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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5537 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5537

 To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to 
James Megellas, of Colleyville, Texas, for acts of valor on January 28, 
         1945, during the Battle of the Bulge in World War II.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 6, 2006

  Mr. Petri introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to 
James Megellas, of Colleyville, Texas, for acts of valor on January 28, 
         1945, during the Battle of the Bulge in World War II.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION AND REQUEST FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO 
              JAMES MEGELLAS FOR ACTS OF VALOR DURING BATTLE OF THE 
              BULGE.

    (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized and requested to 
award the Medal of Honor under section 3741 of title 10, United States 
Code, to James Megellas, of Colleyville, Texas, for the acts of valor 
described in subsection (b).
    (b) Action Described.--The acts of valor referred to in subsection 
(a) are the actions of James Megellas on January 28, 1945, in 
Herresbach, Belgium, during the Battle of the Bulge, during World War 
II, when, as a first lieutenant in the 82d Airborne Division, he led a 
surprise and devastating attack on a much larger advancing enemy force, 
killing and capturing a large number and causing others to flee, 
single-handedly destroying an attacking German Mark V tank with two 
hand-held grenades, and then leading his men in clearing and seizing 
Herresbach.
    (c) Waiver of Time Limitations.--The award under subsection (a) may 
be made without regard to the time limitations specified in section 
3744(b) of title 10, United States Code, or any other time limitation 
established by law or regulation with respect to the awarding of 
certain medals to persons who served in the Army.
                                 <all>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6643** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:05

- cr
- 01044

- RBH

- 1 )

Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Raymond Edward Chestnut , Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Raymond Edward Chestnut appeals the district court ’ s

text order denying his Motion Preserving Error Under Rule 51 (b).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm

. United States v. Chestnut , No. 4:05

- cr
01044

- RBH

- 1 (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2013). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 2062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-544]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13281-000]


Alaska Power & Telephone Company; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

January 7, 2009.
    On August 19, 2008, and supplemented on November 12, 2008, Alaska 
Power & Telephone Company filed an application, pursuant to section 
4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of 
the Lake Shelokum Hydroelectric Project (Lake Shelokum). Lake Shelokum 
would be located on Lake Shelokum in the Prince of Wales--Outer 
Ketchikan Census Area, First Judicial District, Unincorporated Borough, 
Alaska. The proposed project would be located within the Tongass 
National Forest, whose lands are administered by the U.S. Forest 
Service.
    The proposed Lake Shelokum project would consist of: (1) A proposed 
100-foot-long, 15-foot-high concrete-faced, rock filled dam; (2) an 
existing reservoir having a proposed surface area of 400 acres and a 
storage capacity of 10,000 acre-feet and normal water surface elevation 
of 370 feet above mean low sea level (msl); (3) a proposed 2,500-foot-
long, 7-foot diameter steel penstock; (4) a proposed powerhouse 
containing two generating units having an installed capacity of 10-
megawatts; (5) a proposed 12-mile-long, 34.5-kilovault transmission 
line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed Lake Shelokum 
Project would have an average annual generation of 40-gigawatt-hours.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, 202-502-8735.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13281) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-544 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
| (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/      John J. Lennon                                              |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | John      J. Lennon                                                  |
|   | Title: | President,      Chief Executive Officer, Secretary and Treasurer     |
|   |   | (Principal      Executive Officer)                                   |
|   |   |                                                                 |
|   |   | /s/      John J. Lennon                                              |
|   | Name:  | John      J. Lennon                                                  |
|   | Title: | President,      Chief Executive Officer, Secretary and Treasurer     |
|   |   | (Principal      Financial Officer and Principal Accounting  Officer) |

----
# United Sta tes Co urt of A ppea ls F O R T HE D I S T R

I C TO F C O L U M B I A

C I RC U I T 

## No. 19-7129 September Term, 2022 F I L E D O N : D E C E MB E R 19, 2022 R I N A T A K H ME TS H I

N , A P P E L L

A N T

v. W I L L IAM B R

O W D E R , A P P E L L E E

Appea l from the United States District Court for the D istrict of Columbia (No. 1:18-c v-01638)

Be fore : K

A TS A S , Circuit Judge ; E D W AR D S A ND T A TE L , Senior Circuit Judges J U D G M E N T This cause came to be hea rd on the re cord on a

ppeal f rom the United States District Court for the D istrict of Columbia and was a rgued by counsel. An opinion and judg ment issued on Dec ember

29, 2020, Akhme tshin v. Browder , 983 F.3d 542 ( D.C. Cir. 2020). Appellee filed a petition for re hear ing a

nd rehe aringen banc on J anuar y 12, 2021. Upon consider ation of the petition for pane l rehe aring , and the r esponse ther eto, the cour t cer tified questions of law to the District of Columbia Court of Appea ls, Akhme tshin v. Browder , 993 F.3d 922 ( D.C. Cir. 2021). The D.C. Court of Appe als issued an opinion on the ce rtified questions of law , Akhme tshin v. Browder , 275 A.3d 290 (D.C. 2022), a nd the par ties filed supplemental brie fs. On conside ration there of, it is ORDERED and ADJUDG ED that the opinion filed Dec ember 29, 2020, Akhme tshin v. Browder , 983 F.3d 542 ( D.C. Cir. 2020), be vac ated; the judg ment filed De cembe r 29, 2020, be vacated; the judg ment of the District Court appe aled f rom in this cause, Akhme tshin v. Browder , 407 F. Supp. 3d 11 (D.D .C. 2019), be vac ated; and the case be re manded to the District Court for further considera

