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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1235 

To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to authorize Regional 

Corporations and Village Corporations to establish energy assistance programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 6, 2015 

Ms. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to authorize Regional Corporations and Village Corporations 

to establish energy assistance programs. 

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 ‘‘Alaska Native Energy 

5 Assistance Program Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SHAREHOLDER ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7 of the Alaska Native 

8 Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1606) is amended by 

9 adding at the end the following: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1235 IS

1 ‘‘(s) SHAREHOLDER ENERGY ASSISTANCE PRO2 GRAM.—A Regional Corporation or Village Corporation 

3 may establish an energy assistance program that provides 

4 to shareholders financial assistance for the payment of 

5 residential electric bills, the cost of home weatherization 

6 or energy efficiency improvements, or the purchase of 

7 transportation fuels.’’. 

8 (b) TAXATION.—Section 21 of the Alaska Native 

9 Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1620) is amended by 

10 adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(k) ENERGY ASSISTANCE.—Any assistance provided 

12 to shareholders under an energy assistance program estab13 lished under section 7(s) shall not be subject to any form 

14 of Federal taxation.’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Joseph P. RUTH, Appellant, v. UTAH CONSTRUCTION & MINING CO., Appellee.

No. 7899.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

April 28, 1965.

Joseph P. Ruth, pro se.

David R. Phipps, Denver, Colo. (Wel-born, Dufford & Cook and Robert F. Welborn, Denver, Colo., were with him on the brief), for appellee.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and LEWIS and SETH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal, presented by Joseph P. Ruth pro se, seeks to set aside an order of the District Court for the District of Colorado dismissing with prejudice a complaint filed by Ruth wherein he sought damages for an alleged infringement of a patent by appellee-defendant. The order of dismissal was premised upon a stipulation which provided:

> “That the Plaintiff herein hereby stipulates that in the event that the finding of invalidity of the patent in suit in Civil Action No. 6679 is affirmed upon exhaustion of Plaintiff’s rights of appeal, then this matter, Civil Action No. 7669, will be dismissed.”

Civil Action No. 6679, referred to in the stipulation, was a suit filed by Ruth against Blue River Constructors and involved the validity of the Ruth patent. The District Court for the District of Colorado determined in Blue River that the Ruth patent was invalid. Ruth v. Blue River Constructors, 224 F.Supp. 717. At the time the subject stipulation was executed an appeal to this Court was pending in Blue River. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed upon motion and at the personal insistence of Ruth who was dissatisfied with the record on appeal and the services of his attorneys. The subsequent finality of the judgment in Blue River triggered the order of dismissal entered in the case at bar.

*953The trial court properly determined that the present parties’ agreement should be enforced if the instrument of stipulation was genuine and bore the signatures of Ruth, his attorneys, and the attorneys for defendant. Ruth denied the genuineness of his purported signature, testifying that he had signed an agreement to dismiss the case at bar only if the invalidity of his patent was adjudicated by this Court. Other signators to the stipulation testified directly to the contrary. The issue of fact so created was determined by the trial court adversely to Ruth and thus presents to this Court only the issue of whether such finding is clearly erroneous. Since the credibility of witnesses is a function peculiarly and properly for the trial court we cannot disturb the finding. Rule 52 (a), Fed.R.Civ.P.

Other matters presented by appellant in his brief and argument are either outside the record or otherwise beyond the power of this Court to consider.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### SARAH V. YOUNG v. GEORGE L. PHIFER.

An answer, in an action for specific performance, or to correct an alleged mistake in a deed which avers that “ the defendant has conveyed, all the land he agreed-.to convey,” raises an important issue, and is not ‘1 sham ” pleading.

Civil Action, to compel the defendant to correcta mistake in a deed, tried at Spring Term, 1874, of CabaeRUS Superior Court, before his Honor, Logan, *J.*

All the facts necessary to present the points decided in this Court, are stated in the opinion of the Chief Justice.

On the trial below, the plaintiff moved for judgment against the defendant for the facts stated in the opinion, which motion being refused, the plaintiff appealed.

*Wilson d¿*Son, for appellant.

Montgomery, contra.

Peaeson, C. J.

The motion for judgment upon complaint and answer was put on the ground that the answer was “ sham pleading ” to gain time. The answer can, in no sense of the word, be called “sham.” It avers “the defendant has conveyed all the land that he agreed to convey.” This directly makes an issue as to the right of the plaintiff to a specific performance. But the allegation of a mistake in respect to the number of acres is not controverted, and is taken to be true. Upon this state of facts, the defendant relies upon the statute of limitations, and thus forces the plaintiff to rely upon C. C. P., secs. 34-90, “within three years” by way of replication. So, instead of “sham pleading,” the answer makes an important question, and a very interesting one, involving the construction of O. C. P., in respect to a provision, which is unusual in the legislation in this State.

