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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3785 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the suitability 

and feasibility of expanding the boundary of Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 8, 2009 

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia (for himself, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, 

and Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 

study of the suitability and feasibility of expanding the 

boundary of Chattahoochee River National Recreation 

Area. 

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 ‘‘Chattahoochee River 

5 National Recreation Area Boundary Study Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3785 IH

1 (1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

2 the Secretary of the Interior. 

3 (2) RECREATION AREA.—The term ‘‘recreation 

4 area’’ means the Chattahoochee River National 

5 Recreation Area in the State of Georgia. 

6 (3) STUDY AREA.—The term ‘‘study area’’ 

7 means the area of the Chattahoochee River and land 

8 along the river corridor described in section 3(a) 

9 that is the subject of the study authorized by this 

10 Act. 

11 SEC. 3. BOUNDARY STUDY. 

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to 

13 conduct a study to determine the suitability and feasibility 

14 of including in the boundary of the recreation area ap15 proximately 45 miles of the Chattahoochee River and 

16 lands along the river corridor from the southern boundary 

17 of the recreation area south to the junction of Coweta, 

18 Heard, and Carroll Counties. 

19 (b) CONTENTS.—The study authorized under this 

20 Act shall include an analysis of— 

21 (1) significant resources or opportunities for 

22 public enjoyment within the study area related to 

23 purposes of the recreation area; 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3785 IH

1 (2) operational and management issues that 

2 need to be considered if the study area is included 

3 within the recreation area; 

4 (3) protection of resources within the study 

5 area critical to fulfilling the recreation area’s pur6 poses; 

7 (4) the feasibility of administering the study 

8 area as part of the recreation area considering the 

9 study area’s size, configuration, ownership, costs, 

10 and other factors; and 

11 (5) the adequacy of other alternatives for man12 agement and protection of resources within the 

13 study area. 

14 (c) REPORT.—Not later than three years after the 

15 date on which funds are made available to carry out this 

16 Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Nat17 ural Resources of the House of Representatives and the 

18 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Sen19 ate a report that describes the findings and conclusions 

20 of the study and any recommendations of the Secretary. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COAST
RESORTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          29,430                  41,598
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,617                   4,301
<ALLOWANCES>                                       194                     594
<INVENTORY>                                      5,085                   4,912
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,022                  59,931
<PP&E>                                         388,884                 401,621
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,733                 100,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 366,619                 366,827
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,355                  44,769
<BONDS>                                        215,249                 207,859
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            15                      15
<OTHER-SE>                                      94,424                 102,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   366,619                 366,827
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               293,883                 332,363
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  197,200                 209,149
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                79,102                  83,831
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,339                  27,323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,725)                  12,981
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,115)                   4,994
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,610)                   7,987
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,610)                   7,987
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.08)                    5.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.08)                    5.34
        

</TABLE>
22222

#### COLUMBIA POOLS, INC., Appellant, v. William C. MOON, Sr., Respondent.

(325 S. E. (2d) 540)

Supreme Court

*146
      *George Allen Graab, Jr.,*Columbia, *for appellant.*

*Carolyn B. Steigner,*Columbia, *for respondent.*

Heard Dec. 12, 1984.

Decided Jan. 28, 1985.

Ness, Justice:

This is an action by appellant Columbia Pools, Inc. to recover full payment for its construction of an indoor swimming pool and surrounding sunroom added on to respondent Moon’s residence. Columbia Pools was not licensed in South Carolina as a general contractor or residential home builder when the contract was executed. The trial court dismissed the action holding an unlicensed home builder’s enforcement suit was barred under S. C. Code § 40-59-130 and *Duckworth v. Cameron,*270 S. C. 647, 244 S. E. (2d) 217 (1978). We affirm.

The appellant was licensed as a general contractor in the State of Michigan. He also obtained his South Carolina license prior to the completion of the structure but after the contract was signed and construction commenced.

