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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 21

Expressing the sense of the Congress that any health care reform legislation

that is enacted to meet the health care needs of the people of the

United States should emphasize disease prevention and encourage the

development of healthy lifestyles.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1993

Mr. MACHTLEY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that any health care

reform legislation that is enacted to meet the health

care needs of the people of the United States should

emphasize disease prevention and encourage the development of healthy lifestyles.

Whereas medicine in the United States is beginning to emphasize the prevention of disease and the development of

healthy lifestyles;

Whereas more businesses are promoting disease prevention,

healthy lifestyles, and good nutrition through wellness

programs than did so in the past;
2

•HCON 21 IH

Whereas the goal of wellness programs is to help individuals

develop healthier personal habits and to decrease health

care costs in the long run;

Whereas wellness programs have definite financial advantages

to business and industry;

Whereas businesses could save on insurance premiums and

reduce the number of health insurance claims filed by

their employees if the employees would participate in a

wellness program;

Whereas wellness programs lead to reduced absenteeism and

increased productivity in the workplace;

Whereas, in a recent poll, 78 percent of the employers that

were surveyed responded that they used wellness programs to promote good health in their employees and 89

percent responded that they planned to increase their

commitment to health promotion during the 5 years following the survey; and

Whereas it is estimated that 70 percent of companies in the

United States with a work force that exceeds 1,000 employees offer some type of wellness program for employees: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that any

3 health care reform legislation that is enacted to meet the

4 health care needs of the people of the United States should

5 emphasize disease prevention and encourage the develop6 ment of healthy lifestyles.

Æ
#### VOYLES v. STATE.

No. 24515.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 30, 1949.

None on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was indicted for theft. He waived a jury and- pleaded guilty. The court heard the evidence, found him guilty and assessed his punishment at four years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception or statement of facts in the record. The proceedings appear regular. Nothing is presented for review by this Court.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 September 19, 2014

s0916

Order 

Clerk

September 19, 2014

149799 & (11)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149799

COA: 322478

Oakland CC: 14-249527-FH

TAMMY SUE RICHARDS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

LUBBOCK DIVISION 2022 .JUL 26 Pi1 4: Io 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

v. CASE NO. 5:22-CR-034-H-BQ-3 

ALFRED MIRANDA 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLEA 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

This case has been referred by the United States district judge to the undersigned 

for the taking of a guilty plea. The parties have consented to appear before a United States 

magistrate judge for these purposes. This Report and Recommendation on Plea is submitted 

to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). 

The defendant appeared with counsel before the undersigned United States 

magistrate judge, who addressed the defendant personally in open court and informed the 

defendant of, and determined that the defendant understood, the admonitions contained in 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The defendant pleaded guilty (under a written plea bargain agreement with the 

government) to Count Seven of the Superseding Indictment, charging defendant with a 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(l) and 84l(b)(l)(C), that is, Distribution and Possession 

with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine. After examining Defendant under oath the 

undersigned magistrate judge finds the following: 

1. Defendant, upon advice of counsel, has consented orally and in writing 

to enter this guilty plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final 

approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge; 

Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BV Document 368 Filed 07/26/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 857
2. Defendant fully understands the nature of the charges (including each 

essential element of the offense(s) charged) and penalties; 

3. Defendant fully understands the terms of the plea agreement and plea 

agreement supplement; 

4. Defendant understands all constitutional and statutory rights and wishes 

to waive these rights, including the right to a trial by jury and the right 

to appear before a United States district judge; 

5. Defendant's plea is made freely and voluntarily; 

6. Defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; 

7. There is a factual basis for this plea; and 

8. The ends of justice are served by acceptance of the defendant's plea of 

guilty. 

Although I have conducted these proceedings and recommend acceptance of 

Defendant's plea of guilty, the United States district judge has the power to review my 

actions and possesses final decision-making authority in this proceeding. Thus, if 

Defendant has any objections to these findings or any other action of the undersigned, he 

is required to make those known to the United States district judge within fourteen (14) 

days of today. 

Based on the above, I recommend that Defendant's plea of guilty be accepted, that 

Defendant be adjudged guilty, and that sentence be imposed accordingly. 

Signed July 26, 2022. 

JOHN R. PARKER 

UNITED ST ATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

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

Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BV Document 368 Filed 07/26/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 858
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 23803.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 19, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is rape. The punishment assessed is death.

