alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11-5029.

#### Seth Daniel Buffington, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 886, 132 S. Ct. 260,

181 L. Ed. 2d 152,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5814,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 11-5321.

#### Billy D. Davis, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 901, 132 S. Ct. 296,

181 L. Ed. 2d 180,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5739.

October 3, 2011.

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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2681 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a report 

on the availability of prosthetic items for women veterans from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2019 

Mr. PAPPAS (for himself and Ms. STEFANIK) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to 

Congress a report on the availability of prosthetic items 

for women veterans from the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPORT ON AVAILABILITY OF PROSTHETIC 

4 ITEMS FOR WOMEN VETERANS FROM THE 

5 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

6 Not later than one year after the date of the enact7 ment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 

8 submit to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the SenVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:03 May 21, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2681.IH H2681

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2681 IH

1 ate and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the House 

2 of Representatives a report on the availability from the 

3 Department of Veterans Affairs of prosthetic items made 

4 for women veterans, including an assessment of the avail5 ability of such prosthetic items at each medical facility of 

6 the Department. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2008
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Lime Energy Co. and its subsidiaries.
 /s/ Jeffrey R. Mistarz

Jeffrey R. MistarzChief Financial OfficerMay 14, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19190]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-653-000]


Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

July 14, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 2, 1998, Tuscarora Gas Transmission 
Company (Applicant), 1575 Delucchi Lane, Suite 225, Post Office Box 
30057, Reno, Nevada 89520-3057, filed in Docket No. CP98-653-000 a 
request pursuant to Section 157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.211) for 
approval to construct and operate a tap, meter station and appurtenant 
facilities for the transportation of natural gas to the HL Power 
Company (HL Power) in Lassen County, California Under Applicant's 
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP93-685-000 et al., pursuant 
to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more fully set 
forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    Applicant proposes to transport volumes, initially up to 2,400 
Dekatherms per Day on interruptible basis, pursuant to the rates, 
terms, and conditions of Applicant's open access tariff. Applicant 
asserts that the construction of these facilities will enable HL Power 
to supplement its current fuel supply with natural gas. Applicant 
further asserts that none of its customers will be adversely affected 
by the certification of approximately $35,000. Applicant states that it 
will pay for the construction and acquisition of the facilities 
proposed herein. It is also asserted that the proposed facilities will 
have no effect on Applicant's ability to deliver natural gas to its 
existing customers at pressures in conformity with existing contracts 
and tariffs.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 45 days of the 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.214), a motion to intervene and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activities shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, 
the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-19190 Filed 7-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
     
 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    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 (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  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.
  /S/ ROBERT GREENBERG

Robert GreenbergChief Executive Officer
*DoD 4000.25-7-M, March 2004*

DLM 4000.25, Volume 4

**DIC FG1/FG2/GG1/GG2 FORMAT**

**GSA CUSTOMER SUPPLY CENTER BILLING**

120

	APPENDIX 3.14

1
No. 09-9903.

#### Luis Roberto Martinez, Petitioner v. Derral G. Adams, Warden.

562 U.S. 1199, 131 S. Ct. 1042,

178 L. Ed. 2d 863,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 996.

January 24, 2011.

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

Same case below, 362 Fed. Appx. 882.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of reference of our report dated August 17, 1999, included and incorporated by
reference in Elcor Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 1999,
into Elcor Corporation's previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-8
(File No. 2087437) and For S-3 (File No. 2-87436).




                                       /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       Arthur Andersen LLP


Dallas, Texas
September 27, 1999
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7567

JAMES WILLIAM BERRY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden, “Newly Appointed”; JAMES RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner of Corrections; MICHAEL COLEMAN, Deputy Warden; BETTY SLAYTON, Magistrate of M.O.C.C.; CARL SHELLINGS, Unit Manager; WILLIAM KINCAID, Unit Manager; PETRISHA HENDSHEW, Postal Sup.; BRIAN STUMP, Correctional Officer; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-856)
Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 6, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James William Berry, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles Patrick Houdyschell, Jr., WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).PER CURIAM: James W. Berry, Sr., seeks to appeal from the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and (1) denying Berry’s motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, (2) granting the motion to dismiss filed by Correctional Medical Services, and (3) granting in part the remaining Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The district court denied the motion to dismiss this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action as to Berry’s discrimination, retaliation, and Eighth Amendment claims. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000). Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Except to the extent that Berry appeals from the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction, the order Berry seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. With respect to the appeal from the district court’s denial of Berry’s motion for a preliminary injunction, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeBerry v. McBride , No. CA-02-856 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 25, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts- 4 - and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 31, 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 00678

- CR

Matthew Clay Bode , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIA NA AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the par ties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. Because app ellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs

is made.
No. 11-5093.

