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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2249 

To permanently reauthorize the Rio Puerco Management Committee and 

the Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 19, 2017 

Mr. UDALL (for himself and Mr. HEINRICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To permanently reauthorize the Rio Puerco Management 

Committee and the Rio Puerco Watershed Management 

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 ‘‘Rio Puerco Watershed 

5 Management Program Reauthorization Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF RIO PUERCO MANAGEMENT COM7 MITTEE. 

8 Section 401(b) of division I of the Omnibus Parks 

9 and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2249 IS

1 104–333; 110 Stat. 4146; 123 Stat. 1108) is amended 

2 by striking paragraph (4). 

3 SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE RIO PUERCO WATER4 SHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. 

5 Section 401(e) of division I of the Omnibus Parks 

6 and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 

7 104–333; 110 Stat. 4148; 123 Stat. 1108) is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘for the 10 fiscal years beginning after the 

9 date of enactment of the Omnibus Public Land Manage10 ment Act of 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘for fiscal year 2017 

11 and each fiscal year thereafter’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32



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 on Form 10-Q of Boston Communications Group, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, E.Y. Snowden, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Karen A. Walker, Vice President, Finance and
Administration and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, 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 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.



|                       |  |  |  |                                           
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date November 9, 2005  |  |  |  | /s/ E. Y. Snowden                         
|                       |  |  |  | E.Y. Snowden                              
|                       |  |  |  | President & Chief Executive Officer       
|                       |  | 
|Date: November 9, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Karen A. Walker                       
|                       |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | Karen A. Walker                           
|                       |  |  |  | Vice President, Finance and Administration
|                       |  |  |  | and Chief Financial Officer               



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Boston Communications Group, Inc., and will be retained by Boston Communications Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# FILED JUL 2 32012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia
Trevor Little, Petitioner,


### v. Eric Holder, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# 12 12{)4

This matter, broughtprose, is before the Court on its initial review ofthe petition for a writ ofmandamus and application for leave to proceed informapauperis. Upon review ofthe petition, the Court finds that petitioner has failed to state a claim for such extraordinary relief. It therefore will grantthe informapauperis application and dismiss the petitionpursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring dismissal ofaprisoner's complaintupon a determination thatthe complaint, am::.mg other grounds, fails to state a claim upon which reliefcanbe granted). Petitioner, a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary in Inez, Kentucky, seeks issuance ofthe writ to compel Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr., "to release him and/or start the process ..

. ." Pet. at 1. Petitioner also seeks to compel an "investigation" ofthe assistant United States attorney in the Southern District ofWest Virginia who "indicted, prosecuted and left Plaintiffin prison for 16 and a halfyears." 

### !d. The extraordinaryremedy ofa writ ofmandamus is available to compel an "officer or employee oftheUnited States or any agency thereofto perform a duty owed to plaintiff." 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitionerbears a heavy burden ofshowing that his right to a writ of mandamus is "clear and indisputable." In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005) 

# 3(citation omitted). "It is well-settled that a writ ofmandamus is not available to compel discretionary acts." Cox v. Sec'y of Labor, 739 F. Supp. 28, 30 (D.D.C. 1990) (citing cases). And the United States Attorney General has absolute discretion in deciding whetherto investigate claims for possible criminal or civil prosecution. See Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citing Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234-35 (1965)) (other citations omitted). Furthermore, mandamus reliefis not available when, as here, an adequate remedy exists in habeas to address the underlying claim. See Muhammadv. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) ("Challenges to the validity ofany confinement orto particulars affecting its duration are the province ofhabeas corpus[.]") (citation omitted); Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (where "habeas is an available and potentially efficacious remedy, it is clear beyond reasonable dispute that mandamus will not appropriately lie"). Hence, the Court will dismiss this mandamus action for failure to state a claim upon whichreliefcan be granted. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

### ~ Date: July 

## /.b ,2012 United States DistrictJudge

2
#### MERRITT et al. v. NEWMAN.

