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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2726 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 18, 2019 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation 

AN ACT 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit smoking 

on Amtrak trains. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2726 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Banning Smoking on 

3 Amtrak Act of 2019’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SMOKING ON AMTRAK TRAINS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 243 of title 49, United 

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘§ 24323. Prohibition on smoking on Amtrak trains 

9 ‘‘(a) PROHIBITION.—Beginning on the date of enact10 ment of the Banning Smoking on Amtrak Act of 2019, 

11 Amtrak shall prohibit smoking on board Amtrak trains. 

12 ‘‘(b) ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES.— 

13 ‘‘(1) INCLUSION.—The use of an electronic cig14 arette shall be treated as smoking for purposes of 

15 this section. 

16 ‘‘(2) ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE DEFINED.—In 

17 this section, the term ‘electronic cigarette’ means a 

18 device that delivers nicotine or other substances to 

19 a user of the device in the form of a vapor that is 

20 inhaled to simulate the experience of smoking.’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2726 RFS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec2 tions for chapter 243 of title 49, United States Code, is 

3 amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘24323. Prohibition on smoking on Amtrak trains.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 17, 

2019. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 24(b)**

 

**DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION**

 

**CERTIFIED RESOLUTIONS**

 

**Form 10-K Annual Report Resolutions**

 

**RESOLVED**, That the Audit Committee be and hereby is appointed to review the Form 10-K Annual Report (including theCorporation’s audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2003), provide an opportunity for full Board review of such document and approve the document on behalf of the Board of Directors for filing with the Securities andExchange Commission, with such changes therein as may be deemed necessary or advisable by the officers of the Corporation; and 

 

**FURTHER RESOLVED**, That the Power of Attorney as presented to the meeting and executed by the Directors present be and hereby isapproved in form and content for purposes of filing the Form 10-K Annual Report with the Securities and Exchange Commission.****

 

* * * * * * * 

 

I, SUE C. HARRINGTON, Assistant Secretary of Duke Energy Corporation, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and complete extract from theMinutes of the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of said Corporation held on February 24, 2004, at which meeting a quorum was present. 

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Corporate Seal of said Duke Energy Corporation, this the 11th day of March, 2004.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 99th District Court of Lubbock County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on October 3,

2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Garry White v. Officer J. Bevan, Patricia Aristimono, M.D.,

Benson Alfred, Officer J. Garue, Jesse Hurley, L.V.N.,

Dr. Twalisha Williams, Beatrice Gutierrez, and Officer Wanida Harrell

Case Number: 07-14-00234-CV Trial Court Number: 2013-506,098

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated Friday, October 3, 2014, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that this appeal be dismissed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on February 10, 2015

.



# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                     Exhibit 21


                         EDO CORPORATION'S SUBSIDIARIES

                               ACTIVE SUBSIDARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       NAMES UNDER WHICH
             SUBSIDIARY               STATE OF INCORPORATION       SUBSIDIARY DOES BUSINESS
<S>                                   <C>                      <C>
Advanced Engineering and Research,    Virginia                 AERA Incorporated
Inc.                                                           AERA Inc.
                                                               Virginia AERA, Inc.
AIL Technologies Inc.                 Delaware                 EDO Technical Services Operations

AIL Systems Inc. (owned by AIL        Delaware
Technologies Inc.)

Darlington Inc.                       Delaware                 Darlington Incorporated.
                                                               Darlington Inc.
                                                               Darlington of Virginia Inc.

EDO Communications and                California
Countermeasures Systems Inc.

EDO Professional Services Inc.        Delaware

EDO Western Corporation               Utah                     EDO Electro-Ceramic Products

M. Technologies Inc.                  Pennsylvania             EDO M. Tech

Specialty Plastics, Inc.              Louisiana                EDO Specialty Plastics

EDO Reconnaissance and Surveillance   Delaware                 EDO Communications,
Systems Inc.                                                   Countermeasures Systems
</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

TRAVIS RAY STUCKY,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D18-580

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 24, 2018

3.853 Appeal from the Circuit 

Court for Brevard County,

Robin C. Lemonidis, Judge.

