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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1224 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1224

        To reconcile differing Federal approaches to condensate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   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 Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To reconcile differing Federal approaches to condensate.

    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 ``Condensate Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITION OF CONDENSATE.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy (referred to in this Act 
as the ``Secretary'') shall--
            (1) develop a standard definition of the term 
        ``condensate''; and
            (2) advise relevant Federal agencies to adopt that 
        definition for the purpose of clarifying energy policy in the 
        United States.
    (b) Office of Fossil Energy Assessment.--The Assistant Secretary 
for Fossil Energy may assess the suitability of condensate separately 
from crude oil for use in strategic reserves, as determined necessary 
by the Secretary.
    (c) Energy Information Administration Data Collection.--The 
Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall collect 
data regarding the chemical properties of condensate and crude oil 
produced in the United States.

SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR ASSESSMENTS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall direct the 
appropriate agencies within the Department of the Interior to assess 
condensate separately from crude oil, in accordance with this section.
    (b) Office of Natural Resources Revenue Data Collection.--The 
Director of the Office of Natural Resources Revenue may collect data 
regarding condensate separately from crude oil produced in the United 
States.
    (c) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.--The Director of the Bureau 
of Ocean Energy Management may estimate condensate separately from 
crude oil as part of the resource assessments regarding geological 
formations in the United States.
    (d) United States Geological Survey.--The Director of the United 
States Geological Survey may include estimates of condensate separately 
from crude oil as part of the resource assessments regarding geological 
formations in the United States.

SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that processed condensate is a 
petroleum product.
                                 <all>
```
BOOSTER PRODUCTION SCHEDULES AND PRESENT THE RESULTS TO THE AFBNC
AS SOOM AS PRATICABLE.

PART IV. THE POINT ARQUELLO COMPLEX WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF
SEPARATE ACTION FROM AFOCE.

BT
20/1559Z JUL RJEZHQ

IESE sp,

7)
OiFICE. OF THE:rD411-PUTT-SECIVA -

rf OF DEFENSE

31:ne 18. 1963

i••••••tt,

HERO FOR Mr. Gilnatric

•

. •

As a result of the Purcell Committee

study, the general inter t of all concerned

poop'. in 

greatly dec tion to this, the

amount of money originally budgeted for

: the purpose may have to be a

of an over-all deficit of abou

in 1964. For these reasons,

. • • j'ut4 better not to call a meeting to make a

decision regarding the assignment. of

responsibilities before we have convinced

ourselves that we intend to go ahead with

a#0,4 the project.

"•

1.41%4

4. rt. • ••6n•

_we:A", .06~1% -•

/14%'''°*441 fi

.• S A • " • .04.0046/61~

Gene Fubini

kJ

I • i33

.16

,••-•:•nrc-••••••••••-:••• • fir.'7714.-""r , •"1":7"r•Ir;

• :

. .•

•

•
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00283-CR

__________________

EX PARTE DANIEL TROY LEBLANC

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 24DCCR0520

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 14, 2024, Daniel Troy LeBlanc filed a notice of appeal from the 

denial of relief on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus for a reduction in bond. The 

clerk’s record shows that LeBlanc posted bond on August 15, 2024. The State moved 

to dismiss the appeal. The appellant did not object to the suggestion of mootness.

An appeal of a denial of habeas corpus relief based on the inability to make

bail is rendered moot when the appellant posts a surety bond and is released from 

custody. Ex parte Guerrero, 99 S.W.3d 852, 853 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

2003, no pet.).
2

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 27, 2024

Opinion Delivered August 28, 2024

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Control , Brush Management, Dust Control from Animal Activity on Open Lot Surfaces, Firebreak, Forage and Biomass Planting, Forest Stand Improvement, Herbaceous Wind Barriers, Livestock Pipeline, Prescribed Burning, Prescribed Grazing, Tree/Shrub Establishment, Tree/Shrub Pruning, Tree/Shrub Site Preparation, Upland Wildlife Habitat Management, Watering Facility, Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2186 

To reserve any amounts forfeited to the United States Government as a 

result of the criminal prosecution of Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera 

(commonly known as ‘‘El Chapo’’), or of other felony convictions involving the transportation of controlled substances into the United States, 

for security measures along the Southern border, including the completion of a border wall. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2017 

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama (for himself, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. KING of 

Iowa, Mr. GOHMERT, and Mr. GARRETT) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To reserve any amounts forfeited to the United States Government as a result of the criminal prosecution of Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera (commonly known as ‘‘El 

Chapo’’), or of other felony convictions involving the 

transportation of controlled substances into the United 

States, for security measures along the Southern border, 

including the completion of a border wall. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2186 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Lawful Col3 lection of Hidden Assets to Provide Order Act’’ or the 

4 ‘‘EL CHAPO Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. USE OF CERTAIN FORFEITED CRIMINAL PROCEEDS 

6 FOR BORDER SECURITY MEASURES. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any ille8 gally obtained profits resulting from any criminal drug 

9 trafficking enterprise led by Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman 

10 Loera (commonly known as ‘‘El Chapo’’), which are crimi11 nally forfeited to the United States Government as a re12 sult of the conviction of Mr. Guzman Loera in Federal 

13 district court, shall be reserved for security measures 

14 along the border between the United States and Mexico, 

15 including the completion of a wall along such border, for 

16 the purpose of stemming the flow of illegal narcotics into 

17 the United States and furthering the Nation’s security. 

