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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1063 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1063

To repeal a requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition 
                         of alternative fuels.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2009

Mr. Hensarling (for himself, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mrs. 
   Blackburn, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Cantor, and Mr. Pence) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal a requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition 
                         of alternative fuels.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

    Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 
U.S.C. 17142) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-4182



# 
C LARENCE D AVENPORT , a/k/a Sweets,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-99-4) Submitted: October 24, 2001 Decided: November 14, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL James T. Maloney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Kenneth E. Melson, United States Attorney, Nicholas S. Altimari, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a valid plea agreement, Clarence Davenport, a/k/a "Sweets," pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and received a seventy-month prison term. On appeal, he contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a downward departure due to his numerous medical problems. Because Davenport made a valid waiver of his right to appeal his sentence, we dismiss the appeal. A defendant whose plea agreement contains an express waiver of the right to appeal may not appeal his sentence unless the waiver is shown to be unknowing or involuntary. United States v. Brown , 232 F.3d 399, 403 (4th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Marin , 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992). Davenport’s plea agreement contained such a waiver. Our review of the plea agreement and the record of theplea colloquy reveal that Davenport’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. The sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum penalty andthere is no evidence that it was based on a constitutionally impermissible factor. Marin , 961 F.2d at 496. Moreover, the sentence was notimposed pursuant to proceedings conducted in violation of Davenport’s right to counsel. United States v. Attar , 38 F.3d 727, 732-33 (4th Cir. 1994).We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED 2 U NITED S TATES v. D AVENPORT
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.                  

###### Susquehanna River Basin Commission

# AGENCY:

Susquehanna River Basin Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        This notice lists the minor modifications approved for previously approved projects by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in                         **DATES**                        .                    

# DATES:

August 1-31, 2024.

# ADDRESSES:

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax (717) 238-2436; email:                         *joyler@srbc.gov.*                         Regular mail inquiries may be sent to the above address.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice lists previously approved projects, receiving approval of minor modification, described below, pursuant to 18 CFR 806.18 or to Commission Resolution Nos. 2013-11 and 2015-06, for the time period specified above.

1. Department of the Army—Carlisle Barracks Golf Course, Docket No. 20240622, North Middleton and Middlesex Townships, Cumberland County, Pa.; modification approval to adjust the approval term to align with another docket approval by the Commission; Approval Date: August 6, 2024.

*Authority:*                     Public Law 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509                     *et seq.,*18 CFR parts 806 and 808.                

Dated: September 6, 2024.

Jason E. Oyler,

General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2024-20579 Filed 9-10-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7040-01-P
NO. 07-11-00150-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B JUNE 27, 2011

ROBERT ANDREW BARNES, APPELLANT

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY; NO. CR20,781; HONORABLE EDWARD P. MAGRE, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., a nd CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

ABATEMENT AND REMAND On February 25, 2011, appellant, Robert A ndrew Barnes, filed a notice of appeal from a judgment adjudicating him guilty of criminal non-support, sentencing him to eighteen months in a state jail facility and a fine, and ordering restitution. The clerk’s record was filed on March 8, 2011 and the reporter’s record was filed on April 28. However, the clerk’s record cont ains no certification of defendant’s right of appeal. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) r equires that a trial court shall enter a certification of defendant ’s right of appeal each time it enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Under Rule 25.2, the certification2 of defendant's right of appeal must be signed by the defendant and a copy must be given to him. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, we abate the appeal and rem and the cause to the trial court. On remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means it finds necessary to secure a certification of defendant’s ri ght of appeal that complies wi th Rule 25.2(d). Once properly executed, the certific ation shall be included in a supplemental clerk's record and filed with the Clerk of this Court. This order constitutes notice to all par ties of the absence of a certification pursuant to Rule 37.1 of the Te xas Rules of Appellate Procedur e. Tex. R. App. P. 37.1. If a certification that shows appellant has the right of appeal is not made part of the record, the appeal must be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). On remand, the trial court is directed to: (1) conduct any hearings it finds necessary; (2) make and file such findings of fact, conclusions of law, recommendations or orders it finds appropriate to address the subj ect of this remand order; (3) if it holds a hearing, cause the hearing proceedings to be transcribed and included in a supplemental reporter's record; (4) cause any findings, conclusions, recommendations or orders it issues, together with the properly executed cert ification of defendant’s right of appeal, to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record; and (5) cause the supplemental reporter’s record, if any, and the supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court, no later than August 8, 2011.

