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

Union Calendar No. 172 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2192 

[Report No. 112–256] 

To exempt for an additional 4-year period, from the application of the meanstest presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of reserve 

components of the Armed Forces and members of the National Guard 

who, after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform 

a homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2011 

Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. FORBES, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, 

and Mr. NADLER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

OCTOBER 18, 2011 

Additional sponsor: Mr. CONYERS

OCTOBER 18, 2011 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2192 RH

A BILL 

To exempt for an additional 4-year period, from the application of the means-test presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of reserve components of the 

Armed Forces and members of the National Guard who, 

after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or 

to perform a homeland defense activity for not less than 

90 days. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2192 RH

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 ‘‘National Guard and 

5 Reservist Debt Relief Extension Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVISTS DEBT RELIEF 

7 AMENDMENT. 

8 Section 4(b) of the National Guard and Reservists 

9 Debt Relief Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–438; 122 Stat. 

10 5000) is amended by striking ‘‘3-year’’ and inserting ‘‘7- 

11 year’’. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 172 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2192 

[Report No. 112–256] 

A BILL 

To exempt for an additional 4-year period, from the 

days. a homeland defense activity for not less than 90 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform bers of the National Guard who, after September serve components of the Armed Forces and memabuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of reapplication of the means-test presumption of 

OCTOBER 18, 2011 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | 16,070 |        |        |        |        |       
|2020's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 12     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
Exhibit
32.2














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









In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Worldwide Energy and Manufacturing USA,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008
(the "Report"), I, John Ballard, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.









/s/John
Ballard




John
Ballard, Chief Financial Officer




November 19, 2008
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Overton Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

DONALD VALCOLEN FREW MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0270-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON OCTOBER 1, 1996 PATRICIA CHADWICK FREW

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS Robert P. Frank, Judge Oldric J. LaBell, Jr., for appellant. Robert B. Halkowich (Spencer and Halkowich, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Donald Frew (husband) appeals the decision of the circuit court concerning the final decree of divorce from Patricia Chadwick Frew (wife). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the

trial court. The parties separated in 1983, when they signed a separation agreement that provided for payment from husband to wife. Husband filed for divorce on January 25, 1994. While that suit was pending, wife filed an action at law to recover non-payment of the separation agreement on November 29, 1994. On December 1, 1995, the circuit court rendered a final judgment on the law action, interpreting a disputed provision and assigning an arrearage. That decision was appealed on January 3, 1996 to this

Court. 1

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.

1 The Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction over the law- 2 - The final decree of divorce was entered on January 5, 1996. In that decree the trial judge incorporated his ruling and interpretation of the earlier law action. Husband appeals from

this order. Husband's appeal concerns the interpretation of the separation agreement, fully argued and adjudicated in the law action. He does not contend that the judge erred by incorporating the previous order into the divorce decree, only that the previous order was decided incorrectly. He assigns no error to the actions of the judge in this case, but rather addresses his arguments to the ruling of the judge in the law

action. Because we find no reversible error by the trial judge in this case, we affirm the decision below. Any error in the law action will be considered by the Supreme Court of Virginia, where jurisdiction properly lies.

Affirmed.

action and transferred the appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia pursuant to Code § 8.01-677.1. See Frew v. Frew , Record No. 0251-96-1 (October 1, 1996) (unpublished).
# o pr""I'JT 

### 'OF 'I'TMI,}s,DOR,'T'''TiQ,**'~~ ~)**  ... > 111 u -1'n I-itt

.**!lr\("/;:"(~** 0 New Jersey Avenue, SE Assistant Secretary 

### u.s. Department ",;,'\LLJ Washington, DC 20590 of Tra,nsportation March 25" 2010 .--, 1 •Office of the Secretary

ofTransportation

The Honorable Donald R. Mull' Mayor ofAlcoa Alcoa,TN 37701-1948 Dear Mayor Mull: Thank you for your letter ofFebruary 25 supporting the application for antitrust immunity filed byAmerican Airlines and Japan Airlines. I am responding on behalfofSecretary LaHood.

