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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1059 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1059

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To adjust the boundary of Big Bend National Park in the State of Texas, 
                        and for other purposes.

    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 ``Big Bend National Park Boundary 
Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Big 
        Bend National Park, Proposed Boundary Adjustment'', numbered 
        155/167,296, and dated November 2022.
            (2) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Big Bend National 
        Park established under the Act of June 20, 1935 (49 Stat. 393, 
        chapter 283; 16 U.S.C. 156).
            (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.

SEC. 3. BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

    (a) Land Acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire approximately 
6,100 acres of land or interests in land generally depicted on the map 
as ``Tracts to Include in Boundary'' by donation, purchase from willing 
sellers, or exchange.
    (b) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and available 
for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park 
Service.
    (c) Boundary Revision and Administration.--On acquisition of any 
land or interests in land under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
            (1) revise the boundary of the Park to include the acquired 
        land or interests in land; and
            (2) administer the acquired land or interests in land as 
        part of the Park in accordance with applicable laws (including 
        regulations).
    (d) Eminent Domain or Condemnation.--In carrying out this Act, the 
Secretary may not use eminent domain or condemnation.

            Passed the Senate December 18 (legislative day, December 
      16), 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1059

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To adjust the boundary of Big Bend National Park in the State of Texas, 
                        and for other purposes.
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

      ( print page 2727)    

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Assistance Center Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, February 15, 2018 and Friday, February 16, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or (737) 800-4060.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Assistance Center Project Committee will be held Thursday, February 15, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time and Friday, February 16, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Central Time at the IRS Office in Dallas, Texas. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Gilbert Martinez. For more information please contact Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6523, or write TAP Office 3651 S. IH-35, STOP 1005 AUSC, Austin, TX 78741, or post comments to the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

Dated: January 10, 2018.

Antoinette Ross,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2018-00728 Filed 1-17-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 6, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135277 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan IN RE BARBAR A HROBA TRUST Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,

_____________________________________ Justices LUANN HROBA, Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 135277 COA: 266783 Oakland Probate Ct: 2004-294178-TV GARY HROBA, Respondent-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 9, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERS E the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE the judgment of the Oakland County Probate Court. Because the issue of the validity of the amendment to the trust wa s never litigated in the summary proceedings action brought in the 52-4 District Court, re s judicata did not bar the petitioner’s action in the Oakland County Probate Court. MCL 600.5750; JAM Corp v AARO Disposal, Inc

, 461 Mich 161 (1999); Sewell v Clean Cut Management, Inc , 473 Mich 569 (2001).

l0130 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 6, 2008

Clerk
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 22, 2021

N o. 04

- 21

- 00057

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF LYN M. WOLFF AND JASON W. WOLFF

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- CI

- 22278

Honorable Rosie Alvarado, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for want of

jurisdiction. Costs of the appeal are assessed against the appellant.

It is so OR DERED on September 22, 2021.

_____________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of September, 2021

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
### 5/1/2015 Page of

POST-FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Summary Page

Chemical ID: P-15 -0176 Re viewer: Tobias/ EN

Endpoints-Assessed Table

Endpoints/Assessment

Cycles 1 Releases

Assessed in

NCE M2? Reasons for not assessing releases

No XB

Testing

Required No

Hazard

Concern No

Releases Release

Below

Acute

Threshold 5 Release

Below

Chronic

Threshold 5 Other

Ingestion

Surface water No NA X NA NA

Ground water (landfill) No NA X NA NA

Co nsumer Use: DtD 2 No NA NA NA NA No consumer use

Inhalation

Air: incineration (stack) No NA X X

Air: fugitive No NA X X

Consumer Use: CEM 3 No NA NA NA NA No consumer use

Dermal

Consumer Use: CEM No NA NA NA NA No consumer use

Eco

Surface water: ADR

conc and/or PDM 4 No NA X NA NA

Consumer Use: DtD No NA NA NA NA No consumer use

1 Assessment cycles are endpoint concentrations and dose calculations within the NCEM2 model.

2 Down-the-Drain

3 Consumer Exposure Model

4 Probabilistic Dilution Model

5 The threshold values for assessing endpoints are 1 mg/day for acute doses and 1 mg/year for chronic doses.

EAB DROP: Release information for this compound does not meet criteria for preparation of an exposure

assessment in the Exposure Assessment Branch

= s (EAB) Initial Review Exposure Report (this report).
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 U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. (the
Partnership) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Dennis J.
Fiore, Vice President--Chief Financial Officer of US Shipping General Partner
LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.

| |                                           | 
| | ----------------------------------------- | 
| | /s/ Dennis
  J. Fiore                     | 
| |                                           | 
| | Dennis J.
  Fiore                         | 
| | Vice
  President--Chief Financial Officer | 
| | June 22,
  2009                           | 

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. and will be retained by U.S. Shipping
Partners L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

PAUL JAMES BECK, DOC #762033, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3528 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed September 11, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Joseph A. Bulone, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
Robert L. BYRD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-3592

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
George Michael THURMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5530

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Richard H. WALTERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John IGNACIO; et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 03-16917.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 19, 2004.

Paul Turner, Esq., Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Robert E. Wieland, Office of the Attorney General, Reno, NV, for RespondentsAppellees.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*752MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Richard H. Walters appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as second or successive.

