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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 90 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 90

               To authorize testimony by Senate employee.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 16, 1995

    Mr. Dole (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
               To authorize testimony by Senate employee.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Francisco M. Duran, Cr. No. 94-447, 
        pending in the United States District Court for the District of 
        Columbia, a subpoena for testimony has been issued to Laura DiBiase, an 
        employee of the Senate on the staff of Senator Campbell;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial process, be taken from 
        such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with 
        the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Laura DiBiase is authorized to produce records and 
to testify in the case of United States v. Francisco M. Duran, Cr. No. 
94-447 (D.D.C.), except concerning matters for which a privilege should 
be asserted.
                                 <all>
```
1

Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 4:39 PM

To: 'tlankford@icloud.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - Skeye I LLC

Dear Mr. Lankford:  

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA‐2015‐

1405).  This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.  

* Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e. ‐ fixed‐wing,rotorcraft, lighter‐than‐air) for the

proposed UAS operation.  The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload).  This

information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).  

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e‐mail to

333exemptions@faa.gov.  If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information

described above by 7/1/2015.  If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying

you further.  

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267‐9521.  

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202‐267‐9521
Ravenna Sanders-Bey, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Ken Salazar, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 

FILED 

MAY 1 9 2010 

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts for the District of Columbia 

Defendant. 10 U830 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The plaintiff has filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees and a pro se 

complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

The plaintiff is identified as a member of the Washitaw Nation of Muurs, and this case is 

identified as a putative class action related to Cabell v. Salazar, 96-cv-1285 (JR) (D.D.C.). 

Compl. at 1-3. Making reference to an "Indigenous Washitaw Contract" dated June 20, 1797, 

and confirmed and ratified by Congress on April 29, 1816, see Compl. at 3, the plaintiff seeks 

relief in the form of orders for two writs of mandamus, one "in the nature of a Subrogation / 

Indemnification Action for both 'compensatory' and 'exemplary' damages," and the other for 

"'just compensation' in an amount assessed by the Court for Fifth Amendment 'takings' .... " 

Grounds and Relief Sought at 2. 

The request for mandamus relief requires that this complaint be dismissed. The remedy 

of mandamus "is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances." Allied 

Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980). Only "exceptional circumstances" 

warranting "a judicial usurpation of power" will justify issuance of the writ. Gulfstream 

s 
Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (internal quotation marks 

omitted)); see also Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 473 F.3d 345,353 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (stating that 

mandamus is "an extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary cases") (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). Mandamus is available only if"(1) the plaintiff has a 

clear right to relief; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other adequate 

remedy available to plaintiff." In re Medicare Reimbursement Litigation, 414 F.3d 7, 10 (D.C. 

Cir. 2005) (quoting Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781, 784 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). With respect to the 

first two requirements, mandamus is available "only where the duty to be performed is 

ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory and clearly defined. The law must not only 

authorize the demanded action, but require it; the duty must be clear and indisputable." Lozada 

Colon v. Us. Dep't a/State, 170 F.3d 191 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (per curiam)(internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

The complaint does not, and on these facts cannot, establish either that the plaintiff has a 

clear right to the relief requested or that the defendant has a clear duty to perform a ministerial, 

clearly defined, and peremptory act. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

A separate order accompanies this memorandu 

Date: ~ States District Judge 

2
#### Michael Anthony PAIGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Katie POOLE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7546

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 2, 2018

Michael Anthony Paige, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Nicholaos George Vlahos, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*183Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Paige seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). *‘[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 10, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on November 14, 2017.* Because Paige failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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*

*

 For'the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could haye been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         223,710
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,231,289
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (17,850)
<INVENTORY>                                    776,833
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,637,366
<PP&E>                                         1,193,798
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (374,311)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,558,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,263,757
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       6,880,068
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,585,698)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,558,126
<SALES>                                        904,888
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               904,888
<CGS>                                          366,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  392,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,078
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                146,361
<INCOME-TAX>                                   200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            146,161
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   146,161
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.02


</TABLE>
DARRYL DEWAYNE SCOTT

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 2568

Opinion filed August 4, 2016.