, As you may know, the applicants-members ofthe oneworld Alliance-are seeking antitrust

immunity to closely coordinate flights between the United States and Asia. According to the application, the alliance partners plan to launch ajoint venture for conveyance oftranspacific traffic. The application is administered in a public docket, which ensures that interested parties have the opportunity to comment. The U.S. Department ofTransportation (DOT) will evaluate the application according to rigorous statutory standards, beginning with a review ofthe record to " determine ifit is substantially complete. Decisions on the application are made in consultation ,with the U.S. Department ofJustice's Antitrust Divisionfollowing a thorough analysis of competitive factors. As this matter is now pending, I hope you understand that I cannot comment on the merits ofthe application. I can assure you, however, that DOT will give full

,and fair consideration to the application as well as any comments filed in the docket. As is our normal practice, I am placing a copy ofyour letter and,this 'response in Docket DOT-OST-2010;._as a contact outside the record in this matter. I appreciate your interest in this proceeding. Sincerely yours,

# ~ Susan L. Kurland Assistant Secretary forAviation and International Affairs

### S I 0-100309-026 '. '.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-18-00858-CR

Style: Thurston Rickey-Lee Davis v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: March 12, 2019

Type of motion: Notice of Acknowledgement of Substitution of Counsel

Party filing motion: Appellant’s appointed counsel, Natalie Lynn Schultz, and retained

Counsel, Garrick A. Farria

Document to be filed: Notice to pro se appellant

Is appeal accelerated? No.

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Appellant’s appointed counsel’s notice of acknowledgement of substitution of counsel, 

construed with retained counsel’s prior notice of appearance as a motion to substitute 

counsel, is granted because they were signed by both new and withdrawing counsel. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(d). Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is directed to remove 

Natalie Lynn Schultz, as counsel for appellant and to designate Garrick A. Farria as 

lead counsel. Withdrawing counsel Schultz is ordered to mail a copy of the notice

and this order to the pro se appellant via certified and first-class mail and file notice

with the Clerk of this Court within 10 days of the date of this order. See id. 6.5(b), (d).

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Justice Evelyn V. Keyes_______

 x Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: __March 19, 2019_______
#### In the Matter of Kevin V. Bolier, Petitioner, v New York State Employees’ Retirement System et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s request for a redetermination of his retirement status.

Contrary to petitioner’s argument, since his membership in respondent New York State Employees’ Retirement System was optional, he could not become a member of it until his application was actually filed with respondent Comptroller *(see,*Retirement and Social Security Law §§ 40, 74). Although petitioner was hired on June 28, 1976, the record shows that his application was not filed with the appropriate officials until August 12, 1976 *(see, Matter of McBride v Regan,*125 AD2d 797), which was after the cutoff date of July 27, 1976 for enrollment as a tier II member *(see, Civil Serv. Employees Assn. v Regan,*71 NY2d 653). Therefore, the tier III status *816accorded petitioner was proper *(see, Matter of Klein v Regan,*165 AD2d 944).

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Kramont Realty Trust (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Louis P. Meshon,
Sr., Chief Executive 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.

                              /s/ Louis P. Meshon, Sr.
                              -------------------------------------
                              Louis P. Meshon, Sr.
                              Chief Executive Officer
                              Kramont Realty Trust
                              May 6, 2004

                                       22
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tom E. Olivani, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. Memorandum: The People effectively communicated their readiness for trial by a written notice of readiness sent to both counsel and the court clerk, to be placed in the record *(see, People v Kendzia,*64 NY2d 331, 337). The notice complied with the "ready for trial” requirement of CPL 30.30 (1), even though it was made one day before the arraignment of defendant. The rule requires that the prosecutor make his statement of readiness when the People are in fact ready to proceed. The rule requires that the People, not the court, be ready for trial *(People ex rel. Franklin v Warden,*31 NY2d 498). Here, although defendant could not be tried until he was arraigned, that did not mean that the People were not ready for trial and capable of proceeding if the court was available to arraign and try defendant. For many reasons beyond the control of the People, there may be a delay between indictment and arraignment of a defendant. There is no reason to penalize the People for delays beyond their control by prohibiting them from announcing their readiness for trial after indictment and prior to arraignment, when they are in fact ready.