No. 8024.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

July 3, 1935.

Dan Moody, of Austin, for appellants.

Fred Blundell and Tom Gambrell, both of Lockhart, and Hart, Patterson & Hart, of Austin, for appellee.

BAUGH, Justice.

Appeal is from a judgment for damages for personal injuries in favor of Newman against Merritt and the American Fidelity & Casualty Company. Merritt operated a motorbus line in Caldwell county. The casualty company had, as provided in article 911a, § 11, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. (Acts 1927, 40th Leg., p. 399, ch. 270, § 11), executed the insurance policy therein required. Newman was injured while a passenger on one of Merritt’s motorbusses. The following is a brief history of this case:

The appellee sued both the operator of said motorbus and his insurance carrier. The insurance company filed its plea of privilege to be sued in Dallas county, which was overruled, and appeal therefrom prosecuted to this court. On that appeal we affirmed the trial court’s judgment overruling such plea, and held that the insurer was a proper party to said suit. See Am. Fid. & Cas. Co. v. Newman (Tex. Civ. App.) 60 S.W.(2d) 482. Thereafter, in Am. Fid. & Cas. Co. v. McClendon (Tex. Com. App.) 81 S.W.(2d) 493, in an opinion predicated upon Grasso v. Cannon Ball Motor Freight Lines (Tex. Com. App.) 81 S.W.(2d) 482, the Supreme Court held that such insurer was not a proper party defendant to such suit. Meantime, however, the mandate having issued out of this court, the instant case was tried to a jury upon special issues against both of said defendants, and a judgment for $3,000 rendered against Merritt and the insurance company jointly and severally, from which judgment said defendants have prosecuted this joint appeal.

In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, therefore, the judgment against the insurance company cannot be sustained. Both the pleadings and the evidence in the instant case' show that whatever judgment was rendered, not in excess of $5,000, the insurance company under its policy was obligated to pay it. The improper joinder of the insurance company, under these circumstances, may have influenced, and probably did influence, the jury in their findings on the issues of negligence charged against Merritt, and in the amount of the damages found. The *272judgment being joint and several, under the general rule as announced in 3 Tex. Jur. p. 1159, § 815, the proper course is to reverse it as to both parties without respect to the other errors, if any, committed upon the trial below.

Under these circumstances it becomes unnecessary for us to pass upon the numerous errors charged to have been otherwise committed by the trial court. And for the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause, as to appellant American Fidelity & Casualty Company, ordered transferred to the district court of Dallas county, Tex., in accordance with its plea of privilege filed in this cause. As to appellant Merritt, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for another trial.

Reversed and transferred as to American Fidelity & Casualty Company; reversed and remanded as to Merritt.
UGLY DUCKLING CORPORATION



November 1, 2001


Curt Phillips
Chief Financial Officer
Automotive Finance Corporation
310 East 96th Street
Suite 300
Indianapolis, IN 46240

RE:  Ugly Duckling  Corporation  Master Loan and Security  Agreement dated as of
     August 24, 2001


Dear Sir:

With this letter we are  requesting a waiver of the Cashflow  Interest  Coverage
Ratio  contained  in 11.6 (c) of the above  referenced  loan  agreement  for the
quarter ended  September 30, 2001 and the quarter  ending  December 31, 2001. We
are in compliance with all other covenants of the agreement.

The reason for the current and expected  shortfall in this  covenant is due to a
number of changes we are making in the business to improve  long term  portfolio
performance. These changes include:

     1.   Enhancing  underwriting  criteria through the implementation of credit
          scoring and increasing down payment requirements,  resulting in slower
          sales, a smaller  portfolio than  forecasted and lower interest income
          from the smaller portfolio.

     2.   The increase of loan loss reserves to the balance sheet resulting from
          higher than expected  losses from older  portfolios and a smaller base
          of originations in the quarter, as previously discussed.

