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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-383-012]

Take notice that on October 27, 2000, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) tendered for filing to the Commission the following tariff sheets for disclosure of a recently negotiated transaction with Allegheny Energy Unit 1 and 2, L.L.C.:

First Revised Sheet No. 1300

Second Revised Sheet No. 1404

Original Sheet No. 1405

DTI requests an effective date of November 1, 2000, for the agreement.

DTI states that the transaction includes a negotiated rate. Further, because the transaction includes a provision that may be a material deviation from the form of service agreement included in DTI's tariff, DTI has also filed the letter agreement between the parties.

DTI states that copies of the filing have been served on all parties on the official service list, DTI's customers, and interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20462, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 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). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at ­http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-28635 Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### McARTER v. BUSSE et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 13, 1952.

*713Vincent Reuscher, Reuscher & Reuscher, Newport, for appellant.

James A. Culbertson and Pogue, Helm-bolz, Culbertson & French, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal by Edgar McArter from a judgment of the Campbell Circuit Court sustaining an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which allowed McArter compensation totalling $99. Mc-Arter, the injured employee, -contends he should have been given an award totalling $441.25.

A consideration of the record discloses no error prejudicial to the movant’s substantial rights and the judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 285 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 285

Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make technical corrections in 
                       the enrollment of S. 2182.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              August 17 (legislative day, August 11), 1994

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make technical corrections in 
                       the enrollment of S. 2182.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill (S. 2182) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
programs of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths 
for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, the 
Secretary of the Senate shall make the following corrections:
            (1) In section 3136, strike out ``20 percent'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``80 percent''.
            (2) Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to authorize 
        appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for military activities of 
        the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for 
        defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
        personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, 
        and for other purposes.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 17, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-00140-L

§

ANGEL ORTIZ-FLORES §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent 

of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, 

and no objections thereto having been filed within fourteen days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the 

undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning the 

Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and 

ANGEL ORTIZ-FLORES is hereby adjudged guilty of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), namely, Illegal Reentry After Removal from 

the United States. Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

☒ The defendant is ordered to remain in custody. 

☐ The Court accepts the findings of the United States Magistrate Judge 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). 

☐ Upon motion, this matter shall be set for hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions 

of release for determination, by clear and convincing evidence, of whether the defendant is likely to flee or pose a 

danger to any other person or the community if released under § 3142(b) or (c). 

☐ The defendant is not ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) pending determination of whether it has 

been clearly shown that there are exceptional circumstances under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be 

detained under § 3143(a)(2), and whether it has been shown 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 under § 3142(b) or (c). This 

matter shall be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions of release.

SIGNED this 25th day of October, 2023. 

 ________________________________________ 

 SAM A. LINDSAY

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00140-L Document 38 Filed 10/25/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 257
#### MERRITT v. STATE.

No. 22440.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 31, 1943.

Morriss & Morriss, of San Antonio, for' appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder, and his punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

It having been made known to this court by proper affidavit that appellant departed this life on March 7, 1943, this appeal is abated.
#### JAEGER et al. v. CULLEN.

No. 11655.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

Nov. 2, 1944.

Cameron C. McCann, of New Orleans, La., for appellants by motion.

Price, Smallwood & Wheat, of Houston, for appellee.

CODY, Justice.

This case was submitted on October 26, 1944, after due notice, and is before the Court on the transcript, appellee’s brief, in which dismissal or affirmance is urged, and appellants’ motion for continuance. The records of this Court in this case reflect:

The transcript was filed July 20, 1944. A motion to extend time to file a statement of facts was filed at the same time. Time was extended through September 3, 1944.

On September 1, appellants tendered a statement of facts which the clerk declined to file on three grounds: (1) The statement of facts had never been filed in the trial court. Rule 381, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. (2) It bore no agreement that it was correct. Rule 377(d). (3) It was not approved by the trial judge. Rule 377(d).

On the same; day that the clerk refused to file the statement of facts, he notified appellants’ counsel of such refusal by mail, giving the reasons therefor.

No further steps were taken by appellants until October 24, 1944, when appellants’ counsel telephoned the clerk about the status of the case. On October 25, counsel filed a motion for continuance, seeking additional time for further action by appellants with reference to the statement of facts.

The clerk was right in declining to file the tendered statement of facts. It was in question and answer form, certified to by the Court Reporter of the trial court. It was not sufficiently authenticated, so not eligible for filing.

Rule 414 provides that appellants’ brief be filed within 30 days after the filing of the transcript and statement of facts, if any. No statement of facts being filed, the time for filing appellants’ brief expired 30 days after July 20, the day the transcript was filed. In any event the time *585for filing such brief expired 30 days after September 3, the day the extended leave to file the statement of facts expired.

In the absence of seasonable action by appellants for further extension of time to file statement of facts, or to file their brief, we are constrained to hold them guilty of such noncompliance with Rules 386 and 414, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, as requires that the appeal be dismissed, and it is so ordered. Rule 415.