The sub-section (9) is in these words, “ Action for relief on the ground of fraud, in cases which heretofore were solely cog*530nizable by Courts of Equity. The cause of action in such cases *net tó Toe deemed to lime accrued*until the *discovery*by the *aggrieved party*of the facts constituting fraud.

The point made is this: Does the refusal of a party to correct a mutual mistake, constitute fraud within the meaning of this sub-section, or is it necessary to charge that the defendant procured the Surveyor to make a false estimate of the number of acres, or that the defendant at the time, when he received payment of the purchase money, had knowledge of the fact that the tract conveyed did not contain the number of acres? upon the basis of which the payment was made, which fraud the plaintiff did not discover.

His Honor, upon the motion, was not called upon to decide this question, but it is clear he could not treat the answer which raised it “ as sham pleading” — and it may suggest to the plaintiffs’s attorney the necessity for amending the complaint, if he can do so consistently with the facts; if not, he must meet the question upon the ground that one who refuses to correct a mutual mistake, after the expiration of three years is guilty of fraud, within the meaning of this sub-section.

Ho error.

Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








**CERTIFICATION
      OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of CN Bancorp, Inc. (the
      “Company”) certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
      December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and information contained in that Form
      10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of the Company.








/s/
      Michael T. Storm





Michael
      T. Storm


Chief
      Financial Officer


February
      28, 2006








This
      certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
      purpose.





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

D1111111

CONTROL SYSTEM

WORDS AND MUSIC

FOR

1965 ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT CHART

'1. The Secretary of Defense is the executive agent charged with

conducting the National Reconnaissance Program.

2. and 3. The Director of Central Intelligence, working through

the United States Intelligence Board (USIB), establishes intelligence requirements--in our case that means establishi

satellite targets. He also establishes and administer

security for the NRP.

The NRP Executive Committee (EXCOM) makes resource decisions

for the program. The DNRO submits his semi-annual Director's

Report and the EXCOH provides the appropriate guidance and

direction. Chaired by the DCPSECDEF, the DCI and the President's

Science advisor are the other two members.

The 40 Committee is an NSC committee comprised of the

Attorney General, the Assistant to the President for National

Security Affairs, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Under Secretary

of State for Political Affairs, and the Director, Central

Intelligence. Formerly known as the 303 Committee, the 40

Committee reviews our flight schedule each month and has the

power to hold or suspend a launch should world political conditions dictate. (NOTE: 303 was room number of EOB where covert

303 Committee met; 40 was number of NSDM establishing 40

Committee after 303 Committee had been exposed in press.) •

The Director of the National Reconnaissance Office has

generally been the Under Secretary of the Air Force. I am the

Deputy Director. The NRO is a separate DOD operating agency.

Because the Air Force manages the DOD space activities it has

been natural to use the Under Secretary as a cover position.

He spends approximately 50 percent of his time as DNRO.

and 8. The NRO has its own, totally dedicated, Comptroller

and a small staff whose chore it is to serve the DNRO.

Typically an Air Force Brigadier General is the Director of

that staff. Again using the Air Force for a cover the staff

has the unclassified title of Office of Space Systems.

9., 10., 11., and 12. The NRO is divided into four programs.

Each Program Director reports directly to the DNRO. Program A

is under the cover of Secretary of the Air Force Special

Projects and is located in Los Angeles. The Director of

Program B is also the CIA's Deputy Director for Science and

111111P1,411

411P4FPRET" 0020“..1 err

Mama. OM SAW 41161/111/.41118411

NUM.' •118• WNW" Can

11160. ONO • SWIM Mt

CONTINOLNO

COPY CM corns

rAta....1. CM 2 PALLS

Oe'
111P-3ECREf

Technology .and the

title Dir

Program D

is in charge f our

Director of Program C is covered with the

e Activities. The Director of

aircraft assets.

sastemo owe imp sompseirong

aw up Osemon of NIP NI

CONTROL NO

CORY Of CONES

PAGE_a_op 2 PAGES
1965 ORGANIZATIONAL-. ENVIRONMENT.

OCINTSOC "Ansel{ •Ps • r• *.o•

•

•

PRESIDENT •

I 

PFlAB

I 

NSC

S 40

COMMITTEE 

s

I

2 g

t

1SEC DEF y DCI

DNRO

4-EXCOM

N 3USIB

. tiOMPTROILLER STAFF

:•Hapiour

comma:AO A -Bo C it D Rpm_
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 11

- 00026

- CV

THOMAS J. BLANKENSHI P

, Appellant

v.

ROY DAVIS, FRANK KAP AVIK

AND BRENT EWING

, Appellee s

From the 170th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009

- 4246

- 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant has filed a “Motion to Dismiss.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

Dismissal of this appeal would not prevent a party from seeking relief to which it

would otherwise be entitled. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

REX D. DAVIS

JusticeBlankenship v. Davis Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opini on delivered and filed June 8, 2011

[CV06]
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00062-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellant

v.