18 SEC. 3. USE OF FORFEITED CRIMINAL PROCEEDS OF 

19 OTHER CONVICTED CARTEL MEMBERS. 

20 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 

21 funds that are criminally forfeited to the United States 

22 Government as the result of a felony conviction in a Fed23 eral district court of a member of a drug cartel—an indi24 vidual engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise involv25 ing knowingly and intentionally distributing a controlled 

26 substance, intending and knowing that such substance 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2186 IH

1 would be unlawfully imported into the United States from 

2 a place outside of the United States—shall be reserved 

3 for security measures along the border between the United 

4 States and Mexico, including the completion of a wall 

5 along such border, for the purpose of stemming the flow 

6 of illegal narcotics into the United States and furthering 

7 the Nation’s security. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# ft 

# 286 ) ll-K

- (I ) 9 9 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:58AM Sheet 286 of 325P. 2

cn II-K-(I)-9 9

199 0 PROJECTE D NE WINDUSTRIA L FOSSI L FUEL-FIRE D BOILE R AI R EMISSIONS , FUE L DEMAND , AN D COST S (REFERENC E FUE L PRICES) . EEA , Inc . Novembe r 26 , 1985 . THI S INFORMATIO NCA

NB E FOUN D I NDOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE M

IV-K-(I)-7 .
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOHN CHAPMAN,

Appellant,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR IN 

INTEREST TO BANK OF AMERCA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS 

TRUSTEE AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR WASHINGTON MUTUAL 

MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES WMALT

SERIES 2006-AR9,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3179

[May 24, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 43-2009-CA000110.

John Chapman, Palm City, pro se.

Karin L. Posser and William L. Grimsley of McGlinchey Stafford, 

Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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 Gilla, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Georges Benarroch, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 Company.




Date: November 15, 2010
By:
/s/ Georges BenarrochGeorges BenarrochActing President & Chief Executive Officer And Acting Chief Financial Officer, and principal financial and accounting officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

May 29,2015

Mr. Paul Gretch Director Office of International Aviation United States Department of Transportation Room W86- 316 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 12th Floor Washington, D.C. 20006 1EL 202 659 6600 FAX 202 659 6699 www.eckertseamans.com

Evelyn D. Sahr 202 659 6622 esahr@eckertsean1ans. com

RE: Polling Results for Application of JetBlue Airways Corporation for Exemption Authority (US-Anguilla/Dominica/British Virgin Islands Codesharing with Seaborne Airlines), Docket DOT-OST-2015-0114 Dear Mr. Gretch, Please be advised we have polled and received non-objections from each ofthe U.S
. carriers on the attached service list for the above-referenced application of JetBlue Airways Corporation (JetBlue). JetBlue respectfully requests the Department take prompt action on its application so that marketing of its service can begin as soon as possible. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely,

Evelyn D. Sahr Drew M. Derco Counsel for JetBlue Airways CorporationService List
robert.wirick@aa.com American Airlines howard.kass@aa.com abigail.donovan@aa.com sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com Delta Air Lines chris.walker@delta.com g;mrn:phy @ croweJ l .com United Airlines 

### sseiden @croweU
.com dan
._weiss @ united
. com steve.morrisse y@ united
.com bob.kneisley@wnco.com Southwest Airlines leslie.abbott@wnco.com matwood@cozen.com Frontier Airlines SLachter@cozen.com dkirstein@yklaw.com Spirit Airlines jyoung@yklaw.com thomas.ting@suncountry.com Sun Country Airlines j ohn.fredericksen@suncountry.com jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com Amerijet International j**canny@amer~jet.com** cristinasa@state.gov john.s.duncan@faa.gov robert.finamore@dot.gov brett.kruger@dot. gov brian.hedberg@dot.gov darren.j affe@dot.gov reese.davidson@dot.gov
**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 Annual Report of The Houston Exploration Company (the “Company”) on Form10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, William G. Hargett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company./s/     William G. Hargett
- 401014.-70. • - • 7:

•

4.

FROM: • -

6595TH AEROSPACE TZST WOA NAIOACIPERG AFB, CALIF.

ECIAL ,INETRUCTIONE

. •

"Z-1,'"7

TO SPACE: S*4174M IRV, .LOSkCALIF.:

SUBJECT: EraFrir.aotrrt, FLASH REPORT

I. SUMMARY I/Wit) a-3 -/04 n

...\. •

n

Ilk ,..-

•

I.