There are no bills of exception in the record nor any obj cctions to the court’s charge, consequently, there is nothing presented for review except the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

We have read the record carefully and have reached the conclusion that the evidence is ample to support the verdict. The record reflects that on the morning of April 15, 1946, appellant came to the home of the injured party, her husband being absent, and inquired of her if she wanted her yard cut; receiving a negative reply, he pulled the screen door open, caught her, choked her, knocked her down, then obtained a piece of plank which had been broken from the lower part of the screen door and beat her on the head, knocking out some of her teeth, and continued to beat her until she was unconscious, and then ravished her. During the fight and struggle, he lost his hat which he left when he hurriedly departed from the scene of the crime. He was apprehended the next day and made a voluntary confession which was introduced in evidence. The State proved the offense independent of the confession. The doctor who examined the injured party testified that the examination revealed that someone had had intercourse with her in the preceding three or four hours. Appellant did not testify or offer any testimony tending to show an alibi or .other affirmative defense.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment 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.
#### MARTIN v. STATE.

No. 25063.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 20, 1950.

Rehearing Denied March 14, 1951.

None on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for possessing whiskey in a dry area for the purpose of sale, and the jury assessed his punishment at one year in jail. His appeal from such conviction was dismissed for want of a proper judgment in our Cause No. 24,603. See Martin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 227 S.W.2d 213.

After receipt of the mandate dismissing the appeal, the trial court, on March 24, 1950, entered its order upon the State’s motion, for entry nunc pro tunc of a judgment actually rendered by said court in said cause on June 7, 1949, but not entered in the minutes of the court.

Notice of the hearing on the State’s application was served upon appellant, and upon the court’s ordering the judgment entered he filed his motion for new trial in which he raised some of the questions previously raised as well as his contention that the court was not authorized to order the entry of judgment nunc pro tunc. This appeal is from the conviction as evidenced by the judgment entered nunc pro tunc.

The trial court had the power and duty to direct the entry in the minutes of the court, a true record of the judgment he had rendered. See Bennett v. State, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 652, 662, 194 S.W. 145, 148.

In the absence of a showing to the contrary, we must presume that the judgment as entered nunc pro tunc on March 24, 1950, was in fact rendered on June 7, 1949, such being the finding of the trial judge.

Other questions raised on this appeal were decided against appellant’s contention in our original opinion on the former appeal, prior to our attention being called to the absence of a proper judgment in the record.

We now refer to such opinion on said former appeal and adhere to the conclusions there reached. See Martin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 227 S.W.2d 213. We note, however, that in disposing of Bill of Exception No. 2, the opinion says that the bill of exception is deficient in its failure to show that the argument complained of “was reasonably pertinent to any material issue.” We intended to say “was *not*reasonably pertinent” to any such issue.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 129

To commend Israel and the Israeli Supreme Court.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 30, 1993

Mr. TRAFICANT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To commend Israel and the Israeli Supreme Court.

Whereas Israel and the Israeli Supreme Court demonstrated

the highest standards of justice as evidenced in the disposition of the Demjanjuk case considering the extraordinary sensitivity surrounding this matter: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress commends Israel and the Is3 raeli Supreme Court for its commitment to freedom and

4 the preservation of individual rights.

Æ
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 Secured Digital  Applications,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2006 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),   I,  Patrick  Soon-Hock  Lim,  Chief  Executive  Officer  (principal
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
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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/ Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
-------------------------
Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
May 22, 2006
Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

MANDATE

TO THE 15TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF GRAYSON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, on the 23rd day of March, 2018, the 

cause on appeal to revise or reverse the judgment between

IN THE INTEREST OF W.J.J., A CHILD

No. 05-17-01247-CV

On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District 

Court, Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. FA-16-1280.

Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. 

Justices Francis and Myers participating.

was determined; and this Court made its order in these words:

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of the Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth District of Texas, in this behalf, and have it duly obeyed and executed.

WITNESS the HON. CAROLYN WRIGHT, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, with 

the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Dallas, this 5th day of June, 2018.

5 L M

LISA MATZ, Clerk
## Salt River Electric



# Distribution Pole Replacement Costs 28-Oct-11 

## General Information: Tsharp

1. Standard distribution transformer Pole is 40 foot Class 4 Souther Yellow Pine 2. Replacement pole is a 40 foot Class 3 Southern Yellow Pine 3. Replacement is performed while circuit is energized. 4. No salvage value is given to the pole being retired since it will not be re-used. 5. Labor, transportation, and overheads are estimated to complete the retirement of the original pole and replace it with a new pole in the energized circuit as described above including the cost of the new pole. 6. Cost of new transformer in not included. 