The sole issue is whether the trial court erred in classifying appellant as a residential home builder.

Section 40-59-10 defines a residential home builder as:

> *147[0]ne who constructs a residential building or structure for sale or who, for a fixed price, commission, fee or wage, undertakes or offers to undertake the construction, or superintending of the construction, of any building or structure which is not over three floors in height and which does not have more than sixteen units in the apartment complext, or the repair, improvement or re-improvement thereof, to be used by another as a residence when the cost of the undertaking exceeds ten thousand dollars.

We hold the addition of a sunroom containing a heated swimming pool onto a residence was properly classified as residential home building.

We adopt the holding *Duckworth v. Cameron, supra,*at 649, 244 S. E. (2d) 217, “[a]ny builder who violates the chapter (§ 40-59-130) by entering into a contract for home construction without obtaining the required license simply cannot enforce the contract.”

Affirmed.

Littlejohn, C. J., and Gregory, Harwell, and Chandler, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Timothy B. Murphy,  certify that this  amendment to report on Form 10-K fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 and  that  information  contained  in this  report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of Investors Capital Holdings, Ltd.


Date: July 14, 2005


BY: /S/ TIMOTHY B. MURPHY
-----------------------------------------------
Timothy B. Murphy, Executive Vice President,
Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Director


                                       11
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 Westell Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ending March 31, 2003 as amended
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on their 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 result of operations of the Company
     as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



/s/ E. VAN CULLENS
----------------------------
E. Van Cullens
Chief Executive Officer
August 11, 2004

/s/NICHOLAS C. HINDMAN, Sr.
---------------------------
Nicholas C. Hindman, Sr.
Chief Financial Officer
August 11, 2004



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
required by Section 906, has been provided to Westell Technologies, Inc. and
will be retained by Westell Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as
part of the Form 10-K.
NEW JERSEY ARMY NATIONAL GUARD (NJARNG) DRINKING 

WATER PFAS SNAPSHOT

The Army National Guard is committed to ensuring quality drinking water is provided to its

Soldiers, and civilians. Proactive sampling is performed by the Army National Guard on its 

drinking water systems, as well as, coordination with other purveyors to ensure perfluorooctane 

sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) remains below the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) lifetime health advisory (HA) level of 70 parts per trillion (ppt). The 

EPA HA is not an enforceable or a regulatory standard, and represents a concentration in 

drinking water that is not expected to produce adverse health effects if the water is consumed 

over a lifetime.

Drinking Water Status: Finished drinking water, which is the treated water people drink at Fort 

Dix NG TNG Site, does not contain PFOS/PFOA above the EPA HA. Additionally, Army 

National Guard-provided drinking water complies with the standards of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act (SDWA), a federal law designed to protect the quality of drinking water supplied to the 

American public. The Army National Guard will continue to monitor on-base drinking water to 

ensure the EPA HA or a properly promulgated state drinking water standard is not exceeded.

Test Date: June 2023

PFOA + PFOS Results: 3.6 ppt

Future Testing Event: July 2026

Type of Drinking Water System: Army National Guard-owned

For Questions Contact: New Jersey National Guard State Public Affairs Office

Office Phone Number: 609-530-6939

Office E-mail Address: PublicAffairsOffic@dmava.nj.gov

Water quality report: A water quality report is not required for this location
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3613 

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to modify financial disclosure filing requirements for certain employees of the Executive Office 

of the President. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to modify 

financial disclosure filing requirements for certain employees of the Executive Office of the President. 

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 ‘‘Transparency and Ex5 ecutive Accountability Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3613 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE RE2 PORT FILING REQUIREMENTS. 

3 Section 103 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 

4 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(l) In the case of an individual who is subject to 

7 the reporting requirements of this title by virtue of a past, 

8 current, or future appointment to a position in the Execu9 tive Office of the President, the first sentence of sub10 section (a) shall be applied by substituting ‘the Director 

11 of the Office of Government Ethics’ for the matter fol12 lowing ‘shall be filed by the reporting individual with’.’’. 

