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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1100 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1100

     To amend the Tsunami Warning and Education Act to direct the 
 Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
   through the National Weather Service, to establish, maintain, and 
operate a Caribbean tsunami forecast and warning center in Puerto Rico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2011

Mr. Pierluisi (for himself, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Markey, 
  Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Ms. Bordallo, and Mr. 
   Sablan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Tsunami Warning and Education Act to direct the 
 Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
   through the National Weather Service, to establish, maintain, and 
operate a Caribbean tsunami forecast and warning center in Puerto Rico.

    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 ``Tsunami Forecasting and Warning 
Improvement Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENT OF TSUNAMI FORECASTING AND WARNING PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 4(d)(1) of the Tsunami Warning and 
Education Act (33 U.S.C. 3203(d)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``and'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
        and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
                    ``(C) a Caribbean Tsunami Warning Center in Puerto 
                Rico; and''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments in subsection (a) shall apply 
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Iris L. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1491

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed September 26, 2017

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Jonathan D. Ohlman, Judge.

AFFIRMED.
No. 12-6443.

#### Perez *v.*Dexter, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

September 4, 2012

h0827

Order 

September 4, 2012

144608

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144608

COA: 300763

ROY OWEN YARYAN, Oakland CC: 2007-215573-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2011 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                          5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of MCI Communications Corporation and Subsidiaries at March 31, 1998 and
the income statement for the three months ended March 31, 1998 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                                     0000064079
<NAME>                                    MCI Communications Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                               1,000,000
       
<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                           JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                           208
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  4,271
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     399
<INVENTORY>                                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               5,128
<PP&E>                                                        21,619
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 7,675
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                25,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          7,237
<BONDS>                                                        3,615
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            750
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                          74
<OTHER-SE>                                                    11,688
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  25,465
<SALES>                                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               5,288
<CGS>                                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  5,077
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                52
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  178
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      62
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              101
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     101
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0.14
        

</TABLE>
|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)           
|View History: Annual                                     
|View History: Annual                                     
|View History:                                            
|                                                         
|Michigan Natural Gas Balancing Item  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                         
|                                                         
|Michigan Natural Gas Balancing Item  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0   | Year-1   | Year-2   | Year-3   | Year-4   | Year-5   | Year-6   | Year-7   | Year-8  | Year-9  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | ------- | --------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |          |          |          |          |          |          |          | -80,902  | -46,696 | -61,103 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | -35,133  | -8,236   | -61,404  | -13,332  | -13,940  | -81,905  | 6,050    | -134,211 | -71,725 | -123,128
|2010's                                                                                                                            | -133,117 | -202,054 | -144,636 | -167,544 | -153,527 | -155,463 | -104,184 | -184,777 | -89,827 | 4,712   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | -122,196 | -149,251 | -269,040 |          |          |          |          |          |         |         
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frederick Freeman, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 529]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J., on motion; Norma Ruiz, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered October 2, 2000, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility and identification, including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).

The motion court properly denied the pretrial suppression motion made by defense counsel. That motion simply made an unavailing challenge to the undercover officer’s identification of defendant as unduly suggestive *(see People v Wharton,*74 NY2d 921 [1989]), and did not state any Fourth Amendment claim, including any claim under *Payton v New York*(445 US 573 [1980]). Thus, the court did not address any issue as to the legality of defendant’s arrest since none was raised by the motion. While defendant did make a pro se motion advancing a Fourth Amendment claim, he abandoned that motion *(see People v Graves,*85 NY2d 1024, 1027 [1995]). In any event, defendant’s allegations were insufficient, in light of his access to relevant information, to raise a factual issue warranting a hearing *(see People v Jones,*95 NY2d 721, 728-729 [2001]).

*243Defendant’s contentions concerning an alleged identification by the arresting officer in this buy-and-bust case are without merit. The record clearly establishes that the arresting officer never “previously identified” defendant within the meaning of CPL 710.30 (1) (b).

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a suppression hearing, made on the basis of trial testimony *(see*CPL 710.40 [2], [4]). There was nothing to prevent defendant from making a proper pretrial motion. In any event, the trial evidence did not reveal any viable Fourth Amendment issue.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion based on portions of the prosecutor’s summation. While the challenged remarks were better left unsaid, these isolated portions of the summation were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Sullivan, JJ.
082P15-2

#### In the Matter of A.E.C.

Petitioner’s Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COA16-495)

Allowed
THE 

# AITORNEY GENERAL OF’ TEXAS AUSTIN, **TEXAS** 787ll

May 1, 1975 The Honorable Mike McKinnon Chairman Opinion No. H- 597 Senate Subcommittee onNominations Texas State Senate State Capitol Austin, Texas 78711 Re: Whether the current Board ofRegents ofthe University of Texas System meets the statutory requirement that members be selected from different portions ofthe State. Dear Senator McKinnon:

You have requested our opinion concerning the legality ofthe composition ofthe present University of Texas Board ofRegents.

