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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3112 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3112

  To repeal a requirement that new employees of certain employers be 
     automatically enrolled in the employer's health benefits plan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 16, 2015

Ms. Stefanik (for herself, Mr. Hudson, and Mr. Walberg) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal a requirement that new employees of certain employers be 
     automatically enrolled in the employer's health benefits plan.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Better Enrollment Options Protect 
Employee Needs Act'' or the ``Be Open Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Section 18A of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 218a), as 
added by section 1511 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act, is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
#### STEVENS v. STATE.

No. 19789.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 1, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1938.

Alvin F. Nemir and R. Temple Dickson, both of Sweetwater, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for driving an automobile on the public highway while intoxicated. The punishment is a fine of $200, and confinement in the county jail for sixty days.

The record shows that on the 27th day of May, 1937, appellant, while intoxicated, drove an automobile upon the left hand' side of a public highway in Nolan County between Sweetwater and Rosco e. After she had passed Scotty’s Wrecking Shop, a short distance out of Sweetwater, she ran into a car driven by W. R. Potter, injuring the occupants thereof.

By bills of exceptions numbers, one and two, appellant complains because Mr. Potter was permitted to testify to facts showing the position of his car immediately after the collision and the effect upon the occupants thereof. Appellant’s objection, thereto was that it was irrelevant, immaterial, inflammátory and prejudicial. We think this testimony was admissible because it grew out of and was a part of the transaction. The evidence showing the position of Potter’s car was admissible as tending to’ show that appellant was on the wrong side of the highway, and could be considered in connection with other facts in determining appellant’s condition at the time, whether intoxicated or not.

By bills of exceptions numbers, three, four and five, she complains of the testimony of certain witnesses as to what appellant said with reference to her condition, her conduct, and that the other party had hit her. Her objection thereto is based on the ground that she was under arrest at the time — that the officer ‘ was on the scene and would not have permitted her to leave, and that the statements were not res gestae, etc. We think that anything she said and did at the scene immediately after the collision was a part of the res gestae and admissible to show her condition. Therefore, the contention is overruled. See Lamb v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 75, 169 S.W. 1158; Wiseman v. State, 32 Tex.Cr.R. 454, 456, 24 S.W. 413.

Finding no error in the record, 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.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

In the motion for rehearing the appellant again presents the same matters which are discussed in the original opinion. Deeming *1051the proper disposition of the appeal to have been made upon the original submission, the motion for rehearing is overruled.
June 25, 2015 

Mr. Damian Forrester 

Keller Williams Realty 

277 Danbury Court 

Billings, MT 59102 

Dear Mr. Forrester: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your June 16, exemption request on behalf of Keller Williams Realty into the 

public docket (No. FAA-2015-2288), but we are unable to process your request any further. 

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). 

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
# CA2004234EN.01000101.xml

| 21.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 234/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 234/1

---

NOTICE TO READER

Image

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3307 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act by repealing 

the paid lunch equity requirements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2015 

Mrs. HARTZLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 

Act by repealing the paid lunch equity requirements. 

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 ‘‘School Lunch Afford5 ability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF PAID EQUITY REQUIREMENTS. 

7 Subsection (p) of section 12 of the Richard B. Russell 

8 National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1760) is repealed. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of United Mines, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or
about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Leitzman, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  November
      16, 2009
            /s/
      Robert LeitzmanBy:  Robert
      LeitzmanIts:  Chief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
United Mines, Inc. and will be retained by United Mines, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
June 24, 2015 

Mr. Michael Hull 

Above Orange County 

21580 Yorba Linda Boulevard 

Yorba Linda, CA 92887 

Dear Mr. Hull: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 21 Subpart H, part 27, and §§ 45.23(b), 45.27(a), 61.113(a) and (b), 61.133(a), 91. 7(a), 

91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.1 09(a), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151 (a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.319(a)(1 ), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1 ), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and what you should 

do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Cannot Process Your Request 

We entered your April 8, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Above Orange County into the 

public docket (No. FAA−2015−1063), but we are unable to process your request any further. 

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). 