Petition for Belated Appeal

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Darryl Dewayne Scott, pro se

, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General,

Tallahassee

, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 4391** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. VIRGIL AVERY WITHERS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1 :1 1

- cr - 00 371

- CCE

- 1 )

Submitted : November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013

Before WYNN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion
. Virgil Avery Withers , Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro , North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM: Virgil Avery Withers, who finished serving a 151

- month sentence on his conviction to two counts of bank robbery , now appeals the district court’s order modifying the conditions of his supervised release to require him to participate in a
prog ram of the R esidential Re

- entry C enter. Because “ [d]istrict courts have broad latitude to impose conditions on supervised release,” the conditions imposed are reviewed “only for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Armel , 585 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 20 09) (internal quotation marks omitted). On appeal, Withers challenges , as he did below, the district court’s jurisdiction to convict him on the original charges. Because Withers fails to specifically challenge the modification order and we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal co ntentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15481-15482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05729]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #17368 and #17369; VIRGINIA Disaster Number VA-
00099]


Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Virginia

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Virginia 
(FEMA-4644-DR), dated 03/11/2022.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storm and Snowstorm.
    Incident Period: 01/02/2022 through 01/03/2022.

DATES: Issued on 03/11/2022.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/10/2022.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/12/2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 03/11/2022, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Albemarle, Amelia, Appomattox, Bedford, Buckingham, 
Caroline, Charlotte, Culpeper, Cumberland, Essex, Fauquier, Fluvanna, 
Fredericksburg City, Goochland, Greene, Hanover, King George, King 
William, Louisa, Madison, Nelson, Orange, Powhatan, Prince Edward, 
Rappahannock, Spotsylvania, Stafford, Westmoreland.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      1.875
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      1.875
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      1.875
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17368 B 
and for economic injury is 17369 0.


[[Page 15482]]


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Barbara Carson,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2022-05729 Filed 3-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5889 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5889

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2016

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 1 Chalan Kanoa VLG in Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, as the 
    ``Segundo T. Sablan and CNMI Fallen Military Heroes Post Office 
                              Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SEGUNDO T. SABLAN AND CNMI FALLEN MILITARY HEROES POST 
              OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1 Chalan Kanoa VLG in Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Segundo T. Sablan and CNMI 
Fallen Military Heroes 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 ``Segundo T. 
Sablan and CNMI Fallen Military Heroes Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 20, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>




                                                                  Exhibit 11.1
<TABLE>

<CAPTION>



                                                       Three Months Ended
                                                  April 3, 1998  April 4, 1997
                                                  -------------  -------------
<S>                                               <C>            <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding                  9,306,710      9,057,740

Effect of common and common equivalent shares
   issued by the Company during the twelve month
   period immediately preceding the Company's
   registration for initial public offering on
   August 2, 1996                                           --             --
                                                   -----------    -----------
Total shares                                         9,306,710      9,057,740
                                                   -----------    -----------

Net loss                                           $(1,910,238)   $(2,341,691)

Net loss per share  Basic                          $     (0.21)   $     (0.26)

                    Diluted                        $     (0.21)   $     (0.26)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MINDSPRING ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         386,833
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,501
<INVENTORY>                                        415
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               403,685
<PP&E>                                         106,351
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 719,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,111
<BONDS>                                        179,975
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           635
<OTHER-SE>                                     479,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   719,543
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               235,468
<CGS>                                           78,882
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               120,580
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,430
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (34,784)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,565
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (21,219)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21,219)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.35)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
 **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION 302 OF THE**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I, Patrick J. Goodman, certify that:
 
 1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofCE Casecnan Water and Energy Company; Inc.2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.

The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and5.

The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Date:  November 4, 2004
 
 /s/ Patrick J. Goodman
 Patrick J. Goodman
 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 (chief financial officer)