JOSE ESTRADA,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-0686

ABATEMENT ORDER

A Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, presented by counsel for defendant Jose 

Estrada (appellee in this appeal), was filed with the Court on April 14, 2016. Counsel 

states in the motion that he was retained by Estrada. After Estrada’s Motion to Dismiss 

for Lack of Speedy Trial was granted by the trial court, counsel was permitted to 

withdraw as attorney of record. The order permitting withdrawal is not contained in the 
State v. Estrada Page 2

record on appeal. Further, it is unclear from this appellate record whether appellee is 

now indigent.

An indigent defendant has the right to appointed counsel on appeal, and the 

appointment of counsel is under the sole authority of the trial court. See Enriquez v. State, 

999 S.W.2d 906, 907-08 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, order); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 

1.051(d)(1), 26.04(a) (West Supp. 2014); cf. Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2006). During an appeal, the trial court retains jurisdiction to appoint counsel for 

an indigent defendant. See Enriquez, 999 S.W.2d at 908; see also Meza, 206 S.W.3d at 688. 

Accordingly, we abate this appeal to the trial court to hold a hearing within 14 

days from the date of this Order to consider whether Estrada is indigent and whether 

counsel should be appointed. Supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records containing the 

trial court’s written or oral findings and rulings are ordered to be filed within 28 days of 

the date of this Order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal abated

Order issued and filed April 21, 2016
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Joel A. Friedman., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
Chevy Chase Home Loan Trust 1996-1

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling
and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is
included in these reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon
my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has
fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting
a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  the
Depository Trust Company.


                                     Chevy Chase Home Loan Trust 1996-1
                                     By: Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.
                                     Originator of the Trust and Servicer


Date:     03/30/2004                 By:         /s/   Joel A. Friedman
                                           -----------------------------------
                                                  Joel A. Friedman
                                                  Senior Vice President
                                                  and Controller
#### Will of Eicholz: Eicholz, Contestant, Appellant, vs. Marks, Executor, and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Fred Arnold*of Eau Claire.

For the respondents: *Hill, Beckwith, MacIntyre & Harrington*of Madison.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.

Fritz, J., took no part.
# C_2005045EN.01002303.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/23

---

Action brought on 12 October 2004 by Luciano Lavagnoli against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-422/04)

(2005/C 45/53)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 12 October 2004 by Luciano Lavagnoli, residing in Berchem (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the list of officials promoted in the 2003 promotions procedure in so far as that list does not include the name of the applicant and annul the preparatory measures for that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the list of officials promoted in the 2003 promotions procedure in so far as that list does not include the name of the applicant and annul the preparatory measures for that decision;

| 2. | in the alternative annul the award of promotion points in the 2003 promotions procedure as regards the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

2.

in the alternative annul the award of promotion points in the 2003 promotions procedure as regards the applicant;

| 3. | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In support of his application the applicant relies on pleas alleging a breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, a breach of the general implementing provisions for Article 45, a breach of the administrative guide to appraisal and promotion of officials and a breach of the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant also relies on the prohibition on arbitrary procedures and alleges a breach of the duty to state reasons and misuse of powers. He also alleges a breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ rule and, finally, a breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Unified Grocers, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended December 27, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Richard J. Martin, Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



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



|(2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the
periods presented in the Report.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 10, 2009



/s/    RICHARD J. MARTINRichard J. MartinExecutive Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
4, _M-SECIIEr 411

L Y

NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

*ASH I ROTOR D.0

THE NRO STAFF

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. PLU

DR. C004111011

SUBJECT: Executive Order 11905 - -Restrictions on

Electronic Surveillance

Reference the attached, memorandum from General Kulpa,

the Staff has been in the process of formulating a package

for you to forward to the OSD General Counsel, who has been

designated as the DOD implementing authority for the

Executive Order. I have advised General Kulpa that you

share his views. In accordance with your direction to

address both signals and photo intelligence restrictions

in working the Executive Order, the package will:

Define our domestic signals and photo requirements vis-a-vis the Executive Order;

Request that authority be delegated to conduct

essential domestic NRP activities on the basis of the unique

nature of our requirements;

c. Outline and request approval of the NRP procedures, as required by the Executive Order, for conducting

and managing domestic surveillance requirements.

In preparing this package, the Staff will be working

closely with personnel from each Pro r ffice, the Air

Force General Counsel through Major and with the

IC Staff. In addition to the package for you to forward to

Mr. Wiley, the OSD General Counsel, we will have available

a specific breakout of each of our recurring photo and SIGINT

domestic requirements. We anticipate having the package within

the next two weeks.

Acting Director

1 Attachment

Memo frm Gen Kulpa

"1N

cairn 111111111111=PY PROM

OULU OP JOUSEratif

exacurivt MOM 111112 IXONTION CAM

GORY POI 06CLAMOPY ON IMP Oil.

CONTROL Nointra rriA 1 

coPv of corm s

para. 1 Of 1 PAGIS

.... • •••n •••••n •••••.....:n••••••.1....111.....".". .0.

..11%34,