alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Con. Res. 236 Agreed to May 19, 1994

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF SPECIAL OLYMPICS

TORCH RELAY THROUGH CAPITOL GROUNDS.

On May 20, 1994, or on such other date as the Speaker of

the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of

the Senate may jointly designate, the 1994 Special Olympics Torch

Relay may be run through the Capitol Grounds, as part of the

journey of the Special Olympics torch to the District of Columbia

Special Olympics summer games at Gallaudet University in the

District of Columbia.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

The Capitol Police Board shall take such action as may be

necessary to carry out section 1.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical preparations for the event authorized by section 1.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
**Exhibit 99.1**

** **

**Certification**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersignedofficers of *SOURCECORP*,Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2002 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

 
| Dated:  November 14, 2002 | /s/ Ed H. Bowman, Jr.                  |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                           | Ed H. Bowman, Jr.                      |
|                           | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 
| Dated:  November 14, 2002 | /s/ Barry Edwards                                      |
|--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                           | Barry Edwards                                          |
|                           | Executive Vice President  and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnishedsolely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code).

 

----
### Clean	Power	Plan **Goal	Computation	Call	with	the	State	of	Wyoming 07**  **/ 18**  **/2014 D**  **iscussion	Questions** 1. How did EPA determine a 6% heat rate adjustment was appropriate for Wyoming power plants? 2. What costs did EPA review related to energy efficiency projects to make their determination to adjust the heat rate? 3. What demonstration has EPA made to show the 907 lb/MW
- hr is appropriate for the Cheyenne Prairie Generating Station? EPA's GHG permit limited emissions to 1,100 lb/MW
- hr CO2. 4. How is E PA going to account for states who are primarily exporters of energy vs. states that import their energy? 5. Did EPA consider each state's unique position when it comes to determining energy growth? 6. EPA uses a 6% growth factor each year for wind ge neration starting in 2017 and ending in 2029. Were the logistics for expanding and enhancing the power grid to handle this calculated wind energy production? 7. With wind energy growth, were other environmental issues, particularly those involving endan gered species and potential bird deaths, considered in the growth of wind energy as other environmental factors would hinder expanding renewable energy? 8. The 6% factor for Western Region wind growth factor was determined by EPA (using the NREL "Beyond Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)" report for the Western U.S.) as a regional average. However, Wyoming exports 74% of it's current wind energy per the NREL report. Can EPA clarify the need to expand it's wind generation as Wyoming has no RPS obligati ons with out
of
- state demand driving Wyoming's energy generation portfolio? 9. Expanding on question #8, did EPA consider electricity transport across state lines or did EPA consider each state as it's own entity in the state goal calculations where gen eration = usage for each state? (It would seem any state that is a net generator would be hindered by this rule regardless of the state's energy generation portfolio.) 10. (see #1) In determining increased boiler efficiency, were boiler design, coal p roperties (BTU value), and location logistics (elevation) taken into account for boilers across the United States or were simplified assumptions used in a "one size fits all" approach? 11. How did EPA get 220 MW for Cheyenne Prairie Station and will th ey please redo their numbers to fix this?
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 Western Power & Equipment Corp. &
Subsidiary (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, C.Dean McLain, 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 to the best of my 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.


                                      /s/ C. Dean McLain
                                      ---------------------------
                                      Name: C.Dean McLain
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer
                                      Date: December 12, 2006




     A signed original of the written statements required by Section 906 has
been provided to Western Power & Equipment Corp. & Subsidiary and will be
retained by Western Power & Equipment Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

DAVID SAMBRANO, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 4:21-cv-1074-P

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Clarify the Temporary 

Restraining Order entered by the Court on October 12, 2021. ECF No. 

70. The Motion requests that the Court clarify the following provision

from the Temporary Restraining Order: “United Airlines, Inc. is

TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED and ENJOINED from denying any

requests for religious or medical accommodations from United Airlines,

Inc.’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate due to timeliness (i.e., because the

requests were submitted after the August 31, 2021 deadline).” ECF Nos.

66, 70. Specifically, the Motion requests the Court clarify that this

provision applies only to “covered persons who had submitted an

accommodation request ‘on or before September 23, 2021.’” ECF No. 70.

The Court concludes that Defendant’s Motion should be and is 

GRANTED in part. ECF No. 70. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the 

above-quoted language from the second operative paragraph of the 

Temporary Restraining Order applies only to those individuals who 

submitted accommodation requests to Defendant on or before 

September 23, 2021, and that Defendant is not required to reopen its

accommodation review process to consider requests made by individuals 

on or after September 24, 2021. All other relief requested in Defendant’s 

Motion is DENIED. ECF No. 70. 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 72 Filed 10/18/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID 695
2 

SO ORDERED on this 18th day of October, 2021.

