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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6474 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 Union Calendar No. 583
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6474

                          [Report No. 118-689]

     To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expedite geothermal 
 exploration and development in previously studied or developed areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 21, 2023

  Mrs. Steel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

                           September 18, 2024

                 Additional sponsor: Ms. Lee of Nevada

                           September 18, 2024

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expedite geothermal 
 exploration and development in previously studied or developed areas.

 

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

SECTION 1. NEPA REVIEW.

    Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15942) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or the Geothermal 
        Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) for the purpose of 
        exploration or development of geothermal resources'' after ``or 
        gas''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or gas'' and 
                inserting ``, gas, or geothermal''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or gas'' and 
                inserting ``, gas, or geothermal''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 583

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6474

                          [Report No. 118-689]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

     To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expedite geothermal 
 exploration and development in previously studied or developed areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 18, 2024

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:See attached file
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code.

Joe W. Forehand, the Chief Executive Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the
best of his knowledge:



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



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Data Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 14, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    JOE W. FOREHAND 
|                   |  |  |  |  |  | Joe W. Forehand        
|                   |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 10.34

January
25, 2002

Tanning
Technology Corporation
4600 S. Syracuse Street
Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80237
Attention: Larry Tanning

Re:Transfer of Tanning Shares

I,
Bipin Agarwal, on behalf of myself and WinSoft Corporation (the "Seller"), hereby agree to transfer to Tanning Technology Corporation ("Tanning"), on the Transaction Date (as defined
below), that number of shares of Tanning common stock, par value $.01 (the "Shares") sufficient to fully repay all amounts outstanding, together with accrued interest (the "Repayment Amount") under my
Promissory Note to the Company dated July 30, 1999, as amended July 31, 2001 (such transfer and repayment, the "Transaction"). The number of shares to be transferred to the Company in
the Transaction shall be equal to the Repayment Amount divided by the closing market price per Share of the Shares on the business day immediately preceding the Transaction Date. The "Transaction
Date" will be as soon as reasonably practicable after Tanning's fourth quarter 2001 earnings release, but in no event sooner than 2 business days following such release.

In
contemplation of the foregoing, I represent, on behalf of myself and the Seller, as follows:



I
understand that Tanning will rely on the above representations in consummating the Transaction.

---

It
is understood and agreed that consummation of the Transaction shall constitute full and final repayment of all amounts owing under the Promissory Note referred to above.

|                               |  |                                                                |  | Very truly yours,                                                      
|------------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                               |  |                                                                |  | Bipin Agarwal, individually and on behalf of WinSoft Corporation as its
|                               |  |                                                                |  |                                                                        
|Agreed and Accepted:           |  |                                                               
|Tanning Technology Corporation |  |                                                               
|                               |  |                                                               
|By:                            |  | Frederick H. Fogel                                             |  |                                                                        
|Its:                           |  | Executive Vice President, Business Affairs and General Counsel |  |                                                                        

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6451
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JESSIE GREEN, a/k/a Jesse Green, a/k/a Jessie Tyrone Green, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-207, CA-95-4009-3-17) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: October 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jessie Green, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 (Law. Co-op. Advance Sheet June 1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Green , Nos. CR94-207; CA-95-4009-3-17 (D.S.C. Mar. 11, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Micromem Technologies
Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2012
(the Report), I, Joseph Fuda, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, based on 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;
  and                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
      of the Company.

|Date: February 25, 2013 | /s/ Joseph
      Fuda        
|----------------------- | -----------------------------
|                        | Joseph Fuda                  
|                        | Chief Executive Officer      
|                        | (Principal executive officer)

---
EXHIBIT 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
333-105974 on Form S-8 of Gasco Energy, Inc. of our report dated March 25, 2004,
(which report  expresses  and  unqualified  opinion and includes an  explanatory
paragraph  for the adoption of Statement of Financial  Accounting  Standards No.
143,  "Accounting for Asset  Retirement  Obligations")  appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Gasco Energy, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.


/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
Denver, Colorado
March 25, 2004
---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Micromem Technologies
Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2011
(the Report), I, Joseph Fuda, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, based on 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;
  and                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
      of the Company.

|Date: February 24, 2012 | /s/
      Joseph Fuda        
|----------------------- | -----------------------------
|                        | Joseph Fuda                  
|                        | Chief Executive Officer      
|                        | (Principal executive officer)

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rocky WALLACE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-11784 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 14, 2017

Brian W. McKay, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assis*376tant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Leandro Delgado, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rocky Wallace appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to 18 months of imprisonment and 18 months of supervised release. He argues that the treatment exception set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) applies in any case where a su-pervisee fails a drug test, regardless of any other violations committed, and that the district court failed to consider the treatment exception as required by § 3583(d). He also argues that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable.

