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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 932 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 932

   To authorize certain long-term contracts for Federal purchases of 
                                energy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 2019

 Mr. Welch (for himself and Mr. Norman) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
 addition to the Committee on Oversight and Reform, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize certain long-term contracts for Federal purchases of 
                                energy.

    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 ``Renewable Energy Certainty Act''.

SEC. 2. CONTRACTS FOR FEDERAL PURCHASES OF ENERGY.

    (a) In General.--Part 3 of title V of the National Energy 
Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8251 et seq.) is amended by adding 
at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 554. LONG-TERM CONTRACTS FOR ENERGY.

    ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 501(b)(1)(B) of title 
40, United States Code, an agency may enter into a contract for the 
acquisition of energy generated from renewable energy sources or from 
cogeneration facilities covering a period of not more than 30 years.
    ``(b) Standardized Energy Purchase Agreement.--Not later than 90 
days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary, 
through the Federal Energy Management Program, shall publish a 
standardized energy purchase agreement, setting forth commercial terms 
and conditions, that agencies may use to acquire energy generated from 
renewable energy sources or from cogeneration facilities.
    ``(c) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide technical 
assistance to assist agencies in implementing this section.''.
    (b) Table of Contents Amendment.--The table of contents for such 
Act is amended by adding at the end of the items relating to such part 
3 the following new item:

``Sec. 554. Long-term contracts for energy.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         In connection  with the quarterly  report of Capital  Solutions I, Inc.
(the  "COMPANY") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  November 30, 2004 as filed
with the SEC on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I hereby certify, in my capacity
as an officer of the  Company,  for purposes of 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350,  as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:  January 19, 2005



                                                By: /s/ CHRISTOPHER ASTROM
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                     Christopher Astrom
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     January 19, 2005
Welcome to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's Energy Efficiency Web Site. 
If you are having trouble, call 202-586-8800 for help.Home > Energy 
            Users >Energy 
            Efficiency Page >Carbon Emissions in the Food Industry


Carbon 
        Emissions in the Food IndustryThe 
            Industry at a Glance, 1994(SIC Code: 20)Total Energy-Related 
            Emissions: 24.4 million metric tons of carbon (MMTC)
                 -- Pct. of All Manufacturers: 6.6%Total First Use of Energy: 
            1,193 trillion Btu
                 -- Pct. of All Manufacturers: 5.5%Carbon Intensity: 20.44 
            MMTC per quadrillion Btu Energy Information Administration, "1994 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 
            Survey" and Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 
            1998
    Energy-Related 
            Carbon Emissions, 1994Source 
            of Carbon
          Carbon 
            Emissions
            (million metric tons)All 
            Energy Sources
          24.4Net 
            Electricity
          9.8Natural 
            Gas
          9.1Coal
          4.2All 
            Other Sources
          1.3Energy Information Administration, "1994 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 
            Survey" and Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 
            1998Energy-Related 
        Carbon Emissions for Selected Food Industries, 1994. The food industry 
        group encompasses a wide variety of industries. The wet corn milling industry 
        emits almost a sixth of the energy-related carbon in the food industry. 
        Emissions for Selected Food Industries
      Energy-Related 
        Carbon Emissions for the Food Industry by Source, 1994. Two sources, 
        natural gas and electricity, each account for roughly 40 percent of the 
        energy-related carbon emissions in the food industry. About one-sixth 
        of the emissions come from the use of coal. Emissions for the Food Industry by Source
      [Energy-Related 
          Carbon Emissions in Manufacturing]
      
      Contact:
        Stephanie 
          Battles
        Stephanie.Battles@eia.doe.gov
        (Phone: 
          (202) 586-7237)
        FAX: 
          202-586-0018**Contact Us**
	 
	  URL: http://www.eia.gov/emeu/efficiency/carbon_emissions/food.html File 
        Last Modified: May 31, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 17605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9266]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-311-000]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

April 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on April 1, 1996, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet to be effective June 
1, 1997:

Third Revised Sheet No. 109

    ANR submits that the purpose of this filing is to propose a 
modification to its General Terms and Conditions to permit shippers to 
make pool-to-pool transfers at the Headstations in its Southeast and 
Southwest supply areas.
    ANR states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers and state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-9266 Filed 4-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

                                                                                        EXHIBIT 99.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of The St. Lawrence Seaway  Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Joel M. Greenblatt,  Chairman of the Board of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Rule 1350, as adopted pursuant to Rule 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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Joel M. Greenblatt
-----------------------------
Joel M. Greenblatt
Chairman of the Board
June 27, 2003
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21–0593

LANCE MILLION, 

 Claimant, Objector and Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF MONTANA, ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Objectors and Appellees. 