#### John M. Redmond, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 889, 132 S. Ct. 268,

181 L. Ed. 2d 157,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5413.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 418 Fed. Appx. 403.
EXHIBIT 23.2
**NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP**
Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”),provides that if any part of a registration statement at the time such partbecomes effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact or omits tostate a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make thestatements therein not misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant tosuch registration statement (unless it is proved that at the time of suchacquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may sue, amongothers, every accountant who has consented to be named as having prepared orcertified any part of the registration statement, or as having prepared orcertified any report or valuation which is used in connection with theregistration statement, with respect to the statement in such registrationstatement, report, or valuation, which purports to have been prepared orcertified by the accountant.
On May 13, 2002, Three-Five Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) dismissed ArthurAndersen LLP (“Andersen”) as its independent auditor and appointed Deloitte &Touche LLP to replace Andersen. Prior to the date of filing this Form 10-K,Andersen ceased operations. As a result, after reasonable efforts, the Companyhas been unable to obtain Andersen’s written consent to the incorporation byreference of Andersen’s report dated January 21, 2002 with respect to theCompany’s financial statements as of December 31, 2001 and for the years endedDecember 31, 2001 and 2000 into the Company’s Registration Statements (Reg.Nos. 333-49274, 333-87875, 33-88706, 333-57933, 33-77600, 33-76090, 33-36968,333-32795, 333-50689, and 333-59234). Such audit report is included in thisForm 10-K.
Under these circumstances, Rule 437a of the Securities Act permits the Companyto file this Form 10-K, which is incorporated by reference into the abovelisted registration statements, without a written consent from Andersen.Accordingly, Andersen will not be liable to those persons purchasing the sharesregistered under those registration statements, under Section 11(a) of theSecurities Act because Andersen has not consented to the incorporation byreference in those registration statements of its report dated January 21, 2002appearing in the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,2001. The Company believes, however, that other persons who are liable underSection 11(a) of the Securities Act, including the Company’s officers anddirectors, may still rely on Andersen’s audit reports as being made by anexpert under the due diligence defense provision of Section 11(b) of theSecurities Act. The law in this area remains unsettled, however, and noassurance can be given that a court will find such reliance to be justified.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-51171

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEXIS MORGANFIELD

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CR-10-3

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Alexis Morganfield has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Morganfield has filed a response. Our independent review

of the record, counsel’s brief, and Morganfield’s response discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 

The record does reveal a clerical error in the judgment. See FED. R. CRIM.

P. 36. The restitution order states the amount of restitution as both

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 8, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-51171

2

“$387,405.87” and “$387,406.87.” The judgment should be amended to reflect

that the amount of restitution is $387,406.87, which is the total of the victims’

individual restitution awards. The judgment’s reference to “$387,405.87” should

be deleted and replaced with “$387,406.87.”

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel

is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. This matter is REMANDED for correction

of the clerical error pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 36. Morganfield’s pro se motion

for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                              EXHIBIT 23





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-85769, 333-85769-01, 333-85769-02 and 333-85769-03 on Form S-3 of TXU Gas
Company of our report dated February 14, 2003 (which includes an explanatory
paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 142 as described in Note 2 of the Notes to Financial Statements),
appearing in TXU Gas Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Dallas, Texas
March 28, 2003
*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP3.56. APPENDIX 3.56**

**ASSET STATUS REPORTING REQUEST**

AP3.56-1

APPENDIX 3.56
DLA FORM 1841-1, OCT 2011 PDF (DLA)

When evaluating your area, be sure to look at the environment from the child's age perspective as well as program type.

1. 

2.

MONTHLY CHILD AND YOUTH PROGRAMS OUTDOOR SAFETY CHECKLIST

Person(s) Completing Inspection (Name & Initials) Classroom # & Name of Room Lead Type of Room/Age Group Week of Inspection

Program/Center Classroom Number

1. There are no tripping hazrds (i.e. exposed 

 footing on anchoring devices, rocks, roots, or 

 any type of environmental obstacle in the play 

 area).

2. Clearance (fall) zones around swings and slides 

 are easily identified or clearly marked (see 

 CPSC Handbook for Playground Safety, Chap- 

 ter 5).

3. Riding toys, strollers, buggies, and tricycles 

 are in good operating condition.

4. Ground surface is smooth and even without 

 tripping hazards and free of drains, culverts, 

 holes, and any other hazard.

5. There are no toxic or poisonous plants and 

 plants must be labeled.

6. Trash removal, pest control, general mainten- 

 ance of facility and grounds is maintained. 

 Grassy areas are routinely maintained and free 

 of weeds and other debris.

Conditions to be Reviewed Date of Check Date of 

Correction Initials Corrective Actions Needed

COMMENTS

Signature - indicates that all corrective action(s) have been taken DATE

7. There are no flammables, combustibles, or 

 other harmful materials in the facility to include 

 the mechanical room. If flammable materials are 

 stored in outside sheds, they must be in 

 appropriate storage lockers.
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CR-7574, styled State v. Ricardo Lopez, pending in the 144th

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00438-CR

IN RE Ricardo LOPEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 12, 2009 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On July 20, 2009, relator Ricardo Lopez filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining

of the trial court’s failure to rule on his “Motion to Dismiss-Failure to Provide a Speedy Trial.” To

obtain a petition for writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to consider and rule on a motion,

a relator must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act;

(2) was asked to perform the act; and (3) failed or refused to do so. In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885,

886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). When a properly filed motion is pending

before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is ministerial, and
04-09-00438-CR

-2-

mandamus may issue to compel the trial judge to act. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945

S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). However, relator has the

burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a) (“Relator must file with the petition [ ] a certified or sworn copy of every

document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying

proceeding”);see also TEX.R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.

1992). Here, relator has not provided this court with a file stamped copy of his motions or any other

documents to support his claim for relief. Nor has relator established that the trial court has been

made aware of his motions or has expressly refused to rule on them. See In re Isbell, No. 04-06-

00558-CV, 2006 WL 3206075, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio November 8, 2006, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.). We conclude that relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

No leave is required to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.

Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is denied as moot. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
No. 10-10742.

#### Terrance A. Daugherty, Petitioner v. Sylvia Manone, et al.

565 U.S. 847, 132 S. Ct. 166,

181 L. Ed. 2d 79,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6058.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
No. 10-11122.

#### Antonio Diaz-Delgado, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 868, 132 S. Ct. 217,

181 L. Ed. 2d 119,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6797.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 422 Fed. Appx. 639.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 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/J.                Michael Wilson                 |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
| J.                Michael Wilson                    |
| Chairman                and Chief Executive Officer |
| November                14, 2007                    |