This court generally reviews the district court’s decision to revoke a term of supervised release for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. McCormick,*54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995). This court reviews a revocation sentence under the plainly unreasonable standard in two steps, examining first for procedural error and then for obvious substantive unreasonableness. *United States v. Warren,*720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). However, issues of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. *See United States v. Clayton,*613 F.3d 592, 595 (5th Cir. 2010).

We need not clarify whether the district court is required to consider § 3583(d) in cases, like this one, where the revocation of supervised release is based on more than failed drug tests. *See United States v. Brooker,*858 F.3d 983, 986 (5th Cir. 2017). Although the district court did not explicitly address the drug treatment exception argument or its reasons for rejecting same prior to revocation, the district court did implicitly consider and explicitly reject that argument. *See id.*at 986-87. As such, the record does not indicate that the district court failed to consider the drug treatment exception of § 3583(d). *See id.*

Wallace has failed to show that the district court committed any clear error in imposing his sentence or that the sentence is unreasonable. *See United States v. Miller,*634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011); *United States v. Whitelaw,*580 F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2009); *see, e.g., United States v. Kippers,*685 F.3d 491, 500-01 (5th Cir. 2012).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**EXHIBIT - 31.2**

 

MOSSIMO, INC.

 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, EdwinLewis, Vice Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certifythat:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mossimo,Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to usby others, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonable likely to affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
| /s/ EDWIN LEWIS                               |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Edwin Lewis                                   |
| Vice-Chairman and Co-Chief Executive  Officer |
| May 13, 2005                                  |

 

----
#### Bryon B. NEVIUS Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Appellee

No. 16-3255

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 6, 2017

Filed: July 27, 2017

Bryon B. Nevius, Pro Se

*448Jonathan S. Cohen, Randolph Lyons Hutter, Francesca Ugolini, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Appellee

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Bryon Nevius appeals a decision of the tax court,1 which dismissed his petition challenging a notice of deficiency issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and upheld the assessments set forth in the notice of deficiency. The Commissioner urges affirmance, and has moved for sanctions on appeal. Having jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1), this court affirms.

After careful review, this court concludes that the tax court properly dismissed the petition, as courts have repeatedly rejected Nevius’s boilerplate tax-protester arguments. *See Campbell v. Comm’r,*164 F.3d 1140, 1142 (8th Cir. 1999) (standards of review for tax court decisions); *Shenker v. Comm’r,*804 F.2d 109, 114 n. 6 (8th Cir. 1986) (courts have uniformly upheld the constitutionality of the tax court); *United States v. Jagim,*978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992) (rejecting defendant’s argument—that he was citizen of Republic of Idaho, and therefore not subject to federal income tax—as “completely without merit, [and] patently frivolous”).

Finally, this court may award “just damages” and single or double costs if it determines that an appeal is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1912; Fed. R. App. P. 38. In this case, sanctions are appropriate. *See United States v. Gerads,*999 F.2d 1255, 1256-57 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (rejecting the argument that “Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota” were not subject to taxation; granting government’s motion for sanctions for frivolous appeal).

The judgment is affirmed, and this court grants the Commissioner’s motion for sanctions in the amount of $5,000.

1

. The Honorable Michael B. Thornton, Chief Judge, United States Tax Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0463

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JUSTIN DALLAS PETERSON,

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 8, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 1 2022

07/01/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0463
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Charles MCNEIL, a.k.a. Chip, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-15472

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 3, 2017

Marshall H. Silverberg, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ronald G. Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Randall Riccardo, Mill Valley, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Former federal prisoner Kenneth Charles McNeil appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.G. § 1291. We review the denial of a coram nobis petition de novo, *see United States v. Riedl,*496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.

McNeil challenges his 2003 jury-trial conviction for interstate travel with intent to violate a protective order, alleging that the district court improperly instructed the jury with the parties’ stipulated instruction regarding intent. Because McNeil has not shown an error “of the most fundamental character,” he is not entitled to a writ of error coram nobis, and the district court properly denied relief. *See id.*at 1005-06.

AFFIRMED.

***

 -pjjjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6188 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 420 Highway 17 North in Surfside Beach, 

South Carolina, as the ‘‘Nancy Yount Childs Post Office 

Building’’. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 6188 RFS

1 SECTION 1. NANCY YOUNT CHILDS POST OFFICE BUILD2 ING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 420 Highway 17 North in 

5 Surfside Beach, South Carolina, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Nancy Yount Childs Post Office Build7 ing’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Nancy Yount Childs 

12 Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### MH SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant v. COLDHARBOUR MARINE LIMITED, Appellee

2016-1768

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 8, 2017

Bradley D. Roush, Foley <& Lardner LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by George Ells-worth Quillin, Jessica Flores; Matthew Ambros, Boston, MA.

Peter Daniel Siddoway, Sage Patent Group, PLLC, Raleigh, NC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Lynne A. Borchers.

(Moore, Linn, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 86.