Travis Ray Stucky, Bushnell, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court denied Appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 motion 

for DNA testing because it was facially insufficient. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(c)(2). We 

agree and affirm without prejudice. Appellant may refile a facially sufficient motion if he 

can do so in good faith. See Rosa v. State, 147 So. 3d 583, 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); 

Luckner v. State, 979 So. 2d 1121, 1121–22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
# Susquehanna installation Fire and Emergency Services chosen as Director’s Strategic Winners for the second quarter of FY16

/ Published July 28, 2016
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
Fire and Emergency Services at Susquehanna, Defense Logistics Agency Installation Support, has been named DLA Director Air Force Lt. Gen. Andy Busch’s Strategic Goals Award winners for the second quarter of fiscal 2016.

This quarterly award recognizes measurable contributions made by teams or individuals toward achieving the goals set forth in the DLA Strategic Plan.

The team is recognized in the Process Excellence goal area for achieving their second national accreditation from the Commission on Fire Accreditation International. 

The reaccreditation was the culmination of five years of dedicated effort by all members of the fire department and is indicative of process excellence. 

The accreditation model of the Center for Public Safety Excellence is based on quality process improvement. The process requires the agency to receive a site visit every five years. The process becomes more stringent each cycle as the model becomes ingrained.

“The achievement of Accredited Agency status demonstrates the commitment of the agency to provide the highest quality of service to our community,” said Susquehanna fire chief Henry C. Hoffman Jr.  “We have been able to use the Commission on Fire Accreditation International’s process as a proactive mechanism to plan for the future and locate areas where we can improve on the quality of the services we provide.”
No. 09-11569.

#### Michael Ingram, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 888, 131 S. Ct. 222,

178 L. Ed. 2d 134,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7059.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 594 F.3d 972.
September 2 0 , 2016

Exemption No. 12697 A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 2417

Mr. Stephen Gowdy

Gowdy Brothers Aerospace, LLC.

Consultant for Topview, Inc.

8170 Old Carriage Court N., Suite #200

Shakopee, MN 55379

Dear Mr. Gowdy :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter dated May 1, 2016 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of Topview, Inc. (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to your current

exemption . That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and ( c ), 61.101 (e)(4 ) and (5), 61.113(a),

61.315(a) , 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and

(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the

petitioner to conduct UAS operations

. You requested an amendment to change the company

name from Django Greenblatt

- Seay to Topview, Inc. 1

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for grant ing the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this pe ti tion would be detrimental to the petitioner

.

1 The petitioner also requested to add aircraft. At this time, the FAA is unable to act on this request. When the

FAA is ready to act, we will proceed accordingly and no further ac tion will be required by the petitioner.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 12697

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is

granted an amendment to change the operator name

.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, Topview, Inc. is hereafter referred to as the operator. All

conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 12697 remain in effect

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

T his exemption terminates on September 30, 2017 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/ s/

John S. Duncan

Di rector, Flight Standards Service
##### 



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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of R.H. Donnelley
Corporation for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned officers hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
such officers 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 R.H. Donnelley Corporation as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report. /s/ David C. Swanson
David C. Swanson
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
March 12, 2004
    
    /s/ Steven M. Blondy
Steven M. Blondy
SVP and Chief Financial Officer
March 12, 2004
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
# C_2015146EN.01004901.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/49

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-90/13) (1)

1

((Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings - Failure to designate a new representative - Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 146/67)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: A., lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s requests for compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the infringement alleged of the applicant’s right to confidentiality caused by the defendant’s sending a letter concerning him to a lawyer who did not represent him.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-90/13 Marcuccio v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-90/13 Marcuccio v Commission.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014, p. 40.

1

---
No. 10-6094.

#### Ronald D. Dingle, Petitioner v. Robert M. Stevenson, Warden.

562 U.S. 1125, 131 S. Ct. 854,

178 L. Ed. 2d 585,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9617.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 516, 178 L. Ed. 2d 381, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8516.
2017-1369.

#### State v. Wright.

Carroll App. No. 15 CA 0907, 2017-Ohio-8549. Reported at 151 Ohio St.3d 1451, 2017-Ohio-8842, 87 N.E.3d 220. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
# C_2014045EN.01003402.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/34

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 8 January 2014 — Stichting Sona and Nao v Commission

(Case T-505/13 R)

(Interim measures - Arrangements for the association of overseas countries and territories - 10th European Development Fund - Implementing rules - Netherlands Antilles - Application for suspension of implementation - Application for interim measures - Whether admissible)

2014/C 45/59

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Stichting Sona (Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles) and Nao NV (Curaçao) (represented by: R. Martens, K. Beirnaert and A. Van Vaerenbergh, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek, G. Wils and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application (i) for suspension of the implementation of the Commission’s decision to designate International Management Group as the body to which powers are delegated in the context of the indirect centralised management of resources required to implement the single programming document for the Netherlands Antilles under the 10th European Development Fund and (ii) requesting the General Court provisionally to order the Commission to enter into negotiations with the applicants in good faith with a view to concluding a delegation agreement entrusting Stichting Sona with the tasks for the implementation of the 10th European Development Fund concerning the Netherlands Antilles, pending publication of the final report of the European Anti-Fraud Office following the investigation of the drainage project on the island of Bonaire.

th

th

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
No. 10-6358.