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division 

Enclosure
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1234** 

HOWARD LEE GORRELL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
MARTIN O’ MALLEY, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Maryland , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. William D. Quarles, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 02975

- WDQ )

Submitted : July 10, 2012 Decided: July 12, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Howard Lee Gorrell, Appellant Pro Se. Dan Friedman, Kathryn Michele Rowe , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis, Maryland; Adam Dean Snyder, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Howard Lee Gorrell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims against Martin O’Malley, the Governor of Maryland, challenging a 2011 Maryland redistricting plan. The record establishes that Gorrell moved to Washington state after the commencement of this action. He is thus no longer a resident of Maryland and lacks standing to challenge the Governor’s redistricting plan. Because Gorrell lacks standing to proceed, we lack jurisdiction to review his claims. See ,
e.g. , Shaw v. Hunt , 517 U.S. 899, 904 (1996); United States v.
Hays , 515 U.S. 737, 745 (1995). We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
le gal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K (the Report) of Stellus Capital Investment Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, W. Todd Huskinson, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1)

          The Report fully complies with the 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 Registrant.  Name:

          

          /s/ W. Todd HuskinsonW. Todd HuskinsonDate:

          

          March 6, 2018
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the Annual Report of, MIP Solutions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary McDonald, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 operations of the Company.



Dated: August 20, 2010



|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|/s/Gary MacDonald                                  
|Gary MacDonald
Chief Executive Officer and Director
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00362

- CR

A LEXIS B OTELLO

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 2

of Tarrant C ounty (1376941D)

October 31, 2019

Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the t rial

cour t is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
1

Aerial Inspection Resources,Inc.

4380 SW Macadam Ave.

Suite 515

Portland, OR 97239

Drew.p@aerialinspectionresources.com

U.S. Department of Transportation January 29, 2016

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Amendment to Aerial Inspection Resources, Inc. ExemptionNo. 11467

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0261

Dear Sir or Madam:

Aerial Inspection Resources, Inc. (AIR) is requesting an amendment to our FAA Exemption No. 

11467, Docket No. FAA-2015-0261 for the purpose of conducting commercial UAS operations. AIR 

wishes to add the DJI Inspire 1.

For your ease in reviewing this request, please refer to the exhibit list which begins on page 2.

If we can provide any additional information to assist your understanding or review of this 

document, please do not hesitate to contact us at 503-312-9804 or via email at 

Drew.p@aerialinspectionresources.com.

Thank you,

Drew Pairamore

Director of Regulatory Compliance

Aerial Inspection Resources,Inc.
2

Table of Contents

Exhibits

Exhibit 1: DJI Inspire 1 Specifications...................... Uploaded separately due to sizeconstraints

 
3
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 JUNE 22, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 11-10276

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00018-SCB-MAP-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

COSMO MOORE,

 Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(June 22, 2011)

Before HULL, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Francis Daly, appointed counsel for Cosmo Moore in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.
1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Moore’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.

Furthermore, Moore’s motion to seal this case’s record and limit public

access to its docket entries is GRANTED. Additionally, Moore’s motion to

appoint new counsel is DENIED as moot.

2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 8, 2016

NO. 03-15-00307-CR

Randy Lin Ates, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order denying DNA testing. Having reviewed the record, 

the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the order. Therefore, the Court affirms the 

trial court’s order denying DNA testing. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, 

no adjudication of costs is made.
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 MIPSolutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gary MacDonald, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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:



|(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: December 23, 2009

| | By:   /s/ Gary MacDonald
_____________________________
Chief Executive Officer and Director
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
June 25, 2015

Mr. Damian Forrester Keller Williams Realty 277 Danbury Court Billings, MT 59102

Dear Mr. Forrester:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 16, exemption request on behalf of Keller Williams Realty into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2288), but we are unabl e to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### George Wecksler, Doing Business as Windsor Gloves, Respondent, *v.*Abraham Teller, Doing Business as Teller Trucking, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

March 6, 1958.

*George I. Janow*for appellant.

*Irving G. Pollock*and *Maxwell N. Rudato*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Since the record fairly establishes that Leading Forwarders, Inc., plaintiff’s custom house brokers, hired defendant, a common carrier, to transport its (plaintiff’s) goods, with plaintiff’s knowledge and consent, the court’s refusal to permit defendant to show what, if any, agreement Leading Forwarders, Inc., and defendant made with respect to limitation of liability as to plaintiff’s goods was prejudicial error.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs.

Hofstadter, J. P., Steuer and Aurelio, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.