It is so ordered. Per Curiam Do not publish.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00426-CV

__________________

ERICA LEQUET, Appellant

V.

COREY BLOCK, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 134534

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 23, 2019, the Justice of the Peace signed a judgment of eviction, 

granting Appellee Corey Block immediate possession of the premises and $1,050 in 

unpaid rent or other damages from Pro Se Appellant Erica Lequet. Lequet filed a 

notice of appeal in the Justice Court. On November 13, 2019, the County Court at 

Law No. 1 signed an Order on Writ of Possession and the county clerk issued a writ 

of possession as directed by the order. On November 18, 2019, Lequet filed a notice 

of appeal of the writ of possession.
2

The only issue in a forcible-detainer action is who has the right to actual 

possession of the property. Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 

S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex. 2006). A forcible-detainer appeal thus becomes moot upon 

an appellant’s eviction from the property unless the appellant holds and asserts a 

meritorious claim of the right to current, actual possession of the property or unless 

damages or attorney’s fees remain at issue. Ratliff v. Homes by Ashley, Inc., No. 02-

20-00014-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 1919, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 

5, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also Leal v. SF Revocable Living Trust, No. 09-15-

00254-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5755, at **5-8 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 22, 

2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). According to the appellate record, the appeal from the 

County Court at Law No. 1 to this Court was on the issue of possession alone, Lequet 

is no longer in possession of the premises, and the lease expired during the appeal. 

On January 8, 2021, we notified the partiesthat it appears the appeal is moot, 

and we would dismiss the appeal unless a response showing that the appeal was not 

moot was filed before January 19, 2021. We received no response. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on October 20, 2020

Opinion Delivered February 11, 2021

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
3
No. 71-6693.

#### Reed et al. *v.*City of New Orleans.

Sup. Ct. La. Motion for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of *Argersinger*v. *Hamlin,*407 U. S. 26 (1972).

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer
of Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | 
|Dated: November 9, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    JOHN M. PALUMBO 
|                        |  |  |  | John M. Palumbo        
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

October 29, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40586

Summary Calendar

ALFREDO VASQUEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RENE CASAREZ,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-02-CV-565

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alfredo Vasquez, Texas prisoner # 784866, filed a civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Rene Casarez, a prison

employee. Vasquez alleged that Casarez filed disciplinary charges

against him in retaliation for a complaint Vasquez alleged against

Casarez. The district court, adopting the recommendations of a

magistrate judge, dismissed Vasquez’s action on the grounds that he

failed to proper ly exhaust administrative remedies before filing1 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2003) (“No action shall be brought with

respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or

any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison,

or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies

as are available are exhausted.”).

2 Underwood v. Wilson

, 151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir. 1998)

(“Dismissal under § 1997e is made on pleadings without proof. As

long as the plain tiff has alleged exhaustion with sufficient

specificity, lack of admissible evidence in the record does not

form the basis for dismissal.”).

2 suit. 1 Specifically, the district court concluded that, although

Vasquez administratively raised due process argument s, he never

presented his claim of retaliation to the prison grievance process.