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 72 Filed 10/18/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID 696
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

DAVID SAMBRANO, et al., §

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-01074-P

§

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER

On September 24, 2021, the Court entered an Order that set Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction for an evidentiary hearing on October 8, 2021 and directed the 

parties to submit a proposed briefing schedule on the same. ECF No. 28. In accordance 

with the Joint Report filed by the parties (ECF No. 31), the Court ORDERS the following:

• Plaintiffs will file a supplemental opening brief by October 1, 2021 limited to 25 

pages.

• Defendant will file its response to the supplemental opening brief by October 5, 

2021 limited to 20 pages. The response will be limited to addressing arguments 

Plaintiffs make in their October 1, 2021 filing.

• The parties will exchange exhibit lists and witness lists for the October 8, 2021 

hearing by 5:00 p.m. (CDT) on October 6, 2021 and will file the same with the 

Court.

Further, at the Preliminary Injunction hearing, the Court anticipates applying the 

following time constraints: 

• Plaintiffs and Defendant will be allotted 10 minutes each for opening statements and 

15 minutes each for closing statements. 

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 32 Filed 09/27/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID 341
2

• Plaintiffs, as the party bearing the burden at this hearing, will be allotted a combined 

2 hours and 30 minutes for argument and rebuttal. 

• Defendant will be allotted 2 hours for argument. 

SO ORDERED on this 27th day of September, 2021.

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 32 Filed 09/27/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID 342
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SAHSHA WINDHAM, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-00754-E-BT

§

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY §

ASSOCIATES, LLC, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford dated 

June 1, 2022. The Court has reviewed the Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts the Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

SO ORDERED, this 16th day of June, 2022.

___________________________

ADA BROWN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00754-E-BT Document 10 Filed 06/16/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 41
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 96-40873

_______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

DAVID SORRELLS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(G-96-CV-1083)

_________________________

August 14, 1997

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Sorrells seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in

order to appeal the denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In accordance

with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 1217-18 (1996),
1 See Lucas v. Johnson, 101 F.3d 1045, 1046 (5th Cir. 1996).

2

Sorrells filed a motion for a COA on December 20, 1996. We stayed

briefing pending the disposition of this motion, and we now order

the briefing schedule to be implemented.

The AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2253 to require the issuance of

a COA as a prerequisite to appealing the denial of a § 2255 motion.

In United States v. Orozco, 103 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 1996), we held

that the COA requirement applies to § 2255 petitions in which the

notice of appeal was filed on or after the effective date of the

AEDPA, April 24, 1996. Id. at 390-92. Sorrells filed a notice of

appeal on July 22, 1996, and filed a motion for COA on December 20,

1996. We stayed briefing pending the disposition of this motion.1

The intervening decision in Lindh v. Murphy, 117 S. Ct. 2059

(1997), however, eliminates the need to issue a COA in the instant

case. In Lindh, the Court concluded that the amendments to chapter

153 of title 28 apply only to cases filed after the effective date

of the AEDPA. Id. at 4561. Insofar as the COA requirement,

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), falls within chapter 153 of title 28, Lindh

has overruled Orozco. Hence, the COA requirement applies only to

§ 2255 petitions filed after the effective date of the AEDPA.

United States v. Carter, 117 F.3d 262, 264 (5th Cir. 1997).

Sorrells filed the instant § 2255 petition on April 1, 1996.

Therefore, a COA is not needed to vest jurisdiction in this court.

Accordingly, we order that a briefing notice shall issue forthwith,
3

instructing the United States to respond to Sorrells's brief, and

the appeal shall be submitted for consideration and action in

accordance with the usual procedures.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 24229.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 26, 1949.

R. L. Templeton, of Wellington, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Murder is the offense; the punishment, twelve years in the penitentiary.

That appellant killed deceased by shooting him with a gun and cutting and stabbing with a knife is not disputed.

The killing was the result of a dispute arising out of a game of cards.

The evidence raised self-defense from actual attack, as also threats. These issues were pertinently submitted to the jury.

Two bills of exception appear, complaining, respectively, of the overruling of a first and second application for a continuance.

The State challenges consideration of these bills because the applications were insufficient, of and within themselves, because of the absence of an allegation therein that the witnesses were “not absent by ' the procurement or consent of the defendant.”

Under Art. 543, Sec. 4, C.C.P., it is mandatory that in order for a motion for continuance to be sufficient it must allege that “the witness is not absent by the procurement or consent of the defendant.”

For the reason stated, no error appears in the overruling of said motion.