tion of the entire c ase in lig ht of the D.C. Court of Appe als’ dec ision in Akhme tshin v. Browder , 275 A.3d 290 (D.C. 2022). O n rema nd, the District Court should consider B rowde r’s fe dera l constituti onal objections to persona l jurisdiction in t he first instance befor e dete rmining whether there is any

need f or jurisdictional discover

y . Once thesedeter

minations have bee n made, the D istrict Court should t hen re solve any rema ining issues on the merits. It is F URTHER ORDERED that the petition for pane l rehe aringbe denie d. Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rul e 36, this disposit ion will not be publis hed. The Clerk is direc ted to withhold the issuance of the mandate here in until s even da y s after the re solution of any timely petition for re hear ing or

rehe aringen banc

. SeeFe d. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rul e 41.
P er C uriam F OR THE COURT: Mark J. L ang er, Cler

k BY : /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

2
IN the INTEREST OF: T.D.;

Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. M.D., Appellant.

WD 81162

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: May 29, 2018

Ryan F. Kaiser, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.

Daniel R. Luppino, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Before Division Three: Victor C. Howard, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge

**ORDER**

Per curiam:

M.D. appeals from the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her son, T.D. M.D.'s sole point on appeal argues that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that termination of M.D.'s parental rights is in T.D.'s best *456interest. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 0570 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 014 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
Peter NJOROGE, Appellant, v. AUTO STOP, INC., Respondent, and Joseph Pullaro, Defendant.

No. ED 106088

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

FILED: December 4, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Brent E. Labovitz, Scott L. Kolker, 7700 Bonhomee Avenue, Suite 350, Clayton, MO 63105.

For Respondent: Gary J. Willnauer, 8330 Ward Parkway, Suite 300, Kansas City, Missouri 64114, Jaudon R. Godsey, 500 N. Broadway, Suite 1420, St. Louis, Missouri 63102.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Peter Njoroge ("Appellant") appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Auto Stop, *904Inc. ("Auto Stop"), holding that Joseph Pullaro ("Employee") was not acting in the course and scope of his employment with Auto Stop when an accident occurred that injured Appellant. Appellant filed a lawsuit against Employee and his employer, Auto Stop, based on the alleged negligence of Employee.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
#### In the Matter of Marcel J. Lajoy, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[719 NYS2d 719]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1991. He maintains an office for the practice of law in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County.

We grant a motion by petitioner to confirm a Referee’s report insofar as it sustained three charges of professional misconduct and to disaffirm the report insofar as it did not sustain charge III. Respondent opposed the motion.

Respondent paid a State inmate incarcerated for a double homicide to help prepare appellate briefs in criminal cases in which respondent was assigned counsel or retained. The inmate had taken law courses while imprisoned and was authorized by the Commissioner of Correctional Services to assist other inmates with their legal proceedings. The informal arrangement between respondent and the inmate violated this Court’s attorney disciplinary rules *(see,*Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [4], [5] [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (4), (5)]; *see also,*NY Const, art III, § 24; Correction Law art 7). Respondent took steps to conceal the payments by sending them to the inmate’s sister and by not including them on vouchers submitted to this Court *(see,*DR 1-102 [a] [4], [5], [7] [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (4), (5), (7)]). Respondent also shared legal fees with the inmate with respect to at least one appeal *(see,*DR 3-102 [22 NYCRR 1200.17]) and acquiesced in the inmate’s solicitation of other prisoners on respondent’s behalf *(see,*DR 2-103 [22 NYCRR 1200.8]).

We conclude that, to protect the public, deter similar misconduct and preserve the reputation of the Bar, respondent should be suspended from practice for a period of one year.

Crew III, J. P., Spain, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report in part and to disaffirm it in part is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is found guilty of the professional misconduct set forth in the petition of charges; *696and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from practice for a period of one year, effective 20 days from the date of this decision, and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that, for the period of his suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and he is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority or to give to another any opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules (see, 22 NYCRR 806.9) regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys.
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)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of DCT Industrial Trust Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) that, to his 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: November 7, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Stuart B. Brown                    
|                       |  |  |  | Stuart B. Brown Chief Financial
Officer
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 of Cormac Mining Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Brian Roberts, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 13th day of April, 2011.





BRIAN ROBERTSBrian RobertsChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
**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 quarterly report of Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended October 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawrence J. Spanley, Jr., Chief Financial Officer, ExecutiveVice President, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) andSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.       Date: December 13, 2005 /s/ Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr.             Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr.      Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President,      Treasurer and Secretary      Bakers Footwear Group, Inc.       A signed original of this written statement or other document authenticating, acknowledging,or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version ofthis written statement has been provided to Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. and will be retained byBakers Footwear Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.
28
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 29, 2022

NO. 03-21-00204-CV

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

and Vulcan Construction Materials LLC, Appellants

v.

Friends of Dry Comal Creek, Stop 3009 Vulcan Quarry, Jeffrey Reeh, 

Terry Olson, Mike Olson, and Comal Independent School District, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND JONES

REVERSED AND RENDERED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on April 1, 2021. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the 

court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and affirms the 

Commissioners’ order of November 21, 2019. The appellees shall pay all costs relating to this 

appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.