ORDER GRANTING STATE’S UNOPPOSED MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE BRIEF

Upon consideration of Objectors and Appellees’ motion for a 30-day 

extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Objectors and 

Appellees are granted an extension of time to and including May 3, 2022, 

within which to prepare, serve, and file their Response Brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

March 28 2022

03/28/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0593
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1475

In Re: WILLIAM ERNEST HOLLAND,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(5:94-cr-00027-RLV-1)

Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: June 30, 2008

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Ernest Holland, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Ernest Holland petitions for a writ of mandamus,

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion

for reduction of sentence. He seeks an order from this court

directing the district court to act. Although we find that

mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not

unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to

the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does

not act expeditiously. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
# C_2019124EN.01000102.xml

| 3.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 124/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 124/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8950 — BASF DOM Business/Solenis/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 124/02)

On 11 December 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8950. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8950. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 17284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9097]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33378]


Sierra Pacific Industries; Acquisition and Operation Exemption; 
Amador Central Railroad Company

    Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI), a Class III rail carrier, has 
filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire and operate 
approximately 12 miles of rail line currently owned and operated by the 
Amador Central Railroad Company (ACRC), between milepost 0.0 at Ione 
and milepost 12.0 at Martell, in Amador County, CA. Included in the 
acquisition are a rail yard and associated tracks.
    This transaction was scheduled to be consummated on March 31, 1997.
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke does not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33378, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., 
Washington DC 20423-0001. A copy of all pleadings must be served on 
applicant's representative: James F. Flint, Grove, Jaskiewicz and 
Cobert, 1730 M Street, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036.

    Decided: April 3, 1997.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-9097 Filed 4-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
#### Perkins v. Prestige Cabinets

107,233

08/19/13

Denied.

Unpublished
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 581



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III No. CV-13-75

TIMOTHY ROGER SIMPSON, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF EDITH LAVERNE SIMPSON, DECEASED APPELLANT V. BOBBY SIMPSON ET AL. APPELLEES Opinion Delivered October 9, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT [NO. PR-10-131] HONORABLE PAMELA HONEYCUTT, JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant Timothy Roger Simpson, as the personal representative of the Estate of Edith Laverne Simpson, deceased, appeals the September 5, 2012 order of the Craighead Circuit Court setting aside Edith’s May 8, 2006 will. 1 Appellant argues that the court erred by setting the will aside. We do not reach the merits of appellant’s arguments due to deficiencies in the abstract and brief. 2

1 The order lists the date of the will as May 8, 2010, but it is clear that the will set aside was created in 2006.

2 There are also deficiencies in appellant’s addendum, but appellees were diligent in supplementing the addendum with the missing documents.Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 581

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(3) 3 requires the appellant to list and separately number the points relied upon for reversal of the judgment or decree. These points must be concise and without argument. Here, appellant has failed to include the points on appeal in the brief. We note that the index includes a page number for the points on appeal, but the points are not found in the brief. Additionally, the second page of appellant’s jurisdictional statement is missing from the brief. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5) requires an abstract of stenographically reported material that is essential for the appellate court to understand the case and to decide the issues on appeal. The abstract must not contain a verbatim reproduction of the transcript or use a question-and-answer format. Additionally, when abstracting the testimony the first person (“I”) rather than the third person (“He or She”) must be used. Here, appellant has included verbatim portions of the transcript in the abstract, including the question-and-answer format, which is expressly forbidden. Appellant has also failed to use the first person when abstracting some of the testimony. We order appellant to submit a substituted brief, abstract, and addendum correcting the above-referenced deficiencies within fifteen days. We encourage appellant to review Rule 4-2 of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals to ensure that the substituted abstract, brief, and addendum comply with the rules and that no additional deficiencies are present. After service of the substituted abstract, brief, and addendum,

3 (2012)

. 2Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 581

appellees shall have an opportunity to revise or supplement its brief in the time prescribed by the clerk, or to rely on the brief that it previously filed in this appeal. Rebriefing ordered. H ARRISON and WYNNE , JJ., agree. Dover and Zolper , by: Dennis M. Zolper , and Chrestman Group, PLLC , by: Keith L. Chrestman , for appellant. Dick Jarboe , for appellee.