Bills of exception appear complaining of argument of State’s counsel. The bills go no further than to set out the argument complained of and appellant’s objection thereto. No facts are set forth in the bill showing the argument was not proper. Nothing is presented for review by such a bill of exception.

Complaint is made of the trial court’s refusal to require the State to elect upon which count in the indictment a conviction was sought. The counts varied only in the allegation as to the means employed to accomplish the murder — one charging that it was by shooting with a gun, while the other charged it was committed by cutting and stabbing with a knife. The evidence supported each count. No election was therefore lequired. Bumry v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 198 S.W.2d 887.

The remaining bill of exception is in question and answer form, with no certificate by the trial court for the necessity therefor. Such a bill of exception is not subject to be considered.

The judgment is affirmed.

*979PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commis rion of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of'the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved 'by the court.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28705]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD107-3059, VA122 &123-5054; FRL-6899-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland and Virginia; Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Ozone 
Nonattainment Area; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the comment period for a series of proposed 
rulemaking actions published on October 19, 2000. On this date, EPA 
proposed action on the following Maryland and Virginia provisions as 
revisions to their respective State Implementation Plans (SIP's): 
Maryland--New Source Review (65 FR 62675); and Virginia--Source-
Specific Permits to Reduce NO<INF>X</INF> Emissions in the Metropolitan 
Washington, D.C. Ozone Nonattainment Area (65 FR 62666).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 20, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Makeba Morris, Chief, Permits and 
Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP11, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    1. Maryland--New Source Review: Perry R. Pandya, U.S. EPA Region 
III, (215) 814-2167.
    2. Virginia--Source-Specific Permits to Reduce NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions in the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Ozone Nonattainment 
Area: Michael Ioff, U.S. EPA Region III, (215) 814-2166.

    Dated: October 31, 2000.
 Bradley M. Campbell,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 00-28705 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
COHEN & KAMENY CPA'S PLLC
                       3530 Henry Hudson Parkway, Suite B
                            Riverdale, New York 10463

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

We hereby consent to the use in the Form 10 Registration Statement of our report
as of March 31, 2000, dated April 12, 2000, relating to the financial statements
of Parc Capital, Corp. that appear in such Form 10.

                           Cohen & Kameny CPA'S PLLC
                          Certified Public Accountants

Riverdale, New York
April 12, 2000

                                                                              60
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-cr-033-Z-BR-1

§

PHILIP IAN THOMAS §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

PHILIP IAN THOMAS, by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997), has 

appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Information. After 

cautioning and examining PHILIP IAN THOMAS under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I 

determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by an 

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of 

guilty be accepted, and that PHILIP IAN THOMAS be adjudged guilty of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 - CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT 

WIRE FRAUD and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☐ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☒ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☒ The Government does not oppose release.

☒ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☒ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: April 13, 2022

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00033-Z-BR Document 22 Filed 04/13/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 54
EXHIBIT 10.37

                                      NOTE

Lexington, North Carolina
April 30, 2000

$110,000

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED,  the undersigned  promises to pay to the order of Ernst
B. Kemm,  on the  thirteenth  month from all current  dates,  the balance of the
principal  outstanding of up to the sum of One Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars,
($110,000). with interest from date at the the rate of 1 1/2% above prime (prime
as used in this note shall be the prime as established by Lexington State Bank).
Interest shall be payable monthly beginning June 1, 2000.

     This note shall be secured by a pledge of the  inventory  and machinery and
equipment  of  Wellington  Hall,  Limited  (subject  to a  prior  pledge  of the
machinery  and  equipment  to  the  Lexington  State  Bank  and  subject  to and
subordinate  to any loans made by Wellington  Hall,  Limited,  with liens on the
inventory,  equipment,  and machinery  pledged by the undersigned to any outside
lender.)

     Upon default in the  performance  of any provision of this note, the holder
may elect to declare that all of the unpaid  principal and all accrued  interest
thereon to become due and collectible on the last day of the thirteen month from
the date of notice.

     The makers, sureties,  endorsers, or guarantors of this note and all others
that may become liable for all or any part thereof, jointly and severally:

     (1) Waive presentment for payment,  demand,  protest, notice or protest and
notice of dishonor:

     (2) Agree that their  respective  liabilities  shall not be  diminished  or
affected  by any  extension  of  time  for  payment  of all or any  part  of the
principal or interest hereof or for the performance of any obligation under this
note,  or by any change by way of  release,  surrender  or  substitution  of any
collateral securing this note.

     (3) Waive any notice of consent with reference to any of the foregoing.

     Signed  and sealed at  Lexington,  North  Carolina,  this 30th day of April
2000.

WELLINGTON HALL, LIMITED


ATTEST:
BY_______________________

President

_________________________
Secretary

                                      -59-