## Estimated cost of this pole replacement process on a single phase line is $ 1,380.27. **Estimated cost of this pole replacement process on a three phase line is $ 2,944.91.**1. Standard distribution transformer Pole is 40 foot Class 4 Souther Yellow Pine

5. Labor, transportation, and overheads are estimated to complete the retirement of the original pole and replace it with a new pole in the energized circuit as described above including the cost of the new pole. 

## Estimated cost of this pole replacement process on a single phase line is $ 1,380.27. **Estimated cost of this pole replacement process on a three phase line is $ 2,944.91.**
Summary of Meeting Between the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) and EPA 

Staff

August 17, 2011

List of Attendees

Greg Schaner, EPA

Connie Bosma, EPA

Melinda Tomainom, AGC

Leah Pilconis, AGC

Mike Kennedy, AGC

Jan Goodwin, EPA

Erika Farris, EPA

Summary of Meeting

During the meeting, the following issues were discussed:

Status of the C&D rule ELG;

AGC’s interest in engaging AGC members with EPA regarding monitoring protocols;

AGC’s comments on the proposed CGP, including:

o Who should be responsible for developing the SWPPP;

o Benchmark monitoring requirements;

o Reporting for turbidity limit exceedances.

EPA presented AGC with questions for their members, including questions about:

o The NOI waiting period;

o Steep slope definitions;

o Buffer alternatives; and

o Stabilization deadlines.
* 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. 00-41445 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO DIAZ-MATA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-00-CR-415-1

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

October 29, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco

Diaz-Mata has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief

as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). DiazMata has filed a response. Our independent review of the brief,

the record, and his response discloses no nonfrivolous issue in

this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2786]



[[Page 6201]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-344-014]


Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

February 2, 2000.
    Take notice that on January 27, 2000 Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing, as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff 
sheets:

Thirty-third Revised Sheet No. 10
Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 10A
Twenty-ninth Revised Sheet No. 11
Twenty-first Revised Sheet No. 11A
Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 11B
Thirty-first Revised Sheet No. 12
Tenth Revised Sheet No. 12A
Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 15
Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 16
Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 17

    Texas Gas states that this filing is made to implement the 
provisions of Article XI, Section 1(a), of the Offer of Settlement and 
Explanatory Statement in Docket No. RP97-344, et al., and, as presented 
in the referenced Appendix D, page 2, of said Settlement, Texas Gas, in 
the instant filing, proposes to reflect the unit rate reductions, 
effective March 1, 2000, resulting from the termination of the ANR X-
153 contract. The attached tariff sheets reflect reductions to the NNS 
and FT demand rates of ($0.0025), NNS and FT commodity rates of 
($0.0009), SGT rates of ($0.0059), and IT rates of ($0.0034).
    Texas Gas states that copies of this filing have been served upon 
all of Texas Gas's jurisdiction customers, all parties on the 
Commission's official service list in this proceeding, interested state 
commissions, and the FERC Staff.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. 
This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-2786 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 145 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.145
                                    Agreed to September 14, 1993        
                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
  the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three


                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on Wednesday, September 15, 1993, it stand 
adjourned until noon on Tuesday, September 21, 1993.
Attest:







                                  Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:







                                                Secretary of the Senate.`
1

Wiley, Adina

From: Kathleen Smith <ksmith@coronado-ventures.com>

Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 4:13 PM

To: Wiley, Adina; Robinson, Jeffrey

Cc: Larry Moon; Richard Alonso; John Upchurch

Subject: Re: GHG Permitting Authority Letter

Jeff ‐  

Thank you for the attached letter.  We intend to maintain EPA as the permitting authority for the Pinecrest Energy Center and

would like EPA to continue to proceed with completion of the GHG permit.  Thank you very much.   

Best Regards,

Kathleen

Kathleen Smith

Managing Partner

Coronado Power Ventures, LLC

281-253-4385

ksmith@coronado-ventures.com

From: <Wiley>, Adina <Wiley.Adina@epa.gov>

Date: Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:09 PM

To: Kathleen Smith <ksmith@coronado‐ventures.com>

Subject: GHG Permitting Authority Letter

Sending on behalf of Jeff Robinson.

Adina R. Wiley, Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA Region 6

Air Permits Section (6PD‐R)

1445 Ross Ave.

Dallas, TX  75202

(214) 665‐2115

wiley.adina@epa.gov

POSITIONS or VIEWS EXPRESSED DO NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DAX DEVON LAMPKINS, 

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D22-159

LT Case No. 2019-CF-011849-A-O 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

 Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed November 15, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Orange County, 

Bob Leblanc, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and 

Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Whitney Brown Hartless,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, SASSO and TRAVER, JJ., concur.