3
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT (23)

                            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                         CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Rowe Companies
McLean, Virginia

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our reports dated
January 12, 2000, relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule
of The Rowe Companies appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended November 28, 1999 into the Company's previously filed
registration statements file numbers 2-94943, 33-90486, 33-77766, 33-77768 and
333-82571.

                                     /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
                                     --------------------

                                     BDO Seidman, LLP

High Point, North Carolina
February 19, 2000
#### State v. Allen

107,871

11/04/13

Denied

Unpublished
S95A0897.

#### BARCLAY et al. v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF POLK COUNTY.

(462 SE2d 374)

Benham, Chief Justice.

In September 1992, Peggy Ruth Barclay co-signed a note with one of her daughters to First National Bank of Polk County (hereinafter “First National”). She had previously submitted to the bank as part of the loan application process a financial statement showing a net worth well in excess of the amount of the loan. In October 1992, she transferred all her property to her husband and another daughter without consideration. When the note subsequently went into default, First National sued Barclay and obtained a default judgment. First National then filed an action against Barclay and her husband and the daughter to whom Barclay transferred property, seeking to set aside the conveyances as fraudulent. This appeal is from the trial court’s grant of First National’s motion for summary judgment.

“The following acts by debtors shall be fraudulent in law against creditors and others and as to them shall be null and void: ... (3) Every voluntary deed or conveyance, not for a valuable consideration, made by a debtor who is insolvent at the time of the conveyance.” OCGA § 18-2-22. Under the cited Code section, a creditor seeking to set aside a conveyance need only show

> “the indebtedness, the insolvency of the debtor, and that the deed was voluntary. When these facts are proved, the law conclusively presumes a fraudulent intent and declares the instrument void so far as creditors who held demands against the debtor at the time of the conveyance are concerned. [Cit.]”

*Chambers v. C & S Nat. Bank,*242 Ga. 498 (1) (a) (249 SE2d 214) (1978).

In the present case, the indebtedness was never denied. Deposition testimony of the defendants that the conveyances in question here left Barclay without property of sufficient value to pay her indebtedness, established that she was insolvent. *Chambers,*supra. The same depositions also established that the conveyances were made *745without present consideration, which makes them voluntary within the meaning of the statute. *Brown v. C & S Nat. Bank,*168 Ga. App. 385 (2) (308 SE2d 850) (1983). It follows, therefore, that the established facts in this case, when applied to the holding in *Chambers,*demanded judgment for First National.

Decided October 16, 1995.

*Dimmock & Hill, J. Carey Hill,*for appellants.

*Robert K. Ballew, Bryan C. Drost,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
**Exhibit 23.5**
**Consent of Registered Independent PublicAccountants**We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-7410, 333-7412, 333-11022, 333-13384, 333-102183and 333-97935) of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company of our reportdated March 5, 2003, except for Note 2(a) (FirstRestatement of Previously Issued Financial Statements), which isas of May 22, 2004, and except for Note 2(b) (SecondRestatement of previously issued financial statements) andNote 30 (Subsequent events) which are as of March 3,2005, relating to the Financial Statements of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies which is included in this AmendmentNo. 2.
/s/ KPMG Accountants N.V.-----------------------------------------------------
**KPMG Accountants N.V.****The Hague — TheNetherlands**
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP-----------------------------------------------------
**PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP****London — United Kingdom**
March 3, 2005 **E 6**      Exhibits 20-F/A (Amendment No. 2) 2002
# C_2019096EN.01000101.xml

| 13.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9093 — DP World Investments/Unifeeder)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 96/01)

On 4 December 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9093. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9093. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---