A yEHZCLE:. 6011011 NO OF SLV-2A, BOOSTER NO. 360 AN . - b

•

S-OLA, ORBITALiTAGE NO. 1164 WAS LAUNCHED ON THE FIRST . ,

A tTEMPT FROM VANS COMPLEX 7 5 -3 # PAD 4, AT 1313:00.90 1 •

.1 oxvii.::Oklit. MA#C13'1963.. 2. THIS WAS THE SECOND FLIGHT ON 0) %

.. :

, v}4(34 Tiii:sa.y.44 BOOSTER WAS USED AND THE FIRST FLIGH

. 

cliv.iiHi6g; THE AIRBORNE .1,!QR!I'ION OF THE BTL GUIDANCE .

.. .. , .. 11+Qt,%0

SYSTEM wAar*imo.L.Ep IN THE S.A.01A VEHICLE. THE P ' 3t '

LAUNCH OBJECTIVES WERE ONLY PARTIALLY ATTAINED.

: ,.. •.• s , THE ?TAT:, BOOSTER (SLV2A) PERFORMED SATISFACTORILY. 1 :.. %It

.. • . •

. , ..

. . • . .,

S -01A, HOWEVER, , EXPERIENCED A PERMANENT LOSS OF

..

. • .. . , . .

PNEUMATIC CONTROL SHORTLY AFTER ACTIVATION DUE TO

AN ,..Lci:)Ric-AL, MALFUNCTION. .- THEi.CONSZOLTENT LACK OF . .- .. .

—I

DATE TIME ••••

MONTH YEAR

SYMBOL ,IHONATURIE. •

•

TYPED (or gained) NAME AND TITLE

• 18.7%.4111Alinilitnifb."'60"r7 :USAF

PH°P411. . 866 =3771' kr! [r'

secURITY,CLARRIPIcATION

• . . . DD FMOARym.:1; '1 73,••• REPLACEir OD itoRm 'ITS, I- OCT 49. WHICH WILL RE USED UNTIL CICHAUSTED
SAM'




olorse4 isea—asans

-
ERROWIN SCA1,E
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors 

CNET Networks, Inc.:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements(File Nos. 333-119997, 333-119962, 333-115569, 333-105563, 333-85374, 333-65224, 333-58724, 333-35458, 333-78247, 333-67325, 333-34491, and 333-07667) on Forms S-8 and S-3 of CNET Networks, Inc. of our reports dated March 15, 2005, with respect tothe consolidated balance sheets of CNET Networks, Inc. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2004, and the related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of CNET Network, Inc. 

 

Our report dated March 15, 2005, on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, expresses our opinion that CNET Networks, Inc. did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 because of the effect of a material weakness on theachievement of the objectives of the control criteria and includes an explanatory paragraph that states that at December 31, 2004, the Company did not maintain sufficient levels of appropriately qualified personnel in its financial reportingprocesses. 

 

(Signed) KPMG LLP 

 

San Francisco, California 

 

March 15, 2005
EXHIBIT 13.2





SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


CFO CERTIFICATION





In connection with the annual report of Almaden Minerals Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Korm Trieu, Chief Financial Officer 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 to my knowledge:





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




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




/s/ “Korm Trieu”Name: Korm TrieuTitle: Chief Financial OfficerMarch 30, 2012
*The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-2469SI

_____________

Jerry L. Miles, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Herbert Maschner, Warden of the Iowa *

State Penitentiary; Thomas J. Miller, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Iowa Attorney General, *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

 Submitted: February 9, 1999

Filed: February 19, 1999

_____________

Before FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBAUM,* District Judge.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

In 1991, an Iowa jury convicted Jerry L. Miles of a state law weapons

violation. After Miles completed his sentence, Miles was convicted and sentenced

on a drug-related charge. While serving this new sentence, Miles petitioned the

district court for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his 1991 conviction. See 28
-2-

U.S.C. § 2254 (1994 & Supp. II 1996). The district court dismissed Miles’s habeas

petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Miles appeals, and we affirm.

Miles contends the district court committed error in dismissing his habeas

petition. We disagree. The district court properly concluded it did not have

jurisdiction to address the merits of Miles’s petition because Miles was no longer in

custody for the 1991 conviction, having completely served and discharged his state

sentence before filing his habeas petition. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-92

(1989) (per curiam); Love v. Tippy, 128 F.3d 1258, 1258-59 (8th Cir. 1997) (per

curiam); Charlton v. Morris, 53 F.3d 929, 929 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Contrary

to Miles’s view, he cannot satisfy the in custody requirement in this habeas case by

arguing his 1991 conviction could delay parole from his current sentence. It is well

settled that “once the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired, the

collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an

individual ‘in custody’ for purposes of a habeas attack upon it.” Maleng, 490 U.S.

at 492. Additionally, Miles’s alternative argument that his habeas petition should be

construed as a permissible collateral attack on his current sentence is foreclosed by

the decisions of this court. See Love, 128 F.3d at 1259 (habeas petitioner cannot

collaterally attack state conviction used to enhance later sentence if attack does not

involve failure to appoint counsel); Charlton, 53 F.3d at 929-30 (same).

We affirm the dismissal of Miles’s habeas petition for the reasons stated in the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation adopted by the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.