All concur, except Doerr, J. P., who dissents and votes to reverse and dismiss the indictment, in the following memorandum.

Doerr, J. P.,

(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. For the People’s statement of readiness to be effective, it must be made either on the record or in a written notice to defense counsel and the court clerk at a time when the People are, in fact, ready to proceed *(People v Kendzia,*64 NY2d 331, 337). I agree with the majority that the People complied with the *950first requirement by delivering a written notice of readiness to defense counsel and to the court clerk. In my view, the People failed to comply with the second requirement because their statement of readiness, made prior to arraignment, was not made at a time when the People were, in fact, ready to proceed. Until defendant is arraigned, "the People simply could not try defendant” *(People v Marsh,*127 AD2d 945, 947, *lv denied*70 NY2d 650; *see also, People v Toro,*151 AD2d 142, 144). Consequently, the prosecutor’s statement of readiness, made before arraignment, was not effective and the indictment should be dismissed. (Appeal from judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J.—driving while intoxicated.) Present —Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7446
JOHN T. VINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus S. R. WITKOWSKI, Warden; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-2260-6-1AK) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 13, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John T. Vinson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewedthe record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Vinson v. Witkowski , No. CA-94-2260-6-1AK (D.S.C. Aug. 16, 1995). We also deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel on 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
#### SAUCEDO v. STATE.

No. 24245.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 2, 1949.

G. C. Jackson, of Crystal City, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of vagrancy, and her punishment was assessed at a fine of $25.

The record is before us without any bills of exceptions or a statement of facts. Her only complaint is that the court erred in overruling her motion to quash the complaint and information. She based her motion to quash on the following ..grounds: (a) because the averments therein are too vague, indefinite, and uncertain, in this, that they do not charge any specific occurrence and do not inform her of what proof she would be required to meet on her trial, (b) That they fail to charge a violation of the statute, in this, that they fail to charge that she was a common prostitute.

The information which is substantially in the language of the complaint, omitting the formal parts thereof, reads as follows: “that heretofore, to-wit: On or about the 28th day of August 1948, in the said County of Zavala and State of Texas, one Maria Saucedo was a vagrant, to-wit, the said Maria Saucedo was then and there a person who engaged in prostitution; against the peace and dignity of the State.”

Sec. 16, Art. 607, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., states what constitutes vagrancy, among them the following: “All persons who engage in prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.” Art. 607 was amended by the 48th Legislature by adding thereto Sections 15 through 21. The amendment omitted the adjective “common,” so that it is no longer necessary to charge in a complaint and information that the accused is a common prostitute, but to charge that she is a prostitute is sufficient.

Sec. 20, Art. 607, Vernon’s AnmP.C., defines prostitution as follows: “The term ‘prostitution’ as used in this Act shall be construed to include the giving or receiving of the body for sexual intercourse for hire, and shall also be construed to include the giving or receiving of the body for indiscriminate sexual intercourse without hire.”

Since the statute defines the term prostitution, a more specific allegation in a complaint and information is not necessary. See also Tex.Jurs. Vol. 33, page 945.

Having reached the conclusion that the complaint and information are sufficient to charge the offense of vagrancy, the judgmént of the trial court is affirmed.

PER .CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                         
|View History:                                                                                
|                                                                                             
|Alabama (with State Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                             
|                                                                                             
|Alabama (with State Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | NA     | NA     | 4      | 2     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 4      | 1      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 1      | 2      | 2      | 15     | 0      | 2      | 7      | W      | 3     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4      | 5      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023