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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1668 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1668

 To rename a waterway in the State of New York as the ``Joseph Sanford 
                             Jr. Channel''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2017

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To rename a waterway in the State of New York as the ``Joseph Sanford 
                             Jr. Channel''.

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

SECTION 1. JOSEPH SANFORD JR. CHANNEL.

    (a) In General.--The waterway in the State of New York designated 
as the ``Negro Bar Channel'' shall be known and redesignated as the 
``Joseph Sanford Jr. Channel''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the waterway referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Joseph 
Sanford Jr. Channel''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         232,035
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  666,787
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,067,080
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,299,798
<PP&E>                                      18,713,953
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,603,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,916,464
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,988,396
<BONDS>                                     10,021,503
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,185
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,902,580
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,916,464
<SALES>                                      1,436,167
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,436,167
<CGS>                                        1,078,442
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,078,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               743,525
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             236,396
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,115,303)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,115,303)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,115,303)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.51)
        

</TABLE>
#### RUTT et al. v. CRAVENS, DARGAN & CO.

No. 2524.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

June 4, 1934.

Rodman S. Cosby, of Houston, for appellants.

Campbell, Myer & Myer, of Houston, for ap-pellees.

WALKER, Chief Justice.

' This was a suit by appellees, Cravens, Dar-gan & Co., a copartnership, and its individual members, against Ed. L. Flinn and appellants L. L. Rutt, Winter Keen, E. Conway Broun, *313C. L. Rutt, Gene PipMn, and W. P. Warfield, of the following nature: To recover against Elinn the balance of an insurance account in the sum of $6,232.12 due by him to appellees; and against appellants, as sureties of Elinn, the sum of $5,000, with reasonable attorney’s fees, under a bond in that sum given to secure the payment of the insurance account. On trial to a jury, there was no issue as to the amount of appellees’ demand against Elinn, but the jury found credits in the sum of $025 in Flinn’s favor; the jury also fixed the amount of the attorney’s fees on the bond at $900. Judgment was entered in favor of appellees against Elinn for the amount of their demand, less the credits found by the jury, and against the sureties for $5,000, the full amount of the bond, with attorney’s fees. •Only the sureties have appealed.

 There is no merit in the contention, submitted by appellants as fundamental error, that the judgment appealed from was for the gross sum of the account claimed against Elinn and the bond with attorney’s fees, making the gross amount recovered by appellees more than $11,000. The judgment limited appellees’ recovery to the amount of their •demand against Flinn, and was to the further effect that the judgment on the bond was merely to secure the payment of that amount.

Appellants have not included their assignments of error, if any they have, in their brief. The propositions as submitted cannot, to any extent, be construed as assignments of •error, except on the proposition of fundamental eiror, already discussed. Assignments of error in the brief are absolutely essential to give the Court of Civil Appeals jurisdiction to review the propositions of law relied upon as constituting error.

But, if the propositions were to be construed as assignments of error, the statements made by appellants are insufficient to constitute a basis of review. The transcript in this case consists of 138 typewritten pages, and the statement of facts of 514 typewritten pages. Appellants’ brief contains 101⁄2 pages, divided as follows: One page, statement; three pages, propositions; seven pages, a restatement of the propositions, statement made in support thereof, and arguments. No. citation of authorities are given. The statements are so incomplete that error, if any, is not disclosed. It follows, of course, that appellants have presented nothing for review by their briefs, except the suggestion of fundamental error referred to above and overruled.

The judgment of the lower court is in all things affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 16618.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 14, 1934.

Wallace Hughston, of McKinney, for appel-<ant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or hills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment- 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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6013
GREGORY DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, GILMER; JOHN DOE MAIL ROOM STAFF EMPLOYEES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (1:07-cv-00063-IMK-JES) Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 28, 2008 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Gregory Davis appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. USA , No. 1:07-cv-00063-IMK-JES (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 13, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

NELSON CINTRON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1517

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 1, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; Philip Federico, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Warren A. Zimmerman, Special 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for 

Appellant. 

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy 

and Jonathan S. Tannen, Assistant 

Attorneys General, Tampa, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
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 Netopia, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Alan B. Lefkof, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | i. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



By:

/s/ Alan B. LefkofAlan B. LefkofPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 17, 2004
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128812 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128812 COA: 260684 Washtenaw CC: 03-002032-FH; 04-000575-FH DOUGLAS ALAN WREN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 20, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
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.                  

###### Commission of Fine Arts

Per 45 CFR chapter XXI 2102.3, the next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for September 19, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. and will be held via online videoconference. Items of discussion may include buildings, infrastructure, parks, memorials, and public art.

                    Draft agendas, the link to register for the online public meeting, and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our website:                     *www.cfa.gov.*                     Inquiries regarding the agenda, as well as any public testimony, should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address; by emailing                     *cfastaff@cfa.gov;*                     or by calling 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.                

Dated: September 6, 2024 in Washington, DC.

Zakiya N. Walters,

Administrative Officer.

[FR Doc. 2024-20627 Filed 9-11-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6330-01-P
Eric Hinders

Eric Hinders Photography

2813 53rd st Des Moines, IA 50310

319-415-5200

EricHinders@gmail.com

EricHinders.com

January 21st, 2016

Petition for Section 333 Exemption

I hereby formally request FAA authorization for Eric M. Hinders. - dba/ Eric Hinders Photography

(hereafter “PETITIONER”) to operate a UAS for civil (non-governmental) purposes other than for

recreation or hobby.

PETITIONER requests to be exempted from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5),

61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1),

91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessary to allow PETITIONER to

operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection, including but not limited to aerial imaging.