#### Sala-Thiel Thompson, Petitioner v. Wayne Choinski, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 974, 131 S. Ct. 493,

178 L. Ed. 2d 312,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7919.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 222.
**EXHIBIT 21**
**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**
1. Elk Premium Building Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation, whichowns all of the outstanding stock of (a) Elk Corporation of America, aNevada corporation, (b) Elk Corporation of Alabama, a Delawarecorporation, (c) Elk Corporation of Texas, a Nevada corporation, (d)Elk Corporation of Arkansas, an Arkansas corporation, (e) ElkPerformance Nonwoven Fabrics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and (f) ElkComposite Building Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
2. Elk Technology Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, which owns allof the outstanding stock of (a) Chromium Corporation, a Delawarecorporation, (b) Elk Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (c)OEL, LTD, d/b/a Ortloff Engineers, LTD, a Nevada corporation, (d)Cybershield of Georgia, Inc., a Georgia corporation, and (e) LufkinPath Forward, Inc., a Texas corporation and successor by merger withCybershield, Inc., Cybershield of Texas, Inc. and CybershieldInternational, Inc.
3. Elk Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation, which is a general partnerwith a 1% partnership interest in Elk Group, L.P. (Elk Group L.P.), aTexas limited partnership.
4. NELPA, Inc., a Nevada corporation, which is a limited partner witha 99% partnership interest in Elk Group L.P.
5. Ortloff de Venezuela, S.A., a Republic of Venezuela corporation.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 50099 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,** 
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Ochuko Sylvester Eruotor,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:16

- CR

- 347

- 3

**_____________ _________________**  Before **Willett ,**  **Duncan ,**  and **Wilson ,**  Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Ochuko Sylvester Eruotor , federal prisoner # 98555

- 380 , appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 1 8 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (1)(A)(i). He is serving a 168

- month sentence for conspiracy to commit money laundering . On appeal, Eruotor argues that the district

court ’s consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors was deficient because

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 31, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50099 Document: 00516950201 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2023No. 23

- 50099

2 it failed to consider (1) the disparity between Eruoto r ’s sentence and those of his codefendants and (2) Eruot or’s rehabilitation efforts in prison. With the benefit of liberal construction, h e also arg ues that the district court failed to adequately explain its reason for denying his motion

. We review a district court’s order denying compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020)

. The distric t court’s order demonstrates that it adequately considered and rejected Eruotor ’s arguments. See Concepcion v. United States , 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405 (2022); United States v. Escajeda , 58 F.4th 184, 188 (5th Cir. 2023) ; United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009)

. T he district

court stated that it conducted a complete review of the motion on the merits and concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of relief. Eruotor “may disagree with how the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors, [but] that is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” Chambliss , 948 F.3d
at 694.

We also reject Eruotor’s attempt to challenge the district court’s imposition of the § 3B1.1(a) sentencing enhancement for his role as a “leader or organizer” of the conspiracy

. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Eruotor “ cannot use § 3582(c) to challenge the legality or the duration of his sentence.” Escajeda , 58 F.4th at 187

. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that relief was unwarranted under § 3553(a), we need not consider Eruotor’s argument that the district court erred in finding that Eruotor failed to show extraordinary and compelling reason s warranting relief

. See United States v. Ward , 11 F.4th 354, 360

– 6 1 (5th Cir. 2021) ; Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 693. Accordingly, t he judgment is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 23-50099 Document: 00516950201 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2023
Dear Mr. Wilson:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition 

(Docket No. FAA−2015−3236). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) 

which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to 

proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation 

please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

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 email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any 

further, we must receive the information described above by 12/7/15. 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) 267-4549.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Cameron
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Escalade, Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Terry
D. Frandsen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ TERRY FRANDSEN
------------------------------
Terry D. Frandsen
Chief Financial Officer
March 9, 2007

                                       66