In  addition  to the above,  we are also  making  provision  for the impact of a
recession  in the  economy.  Although  we are making  many  improvements  in our
business model and we are confident we are underwriting  better loans, we do not
have the history to accurately  assess the impact of a recession on our customer
base.  We have chosen to assume the  portfolio  in 2001 will not perform  better
than the portfolio of 2000 and adjusted the provision accordingly in the quarter
and will take an additional provision in the last quarter of the year.


<PAGE>










We would also like to request a waiver of Section  12.2 of the above  referenced
loan  agreement to repurchase  up to $10 million in our stock and/or bonds.  Our
stock is  currently  trading at less than 25% of book value and the  purchase of
our bonds would  produce a return in excess of 20% based on the last trades.  We
recently  received  approval  from our Board of Directors to complete  either of
these transactions in aggregate up to the $10 million limit.

Thank  you for  your  time  and  consideration.  I have  provided  an area on an
attached page for your signature authorizing the waiver. Please call me with any
further questions at 602-852-6635.



Sincerely,

/s/  BOB FULTON
     ---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Fulton
Treasurer
Ugly Duckling Corporation


<PAGE>







The undersigned hereby waive the covenants requested:

Automotive Finance Corporation

By:      /s/ CURTIS L. PHILLIPS
         ---------------------------------------------
Name:    Curtis L. Phillips
         --------------------------
Title:   CFO
         --------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3127]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Ohio Aerospace Institute Federated Intelligent 
Product Environment Consortium (``FIPER'')

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 17, 1999, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Ohio Aerospace Institute 
Federated Intelligent Product Environment Consortium (``FIPER'') has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the 
parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to section 6(b) of the 
Act, the identities of the parties are Ohio Aerospace Institute, 
Cleveland, OH; BFGoodrich Aerospace, Aerostructures Group, Chula Vista, 
CA; Engineous Software, Inc., Morrisville, NC; GE Aircraft Engines, 
Cincinnati, OH; Ohio University, Athens, OH; and Parker Hannifin 
Corporation, Mentor, OH. The nature and objectives of the venture are 
to conduct research and development directed at reducing design time by 
intelligently automating elements of the design process in a linked 
associative environment. The participants are joining together to 
collaborate to accelerate the development of technology to provide true 
concurrency between design and manufacturing. Information regarding 
participation in The Federated Intelligent Product Environment 
``FIPER'' Consortium may be obtained from Jake Breland, Ohio Aerospace 
Institute (OAI), 22800 Cedar Point Rd., Cleveland, Ohio 44142.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-3127 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON D.C. 

H 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, DOT Docket No: FAA-2014-0544 

vs. 

CHERIF DIALLO, 

Respondent. 

FAA Case No: 2014S0290047 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan 

COMPLAINANT'S AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

The Complainant, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby submits this 

Amended Notice of Appearance in accordance with Section 13.204(b) of the Rules of 

Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions [14 C.P.R. Section 13.204(b)]. 

Complainant's Counsel of Record is hereby amended to Erin Oliver. The service 

addresses and contact numbers remain the same. 

Respectfully submitted this --"?'-r_a __ day of November, 2015. 

ERIN OLIVER 

Attorney 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

(404) 305-5200 

1 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have mailed the foregoing Complainant's Amended Notice of 

Appearance this date to the following by the listed methods: 

Original and One (1) Copy Via Certified Mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

ATT: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2WIOOO 

Washington, DC 20591 

One (1) Copy Via Certified Mail and Facsimile to: 

Honorable Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Facsimile (202) 366-7536 

One (1) Copy Via Certified Mail and Regular Mail to: 

Cherif Diallo 

263 W 153'd Street 

Apartment 6D 

New York, NY 10039 

dwJCJb 

( 0 

NOV, ,J 

DATED 

2
#### HAMILTON v. STATE.

No. 17227.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 10, 1934.

Everette B. Parks and Baskett & DeLee, ail of Dallas, for appellant.