13 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

14 The amendment made by section 2 shall apply with 

15 respect to any report, the last date for the filing of which 

16 occurs on or after the 60th day following the date of the 

17 enactment of this Act, determined disregarding— 

18 (1) any extension of time for the filing of a re19 port; and 

20 (2) any supplemental report or update. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 of Malacology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Vivek
R. Rao, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.




/s/ Vivek R. Rao
------------------------
Vivek R. Rao
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 31, 2014

t0127 

# Order

Clerk January 31, 2014

147966

ADELIA MARSHALL,

Plaintiff

- Appe llant,

v SC: 147966

COA: 314290

MCAC: 12

- 000071

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,

SELF

- INSURED,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 25, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 10977 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:09

- cr - 00011

- RLV

- WEJ

- 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus SHERMAN EDWARD WILLIAMS, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________ _______ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ ( September 17, 2014 ) Before WILSON , WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-10977 Date Filed: 09/17/2014 Page: 1 of 22 Sherman Edward Williams appeals his s entence of imprisonment of 192 month s after being convicted of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, id

. § 924(c)(1)(A). Williams argues that his sentence is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We affirm. We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential standard for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Williams’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court, co ntrary to Williams’s contention, did not treat the G uidelines as mandatory . The district court imposed Williams’s sentence only after it had heard both Williams and the government make their respective arguments about what sentence would be “ sufficient, bu t not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing

. ” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A nd the record establishes that the district court considered the seriousness of the offense, the history of the defendant, and the guidelines range, and then determined that a sentence at the upper end of the range was adequate punishment. The district court committed no abuse of discretion by plac ing gr eater emphasis on the nature of the offense than on Williams’s rehabilitative efforts and criminal history. AFFIRMED. Case: 14-10977 Date Filed: 09/17/2014 Page: 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices 

# Order

v SC: 131108 September 29, 2006

131108

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

COA: 268866 Baraga CC: 05-000926-FH JODY LYNNE AXLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe a l the April 11, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Y OUNG

, J., concurs and states as follows:

I concur in the order denying leave to appeal. In her application for leave to appeal, defendant argued that the extent of the sentenc ing court’s upward departure from the sentencing guidelines was an abuse of discretion. Defe ndant did not raise the issue whether the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v Washington , 542 US 296 (2004), applied to Michigan’s intermed iate sentencing guidelines scheme. MCL 769.34(4)(a). Generally, appeals are limited to those issues raised in the application for leave to appeal, MCR 7.302(G)(4), and argument s not raised and preserved for review are

deemed waived. People v Stanaway , 446 Mich 643 (1994).

C ORRIGAN

, J., joins the statement of Y OUNG

, J.

C AVANAGH and K ELLY

, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.

M ARKMAN

, J., dissents and states as follows:

I dissent and would instead remand th is case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. This case squarely raises the question w hether, and to what extent, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v Washington, 542I, 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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 29, 2006

p0926 2

US 296 (2004), applies to Mi chigan’s intermediate senten cing gui delines scheme. MCL 769.34(4)(a). The trial court based its sentencing departure on facts that were not part of defendant’s criminal history, admitted by defendant, or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, this case presen ts an appropriate vehicle for determining whether, when the guidelines call for an intermediate sanction, Blakely precludes the imposition of a prison sentence ba sed on such other facts.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3667 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3667

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 16555 Springs Street in White Springs, Florida, as the ``Clyde L. 
                   Hillhouse Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2009

 Mr. Crenshaw introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 16555 Springs Street in White Springs, Florida, as the ``Clyde L. 
                   Hillhouse Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CLYDE L. HILLHOUSE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 16555 Springs Street in White Springs, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Clyde L. Hillhouse Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Clyde L. 
Hillhouse Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
1024.6068