PETITIONER requests this exemption for its use of UAS both within and without the United

States. PETITIONER frequently travels abroad for photographic endeavors and seeks to use UAS

in accordance with all laws of foreign and domestic governmental authorities.

PETITIONER requests this permission to pursue its use of UAS models including DJI Phantom 3

Professional, or other similar commercially-available and widely-available UAS models.

PETITIONER will conduct its use of UAS in a manner which will minimize risk to the NAS, other

persons, and property. The following procedures will be followed: (1) UAS will be given a

pre-flight inspection before each flight to examine airworthiness, (2) UAS will not be materially

altered from commercial specifications except for battery, prop, and battery alterations, (3) UAS

will not be flown over people, (4) UAS will always be flown within line of sight to operator(s)

pursuant to Section 333(b)(1), (5) UAS will never reach altitudes over exceeding those allowed,

(6) UAS will never reach speeds exceeding 50 mph, (7) operator will perform a preflight visual

inspection of the NAS to determine nearby dangers such as low-flying manned or unmanned

aerial vehicles, power lines, and buildings, (8) UAS will be checked for flight stability, proper

connection to remote control, and proper performance at a very low altitude before reaching the

NAS, and (9) non-participating spectators will be asked to stay a safe distance away from the

flight path of the UAS and its landing location. PETITIONER is an experienced UAS operator with

more than one year of experience.

This petition will benefit the public interest. PETITIONER photographs and Video Public Parks

and Grounds for prosperity and the enjoyment of future generations. PETITIONER will provide
imagery which is not otherwise possible to be captured without the use of a UAV, which will

assist companies to which the images may be sold, will enhance the public understanding of

nature photographed by the UAS, and PETITIONER will be able to provide UAS safety information

to those with whom he or she comes in contact.

Please grant the requested exemption under Section 333.

Eric M. Hinders.

dba/ Eric Hinders Photography
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 EP MedSystems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operation of the Company
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                      |  |                                                                              
|------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 15, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ David A. Jenkins
|                   |  |  |  |                      |  | David A. Jenkins                                                             
|                   |  |  |  |                      |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1865 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 41 ) IV-E-2

9 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 12/3/20089:15:28AM

Sheet 41 of 105P. 2 1 

# RADIA N CORPORATIO N 

# A-83-2 7 IV-E-2 9 TELEPHON E CAL L REPOR T - INDUSTRIAL BOILE RS0 2 DATE : Octobe r 31 , 198 6 TO : Bil l Harpe r

Wormse r Engineering , Inc . 22 5 Merrima c Stree t Woburn , M

A 0180 8 (617 ) 938-938 0 FROM : J . Thoma s Waddel l SUBJECT : Informatio non Wormse r FB C Unit s Mr . Harpe r provide dth e followin g information : o 1 FB C uni t a t Anderso nClayto ni nJacksonville , Illinoi s o 85,00 0 pp

h o starte du

p inSeptembe r 198 6 o burn s Illinoi s bituminou s coa l o 3 t o 3. 5 % sulfu r o 2-stag e be d o commercia l projec t wit hbot hprivat e an dgovernmen t financing ,

Progres s Center/320 0 E . Chape l Hil l Rd./Nelso n Hwy./P.O . Bo x13000/Researc h Triangl e Park . N.C . 27709/(9l9)54l-9!0 0
#### PATTERSON v. STATE.

No. 16144.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 22, 1933.

*306Schlesinger & Schlesinger, -of San Antonio, ,'for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for murder; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

Examination of this record discloses a rather peculiar situation. The case went to trial at the October term, 1932. It appears from the record that on the 5th of November, 1932, this ease was then on trial. The trial court entered an order reciting that the ease could not be concluded at said term without an extension thereof, and it was ordered by the court that the term of court he extended until such time as the court shall have completed the trial of said cause. No more definite date was fixed for adjournment. Appellant’s motion for new trial was filed the same day that said order was entered. The amended motion for new trial was filed on March 3, 1933, nearly four months after the motion for new trial was filed. The motion for new trial was overruled on the 10th of March, 1933, and on the 11th of March the court entered his formal order of adjournment. The record shows that on the 1st day of April, 1933, appellant in open court entered into a recognizance. The trial *term of*court having adjourned, appellant should have entered into his hail bond, as provided in article 818, O. O. P.

*' Another matter is observed in this record which .we deem worthy of note. The record fails to exhibit the charge of the court. There appears in the record a statement by the district clerk of Bexar county certifying that he holds, the receipt of the attorneys for, this ’ appellant, for the court’s charge and the .special charges, and the defendant’s ■exceptions to the court’s charge. We cannot accept such statement as satisfactorily accounting for the failure of the charge to appear in the record. The names of the attorneys having possession of such papers appear in the certificate of the clerk. It is the power and duty of the trial court, upon the request of the district clerk, or the state’s attorney, to enter an order directing the return of said papers to the office of the district clerk, and to hold said attorneys for appellant in contempt if they do not return same. This court cannot hold, upon the showing made, that the papers are lost, and unless some effort is made to correct *the*record in this matter, either by substitution or the procuring of such withdrawn papers, a very serious question would be presented.

Because of the fact that no proper bail bond appears in the record and this court is hence without jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF POST APARTMENT HOMES, L.P. FOR PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001012271
<NAME> POST APARTMENT HOMES, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      15,381,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                   2,010,947,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             211,658,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,846,765,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    709,435,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                               1,042,724,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,846,765,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            68,962,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               35,402,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,349,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             22,310,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         17,800,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                17,800,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.47
        

</TABLE>