Dismissed for want of prosecution.
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 2 of 16 PageID 2
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 3 of 16 PageID 3
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 4 of 16 PageID 4
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 5 of 16 PageID 5
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 6 of 16 PageID 6
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 7 of 16 PageID 7
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 8 of 16 PageID 8
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 9 of 16 PageID 9
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 10 of 16 PageID 10
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 11 of 16 PageID 11
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 12 of 16 PageID 12
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 13 of 16 PageID 13
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 14 of 16 PageID 14
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 15 of 16 PageID 15
Case 4:22-cv-00161-P Document 1 Filed 03/02/22 Page 16 of 16 PageID 16
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3600 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for clarification regarding 

the children to whom entitlement to educational assistance may be transferred under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2013 

Mr. FOSTER (for himself and Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for clarification regarding the children to whom entitlement to 

educational assistance may be transferred under the 

Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program. 

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 ‘‘GI Education Benefit 

5 Fairness Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3600 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE CHILDREN TO 

2 WHOM ENTITLEMENT TO EDUCATIONAL AS3 SISTANCE MAY BE TRANSFERRED UNDER 

4 THE POST 9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 

5 PROGRAM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3319(c) of title 38, 

7 United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(c) ELIGIBLE DEPENDENTS.— 

9 ‘‘(1) TRANSFER.—An individual approved to 

10 transfer an entitlement to educational assistance 

11 under this section may transfer the individual’s enti12 tlement as follows: 

13 ‘‘(A) To the individual’s spouse. 

14 ‘‘(B) To one or more of the individual’s 

15 children. 

16 ‘‘(C) To a combination of the individuals 

17 referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B). 

18 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION OF CHILDREN.—For purposes 

19 of this subsection, the term ‘children’ includes de20 pendents described in section 1072(2)(I) of title 

21 10.’’. 

22 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub23 section (a) shall apply with respect to educational assist24 ance payable under chapter 33 of title 38, United States 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3600 IH

1 Code, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of 

2 this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3578 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3578

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To establish requirements for the adoption of any new or revised 
 requirement providing for the screening, testing, or treatment of an 
airman or an air traffic controller for a sleep disorder, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. MEDICAL CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRMEN AND AIR 
              TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS RELATING TO SLEEP DISORDERS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation may, consistent 
with accepted medical standards and practices, implement or enforce a 
requirement providing for the screening, testing, or treatment 
(including consideration of all possible treatment alternatives) of an 
airman or an air traffic controller for a sleep disorder--
            (1) in the case of an airman, only if the requirement is 
        adopted pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding; and
            (2) in the case of an air traffic controller, only if the 
        Federal Aviation Administration meets its obligations pursuant 
        to chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a requirement 
that was in force before November 1, 2013.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
            (1) Airman.--The term ``airman'' has the meaning given that 
        term in section 40102(a) of title 49, United States Code.
            (2) Air traffic controller.--The term ``air traffic 
        controller'' means a civilian employee of the Department of 
        Transportation described in section 2109 of title 5, United 
        States Code.
            (3) Sleep disorder.--The term ``sleep disorder'' includes 
        obstructive sleep apnea.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 11, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3578

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To establish requirements for the adoption of any new or revised 
 requirement providing for the screening, testing, or treatment of an 
airman or an air traffic controller for a sleep disorder, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
#### JORDAN v. STATE.

No. 22163.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 10, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1942.

Fryer & Milstead, of El Paso, for appellant.

David W. Heath, Asst. Co. Atty., of El Paso, and Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault, by appellant, an adult male, upon the person of a female; the punishment, six months’ confinement in the county jail.

A detailed statement of the facts is not deemed called for. According to the testimony of the prosecutrix, the appellant, without justification or excuse, struck and slapped her. Appellant, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, admitted slapping prosecutrix, hut justified his act as being in his necessary defense against the attack by prosecutrix.

The issues of fact arising were pertinently submitted by the trial court in his charge to the jury.

The jury’s verdict finds support in the testimony.

It is claimed that argument of State’s counsel to the jury, wherein he stated, “Gentlemen of the jury, you know how you want the law enforced — you have daughters of your own”, constitutes reversible error as being inflammatory and prejudicial. The bill of exception presenting this matter certifies that three of the jurors had children, who were girls.

In determining whether argument of State’s counsel constitutes reversible error, the facts must, of necessity, be looked to — especially when the argument complained of violates no statutory or mandatory rule, or when no new fact is injected into the case. Vineyard v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 401, 257 S.W. 548; Heidle v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 201, 86 S.W.2d 641; Newchurch v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 619, 121 S.W.2d 998. In the instant case, the facts tended strongly to show a case of assault with intent to rape. In the light of such facts, the verdict of the jury fails to reflect any prejudice by that body against the appellant. We are unable to agree that the argument so made warrants a reversal of this case. See: Johnson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 50 S.W. 343; Johnson v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 175, 147 S.W.2d 811.

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.
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 June 30, 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
August 11, 2006
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 annual report of Enthrust Financial  Services,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Kirk M. Warshaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of  operations of the
Company.



/s/ Kirk M. Warshaw
-------------------------
Kirk M. Warshaw
Chief Financial Officer
February 7, 2007

A signed  original of this  certification  has been  provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and  furnished  to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.