 1963.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Emmett Colvin, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the making of a false representation in order to secure money under the terms of Article 107f, Vernon’s Ann. P.C.; the punishment, 30 days in jail.

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 reformed to find appellant guilty of the offense set forth above' and, as so reformed, is affirmed.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1400 

To validate final patent number 27–2005–0081, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2011 

Mr. HELLER (for himself, Ms. BERKLEY, and Mr. HECK) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To validate final patent number 27–2005–0081, 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. FINAL PATENT AND LAND RECONFIGURATION 

4 IN CLARK COUNTY AND LINCOLN COUNTY, 

5 NEVADA. 

6 Patent No. 27–2005–0081 and its associated land re7 configuration issued by the Bureau of Land Management 

8 on February 18, 2005, is hereby affirmed and validated 

9 as having been issued pursuant to and in compliance with 

10 the provisions of the Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Au11 thorization Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–275), the NaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1400.IH H1400

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1400 IH

1 tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Federal 

2 Land Policy Management Act of 1976 for the benefit of 

3 the desert tortoise and other species and their habitat to 

4 increase the likelihood of their recovery. The process uti5 lized by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 

6 the Bureau of Land Management in reconfiguring the 

7 lands as shown on Exhibit 1–4 of the Final Environmental 

8 Impact Statement for the Planned Development Project 

9 MSHCP, Lincoln County, NV (FWS–R8–ES–2008– 

10 N0136) and the reconfiguration provided for in Special 

11 Condition 10 of Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 

12 200125042 are hereby ratified. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.22


 


 


 


AgEagle Aerial Systems


216 N. 8th


Neodesha, KS 66757


 


08/17/18


 


Ed Truelove


City of Neodesha


Neodesha, KS 66757


 


Ed:


 


We want to thank you and the city for the support
in the form of the incubator building. Without this support, AgEagle would simply have been a dream of what “could have been”.
The incubator building has been a significant component in our progress.


 


As you may recall, we have invested significantly
in upgrades to the building including the addition of offices, heating and air as well as general maintenance. The building is
servicing us well. For all of these reasons and the fact that our small startup business still needs the support of the incubator
building we wish to extend the lease. Below are the conditions we wish to extend the lease by:


 


		●	Extend from 09/15/18 to a year to year lease
		●	We will pay $500 per month for the next twelve months (per the agreement where the first year
was free and the rent went up $100 per month each additional year)
		●	We will have the option of extending the lease each following year



 


In reviewing of the lease, I found an error in the rent payments
we have been paying this year. We should have been paying $400 per month, but we were still paying $300 from the prior years numbers.
So we will issue a check for the difference which is $1,200.


 


One more thing I found is that we missed a rent
payment in January. We will also be issuing a check for January.


 


Thank you for your support!


 


Bret Chilcott


President and Chairman of the Board
**EXHIBIT 24.8**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

**(Annual Report on Form 10-K)**

The undersigned, an officer and/or director of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc., constitutes and appoints Nicholas Konidaris, Paul Oldham and Kerry Mustoe, and eachof them, his or her true and lawful attorney and agent to do any and all acts and things and execute in his or her name as an officer or director of the Company the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 28, 2009 and any andall amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and the undersigned does hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorneys and agentsand each of them shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. Any one of said attorneys or agents shall have, and may exercise, all powers conferred. 

Dated: May 14, 2009.
Exhibit 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



The undersigned hereby certify that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Insight Midwest, L.P. (the Registrant) for the quarter ended September 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



/s/ Michael S. WillnerMichael S. WillnerChairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerInsight Midwest, L.P.November 15, 2004/s/ John AbbotJohn AbbotSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerInsight Midwest, L.P.November 15, 2004
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Melissa Young Selph v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 6

- 00 776

- CR

Trial court case number: 1 5

- CR

- 1597

Trial court: 56 th District Court of Galveston County

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel , Thomas A. Martin, filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel with a brief concluding that the above

- referenced appeal is

frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967).

A lthough counsel’s motion to withdraw states that he sent to the appellant a copy of the

brief and motion , c ounsel has not , however, filed a copy of the letter he wrote, or

otherwise ce rtified that he has written a letter, in accordance with Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), “to (1) notify h is client of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying Anders brief, providing h [er] with a copy of each, (2) inform h [er]

of h [er] right to file a pro se response and of h [er] right to review the record preparatory to filing that response, [] (3) inform h [er] of h [er] pro se right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare h [er] appeal frivolous,” and (4) “notify h is client that,

should [s] he wish to exercise h [er] right to review the appellate record in preparing to file a response to the Anders brief, [s] he should immediately file a motion for pro se access to the appellate rec ord with the applicable court of appeals,” which letter includes “a form motion . . ., lacking only the appellant’s signature and the date, . . . inform[ing] the appellant that, in order to effectuate his right to review the appellate record pro se , should
[s] he choose to invoke it, [s] he must sign and date the motion and send it on to the court of appeals within ten days of the date of the letter from appellate counsel.” 436 S.W.3d

at 319

– 20.

