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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 708 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 708

To repeal section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 
                                 1978.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                April 6 (legislative day, April 5), 1995

  Mr. Nickles introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 
                                 1978.

    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 Electric Utility Ratepayer Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) implementation of section 210 of the Public Utility 
        Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 results in many consumers 
        paying excessive rates for electricity;
            (2) the Energy Policy Act of 1992 gives producers of 
        electricity additional access to the wholesale electric market 
        through transmission access and exemption from the Public 
        Utility Holding Company Act; and
            (3) in light of the increasingly competitive wholesale 
        electric marketplace being brought about by the Energy Policy 
        Act of 1992, there no longer is any justification for section 
        210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.

SEC. 3. REPEAL.

    Section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 
(16 U.S.C. 824a-3) is hereby repealed.

SEC. 4. TRANSITION.

    Nothing in this Act abrogates any existing contract.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The provisions of this Act are effective April 7, 1995.
                                 <all>
```
#### IPVENTURE, INC., Appellant v. FEDEX CORPORATION, Appellee

2016-1911

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 9, 2017

C. Douglass Thomas, IpVenture, Los Altos, CA, argued for appellant,

Jeffrey A, Berkowitz, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett *&*Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA, argued for appellee. Also represented by Michael Vincent *921Young, Sr.; E. Chris Cherry, FedEx Legal Department, Memphis, TN.

(Dyk, O’Malley, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ireshia Donte SUMMERS, a/k/a Eric Summers, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4609

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2017

Decided: July 6, 2017

*720Steven P. Hanna, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ireshia Donte Summers appeals the 240-month sentence imposed by the district court upon resentencing following the va-catur of Summers’ original armed career criminal sentence in light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) (holding that residual clause of Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012), is unconstitutionally vague). Summers’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the calculation of Summers’ base offense level. Summers filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the appeal waiver in Summers’ plea agreement. We dismiss the appeal.

We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. *United States v. Copeland,*707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013). A defendant’s waiver is valid if he agreed to it “knowingly and intelligently.” *United States v. Manigan,*592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). An appeal waiver generally is enforceable “if the record establishes that the waiver is valid and that the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” *United States v. Thornsbury,*670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Summers knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that the sentencing issues Summers seeks to raise on appeal fall squarely within the scope of his waiver of appellate rights. Moreover, in accordance with *An-ders,*we have reviewed the record for any potentially meritorious issues that fall outside the scope of the waiver and have found none.*
      *See Copeland,*707 F.3d at 530. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion and dismiss the appeal.

This court requires that counsel inform Summers, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Summers requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Summers. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process,

*DISMISSED*

We have reviewed the issues Summers raised in his pro se brief and conclude that he is not entitled to relief.
History: 

### June Felman tests 

# II Conrad Chin to: Amy M. Lincoln Rlunn, JKonrady, Chuck French, Jonathan Averback, "Beth Cc: Friedman", Peter Westlin, Robin Segall, Steffan Johnson, "Brad Nelson", Jason Dewees, Conrad Chin

This message has been forwarded . 

### Good morning AmyThanks for the heads up. 06/02/2012 07:37AM



### A colleague provided an aerial photo ofthe Felman furnace building, and it seems that there are "stack-like" roofvents for the release offugitive emissions. We would like to investigate the possibility and feasibility of conducting stack sampling at these roof vents, and considering to request Felman to test these vents in June. Could we set up a call for this purpose next week (week ofJune 4)? Have a greatweekend!Conrad K. Chin Mail Code 0243-02 Metals

_ and_Mineiats

_

GLQup Sector Policies and Programs Division Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 919-541-1512 (voice) 919-541-3207 (fax) "Amy 

### M. Lincoln" Conrad, From: "Amy M. Lincoln" <Alincoln@bdlaw.com> 05/31/2012 05:27:16 PM To: Conrad Chin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "John Rego" <jrego@JonesDay.com>, <Jeff.McKinney@erametgroup.com>, <Rlunn@fpiwv.com>, <JKonrady@fpiwv.com> Cc: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jonathan Averback!DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Beth Friedman" <friedman .beth@ecrweb.com>, Peter Westlin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin Segaii/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Steffan Johnson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Brad Nelson" <nelson.brad@ecrweb.com>, Kelly Rimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Darcie Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
EXHIBIT 32.1





SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





CERTIFICATION OF W. RANDALL FOWLER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


OF DEP HOLDINGS, LLC, THE GENERAL PARTNER OF


DUNCAN ENERGY PARTNERS L.P.





In connection with this annual report of Duncan Energy Partners L.P. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, W. Randall Fowler, Chief Executive Officer of DEP Holdings, LLC, the General Partner of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.








/s/ W. Randall FowlerName:
W. Randall FowlerTitle:
Chief Executive Officer of DEP Holdings, LLC,the General Partner of Duncan Energy Partners L.P.





Date:      March 1, 2011
#### Jose Vargas SOTO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Barbara RICKARD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and Bart Masters, Warden, Respondent.

No. 17-6618

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

Jose Vargas Soto, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Vargas Soto, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed-in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Vargas-Soto v. Rickard,*No. 1:15-cv-07012, 2017 WL 1788662 (E.D.N.C. May 4, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

Basic loss per share is calculated using the average number of common shares
outstanding.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Three Months Ended                   Nine Months Ended
                                                           September 30                         September 30
                                                      2000              1999               2000               1999
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


<S>                                                    <C>               <C>                <C>                <C>
Income before income taxes                               (791,800)         (185,241)        (1,764,500)          (624,357)

Income Taxes                                                    0                 0                  0                  0
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Net Income < Loss >                                      (791,800)         (185,241)        (1,764,500)          (624,357)
                                               ===========================================================================

Basic earnings per share of common stock:                   (0.03)            (0.01)             (0.06)             (0.03)
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weighted average common shares outstanding             30,443,335        28,933,632         30,068,454         22,709,666
                                               ===========================================================================
</TABLE>



Diluted earnings per share was included as they are anti-dilutive due to the
company being in a loss position.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
                      
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1,000
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              618
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            3,216
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  4,456
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                      0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            4,500
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              4,442
<LOANS>                                          79,454
<ALLOWANCE>                                         235
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  100,235
<DEPOSITS>                                       73,432
<SHORT-TERM>                                      4,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               2,100
<LONG-TERM>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                            146
<OTHER-SE>                                       12,407
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  100,235
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   4,433
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   434
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    396
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  5,263
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                2,381
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  107
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             2,775
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        46
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                    0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1,842
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     979
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          979
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                        589
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     2.84
<LOANS-NON>                                         146
<LOANS-PAST>                                          0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                      0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    195
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                         6
<RECOVERIES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   235
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                235
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                               0
        


</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 6, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132151(45) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

LILLIAN KREBS, MARK KREBS, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, FRED KREBS and KREBSVIEW FARMS, Justices Plaintiffs, 

v SC: 132151 

 COA: 258813 

Ingham CC: 03-000807-CK

WILLIAM and SALLY NYGREN,

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

SECURA INSURANCE, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 28, 

2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

p0530 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

June 6, 2007 

 Clerk
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/03

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 03 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.06 N 76.88 W Meters AGL
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 787 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 787

To provide an exemption from certain hazardous material transportation 
 regulations for small cargo tank vehicles with a capacity of not more 
  than 3,500 gallons that transport petroleum, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 10 (legislative day, May 1), 1995

   Mr. Burns introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide an exemption from certain hazardous material transportation 
 regulations for small cargo tank vehicles with a capacity of not more 
  than 3,500 gallons that transport petroleum, and for other purposes.
    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 ``Hazardous Materials Regulatory 
Relief Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. SMALL CARGO TANK VEHICLE EXEMPTION.

    The Secretary of Transportation shall exclude from the application 
of any regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation 
pursuant to chapter 51 of title 49, United States Code, pertaining to 
the maintenance, reconditioning, repair, inspection, or testing of 
packages, or any other function having an effect on the continuing 
qualification and use of packaging, any cargo tank vehicle that--
            (1) has a capacity of not more than 3,500 gallons; and
            (2) is used to transport petroleum products in intrastate 
        or interstate transportation within a 100 air-mile radius of 
        the principal place of business of the owner or lessee of the 
        cargo tank vehicle.
                                 <all>
```
TS-ASLT60