M. E. Gates, Special Prosecutor, of Huntsville, Max M. Rogers, Dist. Atty., of Grove-ton, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of murder, and his punishment assessed at death.

By affidavit of the warden of the penitentiary of the state of Texas, it is made to appear that pending this appeal appellant was confined in one of the death cells of the penitentiary of this state from which he made his escape on the 22d day of July, A. D. 1934, and up to the present time appellant has not voluntarily returned nor has he been recaptured. Under article 824, C. C. P., as amended by Laws 1933, c. 34, § 1 (Vernon’s Ann. G. O. P. art. 824), the jurisdiction of this court is ousted, and the appeal is dismissed.

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
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1877 Prepped byKeeiaRichards



### Document

Number: 

# 27 ) ll-B-2 4 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/2/200810:36:48AM

Sheet 27 of 46P. 2 

# A-90-1 9 ll-B-2 4 

# PENDINGCONFIDENTIA L

Th e followin g informatio n i s locate d i n th e confidentia l file s o f th e Director , Emissio n Standard s Division , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g an d Standards , U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 27711 . Thi s informatio n i s confidentia l pendin g fina l determinatio n b yth e Administrato r an d i s no t availabl e fo r publi c inspection . W . Floyd , Radia n Corporation , t o Proces s Vent s Docke t A-90-19 , Novembe r 1990 , HONNESHAP : Industr y Characteristics / Buty l Alcoho l (s-isomer) . 1 9 pages . CB I Documen t Contro l No . 86/23 , PPS-24 . 

## H@ HD

EPAAI R DOCKE T
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73412-73413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20410]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IN23-14-000]


Ketchup Caddy, LLC, Philip Mango; Notice of Service of Order To 
Show Cause

    On July 26, 2024, the Commission issued an Order Amending Answer 
Deadline \1\ directing the Secretary of the Commission (Secretary) to 
serve on Ketchup Caddy, LLC (Ketchup Caddy) and Philip Mango (Mango) 
(collectively, Respondents) the Order to Show and Notice of Proposed 
Penalty previously issued in the above-referenced proceeding.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ketchup Caddy, LLC & Philip Mango, 188 FERC ] 61,081 (2024).
    \2\ Ketchup Caddy, LLC & Philip Mango, 186 FERC ] 61,132 (2024) 
(Order to Show Cause).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notice is hereby given that on July 26, 2024, the Secretary served 
the Order to Show Cause on Respondents.


[[Page 73413]]


    Dated: September 4, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-20410 Filed 9-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
### NUMBER 13 - 1 1 - 00360 - C V COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Vela, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1 Relator, Barry Dwayne Minnfee , proceeding pro se, filed a p etition for writ of
mandamus on June 8 , 2011 . The petition for writ of mandamus is unclear regarding the identity of the real parties in interest and/ or the respondent, the specific actions or orders complained of in this original proceeding, or the nature of the extraordinary relief sought by rela tor. To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish both that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). If relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. See id . I t is relator’s burden to p roperly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

– Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ( “ Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks. ” ). In addition to other requirements, relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with a ppropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record

. ” See generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young , 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed th e 9th day of June , 2011.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2246 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2246

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To designate the health care center of the Department of Veterans 
 Affairs in Tallahassee, Florida, as the Sergeant Ernest I. ``Boots'' 
               Thomas VA Clinic, 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. REDESIGNATION OF A DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS CLINIC IN 
              FLORIDA.

    (a) Designation.--The Health Care Center of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs located at 2181 Orange Avenue in Tallahassee, Florida, 
shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 
designated as the ``Sergeant Ernest I. `Boots' Thomas VA Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the clinic 
referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered to be a reference to 
the Sergeant Ernest I. ``Boots'' Thomas VA Clinic.

            Passed the Senate February 14, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2246

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To designate the health care center of the Department of Veterans 
 Affairs in Tallahassee, Florida, as the Sergeant Ernest I. ``Boots'' 
               Thomas VA Clinic, and for other purposes.
```