Accordingly, we order appellant’s appointed counsel, Thomas A. Martin, to send a letter to the appellant in accordance with Kelly

. 436 S.W.3d at 319

– 20. We further

order appellant’s appointed counsel to notify us in writing “that he has (1) informed the appellant of the motion to withdraw and attendant Anders brief , (2) provided the2

appellant with the requisite copies while notifying h [er] of h [er] various pro se rights, and (3) supplied h [er] with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record.” Id. at
320. Because the Clerk of this Court already mailed appellant a form pro se motion for access to the appellate record after counsel filed h is motion to withdraw on January 17,

2017 , counsel does not need to send the form motion to h is client, but should notify h is client as provided above.

Counsel shall send the required Kelly letter to h is client and shall file the required

notice with the Clerk of this Court within 10 days of the date of this order

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: / s/ Laura Carter Higley

 Actin g individually

Date: J anuary 24, 2017
#### Fred LEWIS, Appellant, v. Harry BALL, Jailer of Bell County, Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 8, 1957.

*811William S. Tribell, John J. Tribell, Pine-ville, for appellant.

Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., John B. Browning, Asst. Atty. Gen., Farmer Hel-ton, Commonwealth’s Atty., Pineville, for appellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

Fred Lewis has appealed from an order of the Bell Circuit Court denying him bail in a habeas corpus proceeding. He seeks reversal of the judgment, and asks this Court to direct the issuance of an order which will cause him to be released from jail on bond pending trial.

Appellant was indicted by a Bell County grand jury on the charge of rape, and was committed to jail. Following his arraignment, his counsel filed a motion for bail. Upon the hearing of this motion, appellant offered no testimony. The court held that the Commonwealth’s evidence had sufficiently shown the appellant was not entitled to bail under Section 16 of the State Constitution.

Later, appellant filed a petition for an order of habeas corpus, alleging his detention was illegal. In Smith v. Henson, 298 Ky. 182, 182 S.W.2d 666, 670, it was held that appellate review of a proceeding of this character is confined to a determination of the question of whether the circuit court “acted illegally” or “without reason or upon reasons insufficient in law.” The proof introduced by appellant in the habeas corpus proceeding failed to reveal that the circuit court, in denying bail, acted in such a manner.

We have carefully reviewed the proceeding and find that all legal rights of the appellant were fully protected.

Judgment affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 26, 2024. 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, August 26, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24A1509. MOE'S FRANCHISOR SPV, LLC et al v. TAYLOR INVESTMENT PARTNERS II, LLC et al.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion be hereby GRANTED, and jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL

(14686)

O’Connell, Foti and Spear, Js.

Argued February 22

decision released March 12, 1996

*942
      *Robert M. Berke,*deputy assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

*Christopher T. Godialis,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were *Mary M. Gal-vin,*state’s attorney, *Paul Gaetano,*assistant state’s attorney, and *Nancy L. Gillespie,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1535 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

with respect to the identification of high priority corridors and the 

inclusion of certain route segments on the Interstate System, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2011 

Mr. FARENTHOLD (for himself, Mr. OLSON, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. HALL, Ms. 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. REYES, Mr. AL

GREEN of Texas, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Ms. JACKSON LEE of 

Texas, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. 

CARTER, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. 

SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. CANSECO, Mr. SMITH

of Texas, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. 

MARCHANT, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. 

FLORES, Mr. HENSARLING, and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 with respect to the identification of high 

priority corridors and the inclusion of certain route segments on the Interstate 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, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1535 IH

1 SECTION 1. IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH PRIORITY COR2 RIDORS AND INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ROUTE 

3 SEGMENTS ON INTERSTATE SYSTEM. 

4 (a) IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS

5 ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.—Section 

6 1105(c)(18)(D) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

7 Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–240) is amend8 ed— 

9 (1) in clause (ii) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

10 (2) in clause (iii) by striking the period at the 

11 end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

12 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(iv) include United States Route 83 

14 from United States Route 281 to United 

15 States Route 77.’’. 

16 (b) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ROUTE SEGMENTS ON

17 INTERSTATE SYSTEM.—Section 1105(e)(5)(A)(ii) of the 

18 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

19 (Public Law 102–240) is amended by inserting before the 

20 period at the end the following: ‘‘(except that this clause 

21 does not apply to any segment of a portion of a route re22 ferred to in paragraph (18)(D) or (20) of subsection (c))’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.4


Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934


I, Gustavo Garavaglia, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.; and


2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.


Date:April 30, 2019/s/ Gustavo GaravagliaGustavo GaravagliaChief Financial Officer














1
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1
Form 10-QSB
KIK Technology International, Inc.
File No. 000-30071


          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 KIK Technology  International,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  April 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, William M. Knooihuizen, Chief Executive and Acting Chief Financial Officer of
the Company,  certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section  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 results of
operations of the Company.


Date: July 19, 2007                     By: /s/ William M. Knooihuizen
      -------------                        -------------------------------------
                                                          William M. Knooihuizen
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                  Acting Chief Financial Officer



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to KIK  Technology  International,  Inc.  and will be  retained by KIK
Technology  International,  Inc. and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The Coast Distribution System, Inc.

Annual Report on Form 10-K

for the Year ended December 31, 2014,

as Amended by
Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A

The undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Coast Distribution System, Inc.
(the Company), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission and as amended by this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A (the Annual Report), to which
this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 30, 2015



/s/ JAMES MUSBACHJames Musbach President and Chief Executive
OfficerA signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Coast Distribution System, Inc. and will be retained by The Coast Distribution System, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.