Inyour request you note that the Board ofRegents consists of two members from Houston, twofrom Austin, and one member each from Dallas, Ft. Worth, SanAntonio, Weatherford and Stonewall. You ask whether this geographical distribution violates section 65.12 ofthe Texas Education Code, which provides in part:

rT]he members shall be selected from different portions ofthe state. Inour view, this provision is entirely too general and ambiguous to support a determination ofillegality ofthe present geographical distribution. “Portion” is not defined and could mean one-ninth ofthe state or a larger area. This section does not make residence in an identifiable area aqualification for any particular place on the Board. Compare Tex. Con&. art. 16, sec. 14; V. T. C.S. Elec. Code, sec. 1.05. The word “portion” is not modified by some reference to the size or location of each portion. Compare, Diffie v. White, 184 S.W. 1065 (Tex. Civ. App. --Texarkana 1916, nowrit). Ifthe Legislature had intended geographical distribution to be a basis for challenge tomembers after they have been selected, it

p. 2655The Honorable Mike McKinnon page 2 (H-597)

could easily have made residence in an identifiable area aqualification for aparticular position on the Board. Accordingly, while section 65.12 may contemplate a more geographically diversified composition than that at present, we are unable to state as a matter oflaw that the Board of Regents of the University of Texas is illegally constituted. SUMMARY The present composition ofthe University of Texas System Board ofRegents is not as a matter oflaw violative of section 65.12 ofthe Education Code. Very truly yours,

// Attorney General of Texas APPROVED:

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 2656
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



I, Lynn Peterson, Chief Executive Officer of
WiFi Wireless, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the period ended December 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



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



| | Date: December 21, 2012       |                  
| | ----------------------------- | -----------------
| |                               |                  
| | By:                           | /s/ Lynn Peterson
| | Chief Executive Officer       |                  
| | (Principal Executive Officer) |
|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                              
|View History: Annual                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                        
|View History:                                                               
|                                                                            
|Mississippi Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                            
|                                                                            
|Mississippi Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 43,362 | 44,170 | 44,253
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 43,184 | 43,693 | 44,313 | 45,310 | 43,803 | 45,444 | 46,029 | 47,311 | 45,345 | 47,620
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 50,913 | 51,109 | 50,468 | 50,928 | 54,027 | 54,936 | 55,741 | 56,155 | 55,291 | 50,713
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 50,537 | 50,636 | 50,689 | 50,153 | 49,911 | 49,821 | 49,619 | 51,512 | 51,283 | 51,209
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 49,155 | 46,797 | 47,222 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
407P13-3

#### State v. Shawn Germaine Fraley

Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Habeas Corpus*

Denied 03/14/2017

Ervin, J., recused
#### IN RE: Julie Baker ZALLOUM, Debtor. Julie Baker Zalloum, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. River Oaks Community Services Association, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-11853 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 5, 2018)

*974Julie Baker Zalloum, Pro Se

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Julie Zalloum, proceeding *pro se,*appeals a district court order which dismissed as moot her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order overruling her objections to the proof of claims filed by River Oaks Community Services Association, Inc.’s in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. The district court ruled that Ms. Zalloum’s challenges were moot because her Chapter 13 case had been dismissed by the bankruptcy court.

Ms. Zalloum argues that the district court erred in dismissing her appeal as moot because (1) an ongoing controversy exists between River Oaks and herself, and (2) the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction and continues to enter orders relating. to other disputes. She also claims that the bankruptcy court erred when it overruled her objections to River Oaks’ proofs of claims.

We sit as a second court of review in bankruptcy matters, independently examining the factual and legal determinations of the bankruptcy court, and employing the same standards of review as the district court. *See in re Optical Techs., Inc.,*425 F.3d 1294, 1299-300 (11th Cir. 2005). We review *de novo*the bankruptcy court’s and district court’s legal conclusions, and review the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error. *See id.*at 1300. Mootness is a question of law subject to *de novo*review. *See Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. United States,*662 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2011).

Article III of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to cases and controversies. *See id.*at 1189. Accordingly, federal courts cannot offer advisory opinions on moot questions or on abstract propositions. *See id.*And federal courts cannot declare principles or rules of law outside those implicated by the matter directly before them. *See id.*A live controversy must exist at all stages of review. *See id.*at 1189-90.

A bankruptcy court’s dismissal of a debtor’s Chapter 13 case moots an appeal arising from the bankruptcy proceedings because, after dismissal, no Chapter 13 plan exists. *See Neidich v. Salas,*783 F.3d 1215, 1216 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding that the dismissal of a Chapter 13 case moots an appeal arising from the debtor’s bankruptcy proceedings). Applying *Salas*to this case, the appeal is moot because Ms. Zalloum’s Chapter 13 case was dismissed and there is no Chapter 13 proceeding to which Ms. Zalloum could object. We cannot grant any meaningful relief to Mrs. Zalloum in this appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                EXHIBIT 12

(Thousands of dollars)                       Nine Months Ended
                                             September 30, 1998 
                                             ------------------
EARNINGS

Income before interest expense                     $24,578
Add:
Income tax items                                     8,803
Income tax on other income                           1,243
Amortization of debt discount,
  premium expense                                      216
Allowance for funds used during construction -
  borrowed funds                                        42
Interest on rentals                                    678
                                                   -------
  Total Earnings                                   $35,560
                                                   =======
FIXED CHARGES

Interest on long-term debt                          $7,356
Other interest                                         558
Amortization of debt discount, premium expense         216
Interest on rentals                                    678
                                                    ------
  Total Fixed Charges                               $8,808
                                                    ======

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                   4.04x
                                                     =====