Vasquez, however, alleged in his objections to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation that he specifically exhausted his

retaliation claims by filing the requisite forms in accordance with

the grievance p rocedures established by the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice. Although he did not provide the court with

copies of the forms, he nonetheless alleged wit h “sufficient

specificity” that he exhausted his claims. 2 Because the defendant

presented no evidence disputing the plaintiff’s assertion, there

does not appear to be a proper basis at this time for dismissal for

failure to exhaust. Accordingly, the judgment of the district

court is VACATED, and Vasquez’s claims are REMANDED to the district

court for further consideration.
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 [Project No. 2514-209]
 On February 28, 2022, as supplemented,[1]
                    
                     Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian) filed an application for a new license to continue to operate and maintain the 26.1-megawatt Byllesby-Buck Hydroelectric Project No. 2514 (project). On December 22, 2023, Commission staff issued a notice of intent to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate the effects of relicensing the project. The notice included an anticipated schedule for issuing the EA. By this notice, Commission staff is updating the procedural schedule for completing the EA. The revised schedule is shown below. Further revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. Milestone
Target dateIssue EA
December 2024.
 Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Jody Callihan at (202) 502-8278, or by email at 
                    *jody.callihan@ferc.gov.* Dated: September 5, 2024. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Acting Secretary.


# Footnotes

1.
    
                         The final license application filed February 28, 2022 was supplemented on February 28, 2023. Back to Citation


[FR Doc. 2024-20591 Filed 9-10-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
* 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 circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 

1 The breach of contract counterclaim appears at paragraph 60 of Defendants’ Second

Amended Original Answer and Counterclaim.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 97-10532

____________

RUPERT M. POLLARD, Individually and as Trustee for Pollard

MedicalAssociationEmployee DefinedBenefit PlanandR.M. Pollard

MD and Associates Money Purchase Plan and Trust,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROBERT E. HOLMES, JR.; CHARLES H. ROBERTSON,

Individually; ROBERTSON & HOLMES; CHARLES H.

ROBERTSON, Professional Corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:96-CV-1166-H)

February 18, 1999

Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.*

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge:

Rupert Pollard appeals the dismissal of his claims filed pursuant to the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The district court dismissed defendants’ counterclaim for

breach of fiduciary duty. It also dismissed all of Pollard’s claims and entered a final judgment on

them. At this point, a counterclaim for breach of contract was still pending.1 Pollard appealed.
 

2 We may consider whether or not we possess jurisdiction sua sponte. See, e.g., B. B. Adams

Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Hous. and Urban Dev., 501 F.2d 176, 177 (5th Cir. 1974)

(per curiam). 

-2-

This case’s procedural history raises a jurisdictional concern.2 Because of the unadjudicated

counterclaim, Pollard must appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 54(b) to secure jurisdiction. See FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b); B. B. Adams Gen. Contractors,

Inc. v. Department of Hous. and Urban Dev., 501 F.2d 176, 177 (5th Cir. 1974) (per curiam). As

he has not, we must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Johnson v. McDole, 526 F.2d 710, 711 (5th

Cir. 1976) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal because counterclaim still was pending before the district

court). If Pollard re-files his appeal after the district court enters a final judgment covering all claims

and counterclaims or certifies a judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), we will consider his appeal on the

record and briefs prepared for this case and on the oral arguments that we have heard. See Kirtland

v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 568 F.2d 1166, 1171 n.9 (5th Cir. 1978); 10 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT

ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2660 (3d ed. 1998). 

Accordingly, we DISMISS Pollard’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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, AS AMENDED  In connection with the Annual Report of Guardian Technologies International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory E. Hare, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, that, to the best of his knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the reporting requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: April 1, 2010 Signed: /s/ Gregory E. Hare Name: Gregory E. Hare Title: Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2377 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 429
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2377

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ``Walter H. Rice Federal 
                Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 6, 2018

Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Portman) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

                              May 23, 2018

              Reported by Mr. Barrasso, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ``Walter H. Rice Federal 
                Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. WALTER H. RICE FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) In General.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Walter H. Rice Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``Walter H. Rice Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.
                                                       Calendar No. 429

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2377

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ``Walter H. Rice Federal 
                Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 23, 2018

                       Reported without amendment
```