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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 281 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 281

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1994, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 20, 1993

         Mr. Natcher introduced the following joint resolution

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1994, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That section 106(c) of Public 
Law 103-88 is amended by striking out ``October 21, 1993'' and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``October 28, 1993''.

                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 22, 2021

No. 04-20-00553-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.Z.F., A CHILD,

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CI-08725

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due on February 24, 2021. Neither the brief nor a motion for 

extension of time has been filed. We therefore ORDER appellant to file the appellant’s brief in 

this court no later than 15 days from the date of this order, along with a written response 

reasonably explaining: (1) the failure to timely file the brief and/or a motion for extension; and 

(2) why appellee is not significantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file a brief.

If appellant fails to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, this appeal 

will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal if appellant has failed to comply with a court order).

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of June, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.2
                                  ------------




                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Groen Brothers  Aviation,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form  10-KSB for the year ended  June 30,  2005,  Dennis P.
Gauger hereby certifies, 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 his
knowledge:

         1.   The annual report fully complies with the  requirements of Section
              13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.   The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in
              all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
              operations of the Company.


October 13, 2005                       /s/  Dennis P. Gauger
------------------                     ---------------------
    (Date)                             Dennis P. Gauger
                                       Chief Financial Officer (principal
                                       financial and accounting officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 National Energy Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Randall D. Cooley, 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 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.

                                  By: /s/ RANDALL D. COOLEY
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Randall D. Cooley
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

March 30, 2004

*     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 147

To repeal the statutory authority for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. CRANE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To repeal the statutory authority for the Corporation for

Public Broadcasting.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL.

4 Part IV of title III of the Communications Act of

5 1934 (47 U.S.C. 390 et seq.), relating to assistance for

6 public telecommunications facilities, telecommunications

7 demonstrations, and the Corporation for Public Broad8 casting, is repealed.

Æ
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 21144.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 12, 1940.

Rehearing Denied *June*28, 1940.

Charles Nunn, of Sweetwater, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of driving an automobile upon the public road in Nolan County while he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, punishment assessed being a fine of $50 and five days in jail.

The indictment appears to properly charge the offense. No statement of facts or bills of exception are brought forward. In this condition of the record nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

*613On Motion for Rehearing.

KRUEGER, Judge.

We have re-examined the record in the light of the appellant’s motion for rehearing but nothing has been presented therein which would warrant a reversal of the conviction or require further discussion.

The motion is overruled.

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.
exv10w8



 






Exhibit 10.8




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

RETIREMENT AGREEMENT




The Retirement Agreement made as of the 24th day of March, 2000 by and between

AvalonBay Communities, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and Gilbert M. Meyer

(“Director”) is hereby amended as follows:



Section 3(a) of the Retirement Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the following language in
the first sentence thereof:





     “for so long as such payments are due”


and substituting thereof the following:





     “in accordance with, and to the extent required by, the provisions of the
Split Dollar Agreement between the Company and Executive,”


Except as amended herein, the Retirement Agreement is hereby confirmed in all
other respects.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is entered into this 31st day of

March, 2005.


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Charlene Rothkopf
 	 
	 	 	      Charlene Rothkopf, EVP – Human Resources	 
	 	 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	      	                                                     /s/ Edward M. Schulman
 	 
	 	 	      Edward M. Schulman, 	 
	 	 	      SVP, General Counsel & Secretary
 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	                                                     /s/ Gilbert M. Meyer
 	 
	 	Director
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBIN HEADSPETH, on behalf of §

Jennifer Ann Leinberger, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-875-O-BP 

 §

N. LANE AKIN, Sheriff, §

Wise County, Texas, et al., §

§

Defendants. § 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

in this case. No objections were filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for 

review. The District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned District Judge believes that the Findings and 

Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and 

Conclusions of the Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED on this 12th day of December, 2022. 

Case 4:22-cv-00875-O Document 7 Filed 12/12/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 17
REGULATORY REVIEW LISTENING SESSION – Region 8

3/1 0/11 – at the Alliance Center, downtown Denver COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION Oil and Gas are under- regulated – please narrow or eliminate the loop holes Hydrofracking Study – please take a rigorous and wide - spread look Subtitle G –Take a hard look and close loop holes NEPA documents – consider human health impacts in NEPA reviews NEPA needs to weigh in on green house gases Be more aggressive with green house gasses, do n’t back down Do not streamline away – we are seeing real impacts EPA – continue as a watch dog via NEPA Encourage EPA’s role as a watchdog through NEPA Program Clean Air Act Working Group – Applaud the role of energy efficiency, reduces all pollutants Re consider Innovative Control Technology – create a regulatory pathway – many parties agree Take a multi - pollutant approach (model State of Colorado) – There are synergies with green house gas reductions Important to tighten green house gas regulations Give guidance and credit for long term efforts Use creativity and long term planning Water – maintain focus on the vision; strengthen participation and support State programs Federal Facilities – let’s have real clean up and monitoring Expansion of Data System s –enhance communication with the public Make data transparent to everyone Streamline data systems NSR – look at Region 5’s approach Time Monitoring for NAACS – Tar Sands – consider impact on the environmentConsider a distributed generation approach