Attachment #6

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 3 

Environmental Release and Disposal Information on the New Chemical Substances 

at Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter – Manufacture and Processing
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 798 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 798

 To amend the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to prohibit the 
   flying of unmanned recreational aircraft near commercial airports.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2015

  Mr. Meeks introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to prohibit the 
   flying of unmanned recreational aircraft near commercial airports.

    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 ``Responsible Skies Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON THE FLYING OF UNMANNED RECREATIONAL AIRCRAFT 
              NEAR COMMERCIAL AIRPORTS.

    Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 
U.S.C. 40101 note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (c) by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ; and ``, including that the operator of an unmanned 
        recreational aircraft may not fly the aircraft--
    ``(1) above 400 feet and within 5 miles of the perimeter of an 
airport that provides scheduled passenger air transportation; or
    ``(2) where it may be seem from the perimeter of the airport.''; 
and
            (2) by inserting at the end the following:
    ``(d) Report to Congress.--Not later than one year after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter, the Secretary 
shall submit to Congress a report containing--
            ``(1) a description of any incident in which an unmanned 
        recreational aircraft flew above 400 feet less than 5 miles 
        from the perimeter of an airport that provides scheduled 
        passenger air transportation; and
            ``(2) the action taken by the Secretary in response to the 
        incident.
    ``(e) Definition of Unmanned Recreational Aircraft.--In this 
section, the term `unmanned recreational aircraft' means an unmanned 
aircraft flown for hobby or recreational purposes.''.
                                 <all>
```
---

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 Golden Century
  Technologies Corporation (the "Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June
  30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the "Report"), I, David Cheng Lee, 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 result of operations of the
  Company.

/s/ David Cheng
  Lee
  David Cheng Lee 
  President and Treasurer 
  Director 
  (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer 
  and Principal
  Accounting Officer) 
  February 23, 2010 
  _________________________________________
  Dated:

---
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

                        HEALTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CORPORATION
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,      NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                          1997            1996           1997             1996
                                                     ------------     -----------    -------------    --------------
<S>                                                  <C>              <C>            <C>              <C>
Net loss                                             $  ( 87,272)     $  (399,686)   $  (1,620,793)   $  (1,446,992)
                                                     ------------     -----------    -------------    --------------
                                                     ------------     -----------    -------------    --------------
Weighted average common and common equivalent 
    shares outstanding                                 6,495,558        6,421,440        6,462,643        5,284,641

Common shares, options and warrants granted 
(using the treasury stock method assuming an 
initial public offering price of $13.00) since
March 16, 1995 included pursuant to Securities
and Exchange Commission Rules                                  -          251,259                -          251,259
                                                     ------------     -----------    -------------    --------------

Weighted average common and equivalent shares 
    outstanding                                        6,495,558        6,672,699        6,462,643        5,535,900
                                                     ------------     -----------    -------------    --------------
                                                     ------------     -----------    -------------    --------------

Net income (loss) per common and common 
       equivalent share                              $     (0.01)     $     (0.06)   $       (0.25)   $       (0.26)
                                                     ------------     -----------    -------------    --------------
                                                     ------------     -----------    -------------    --------------

</TABLE>