Urani um – the current regulatory process is not adequate – needs adequate oversight and focus on prevention
<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 amendment no 1 to the quarterly report on Form
10-Q of Source Interlink Companies, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended
October 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

            (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities and 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/ S. Leslie Flegel
            --------------------------------------------------
            Chief Executive Officer

            Dated: March 2, 2004
                   -------------------------------------------

                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 amendment no 1 to the quarterly report on Form
10-Q of Source Interlink Companies, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended
October 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

            (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities and 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/ Marc Fierman
            --------------------------------------------------
            Chief Executive Officer

            Dated: March 2, 2004
                   -------------------------------------------
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed October 19, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2234

Lower Tribunal No. 19-0803

________________

Melissa Tripodi,

Appellant,

vs.

Adam Mac Nacer, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christina 

Marie DiRaimondo, Judge.

Melissa Tripodi, in proper person.

Dr. Malissa Tigges, Guardian ad Litem, in proper person.

Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Appellant Melissa Tripodi appeals an order of the circuit court granting

Dr. Malissa Tigges’s Motion for Guardian ad Litem Attorney’s Fees and 

Costs. Tripodi has failed to provide a transcript of the circuit court’s hearing 

on this Motion but contends that the circuit court’s order was erroneous on 

its face and can be reversed even in the absence of a transcript. We 

agree. This Court has held that “[a]n award of attorney’s fees without making 

adequate findings justifying the amount of the award is reversible error. . . .

This is true even in the instance where a party does not provide an appellate 

court with an adequate record or a transcript of proceedings.” Babun v. Stok 

Kon + Braverman, 335 So. 3d 1236, 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citations 

omitted). Accordingly, “[w]e remand with directions that the trial court 

consider the evidence supporting the GAL’s request for fees and include in 

any order those findings necessary to justify the grant of reasonable fees for 

specific and documented services rendered, and from whom those fees are 

due.” Adkins v. Sotolongo, 197 So. 3d 1233, 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

Reversed and remanded.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Kissling, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered April 4, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of burglary in the second degree. We note that the defendant provided a confession which recounted, with specificity, the events which took place prior to and during the burglary. Although the defendant subsequently denied making the confession, claiming that he had blacked out that day because he had been drinking, the resolution of issues of credibility and the weight to be accorded the evidence are primarily questions to be determined by the jury which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         1,656
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  200
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,856
<PP&E>                                         38
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 18,593
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          100
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       69
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,609
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   18,573
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          70
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  72
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,200)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (21)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,149
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            449  
<DISCONTINUED>                                 700  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (56) 
<CHANGES>                                      0    
<NET-INCOME>                                   644
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.08
        

</TABLE>
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 Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary 

          - [Docket OST-00-7920. 

# AGENCY:

Department of Transportation. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2000-11-22). 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Transportation is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Potomac Air, Inc., fit, willing, and able to conduct scheduled passenger operations as a commuter air carrier, and transferring to it the commuter authority currently issued to Paradise Island Airlines, Inc. 

# DATES:

Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than December 4, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

Objections and answers to objections should be filed in Docket OST-00-7920 and addressed to the Department of Transportation Dockets (SVC-124.1, Room PL-401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Janet Davis, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9721. 

Dated: November 20, 2000. 

Susan McDermott,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 00-30033 Filed 11-22-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Case 4:22-cr-00273-O Document 35 Filed 10/19/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 123
Case 4:22-cr-00273-O Document 35 Filed 10/19/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 124
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          15,557
<SECURITIES>                                     3,907
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,739
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,675)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,546
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,112
<PP&E>                                          12,983
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,190)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,065
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,798
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,049
<SALES>                                         74,427
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,427
<CGS>                                           31,135
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,868
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    54
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (338)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,270
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,015)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,127
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,127
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.57


</TABLE>
#### BINGHAM v. STATE.

No. 22121.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 13, 1942.

Glover Engledow, of Jayton, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol. The punishment assessed is a fine of $100.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. The *1088complaint and informátión appear to be in due form. Hence nothing is presented for review.

. 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