Walters filed a § 2254 petition in 1995, raising a double jeopardy violation, which the district court dismissed as procedurally barred. In 2000, Walters filed another § 2254 petition, again raising the double jeopardy violation, and adding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court dismissed this petition as second or successive, and granted the certificate of appealability. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm.

First, Walters contends that because his 1995 petition was improperly dismissed, his 2000 petition is not second or successive. Because Walters raises this contention for the first time on appeal, it is waived. *See Poland v. Stewart,*169 F.3d 573, 576 n. 4 (9th Cir.1999).

Second, Walters contends that his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, contained only in his 2000 petition, is a “new” claim that was not cognizable when he filed his 1995 petition. We disagree. Walters’ “new” claim does not fall within one of the narrow exceptions to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). *See Tyler v. Cain,*533 U.S. 656, 661-62, 121 S.Ct. 2478, 150 L.Ed.2d 632 (2001).

Finally, Walters contends that the district court erred in dismissing the petition rather than transferring it to this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and requests this court to treat the petition as transferred. To the extent that Walters seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court, that request is denied as Walters has not made a prima facie showing necessary to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). No petition for rehearing of this denial of authorization to file a second or successive petition shall be filed or entertained. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
STATE EX REL. Ronald Lee WASHINGTON v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2016-KH-1672

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 23, 2018

Denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Washington v. State, 16-1101 (La. 9/29/17), 227 So.3d 258.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADDED BY**


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





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of QNB Corp. (the Company)
      for
      the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the Report), I, Thomas J. Bisko, President and CEO of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements
      of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
      information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.




Date:
            May
                12, 2008
            
            By:
            /s/
                Thomas J. BiskoThomas
                J. BiskoPresident
                and CEO
Thomas Wayne PATTERSON, DC# R10086, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1055

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL
EX PARTE Demericon Alex WILLIAMS

1151294 (CR-15-0350)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 14, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 22

- 00036

- CR
Rosanna Marie MORALES , Appellant

v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020

- CR

- 8622 Honorable Michael E. Mery , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 23, 2022
DIS MISSED
The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that this criminal case, “ is a plea

- bargain case, and th e defendant has NO right of appeal” and “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

I n a plea bargain case

— that is, a case in which a defendant ’ s plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant

— a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, (B) after getting the trial court ’ s permission to appeal, or04

- 22

- 00036

- CR

- 2

- (C) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain , establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial, nor does it indicate the trial court gave its permission to appeal

. See id. Appellant has not identified with this court any statute that expressly authorizes the specific appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification , therefore, appears to accurately reflect
that this is a plea

- bargain case and appellant does not have a right to appeal

. We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d). We issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed unless an ame nded trial court certification was made part of the appellate record by February 24, 2022. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). No such amended trial court certification has been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
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 Synthetech, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended December 31,  2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, Gary
A. Weber, 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
      Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





/s/ Gary A. WeberGary
      A. WeberVice
      President Finance andChief
      Financial OfficerFebruary
      11, 2010
Michael Owen HUTCHINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-4333

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 7, 2017 Rehearing Denied December 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Jason JEFFERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2128

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Pamela GREENLAW, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-5496

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.17

FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE
CATERPILLAR INC. 
SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN
Caterpillar Inc. (the “Company”) sponsors the Caterpillar Inc. Supplemental Retirement Plan (the “Plan”). The Plan was most recently amended and restated effective January 1, 2020 by a document dated December 16, 2020.  Pursuant to Section 7.1 of the Plan, the Company has reserved the right to amend the Plan, in whole or in part, at any time. By this instrument, the Company amends the Plan to reflect overpayment recovery changes.
    1.    This First Amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 2022.
    2.    Section 8.10 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“8.10    Overpayments. If it is determined that the benefits under the Plan should not have been paid or should have been paid in a lesser amount, the Plan has the right at any time to, as elected by the Plan Administrator: (i) recover the overpayment from the recipient to whom it was made; (ii) offset the amount of that overpayment from a future payment to the recipient; or (iii) a combination of (i) and (ii).  The Plan Administrator or the Company may also take all actions permissible under law and applicable guidance to recover for the Plan the amount of the overpayment.”
    3.    This First Amendment amends only the provisions of the Plan as noted herein, and those provisions not expressly amended shall be considered in full force and effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this First Amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions and the intent of this First Amendment.
			
	








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized representative as of December 15, 2021.


												
	CATERPILLAR INC.
	
	  /s/ Cheryl H. Johnson
	
	Cheryl H. Johnson
	Chief Human Resources Officer




			
	

2
---

CONSENT OF EXPERT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Primero Mining
Corp. (Primero) for the year ended December 31, 2016, and any amendments
thereto (the Form 40-F), I, Patrick McCann, P.Eng., hereby consent to the use
of my name in connection with the references to and summaries of scientific and
technical information relating to Primeros mineral properties (collectively,
the Incorporated Information) and to the inclusion of the Incorporated
Information in the Annual Information Form filed as an exhibit to the Form 40-F
and incorporated by reference therein.



Yours very truly,

/s/ Patrick McCann ____________________ Patrick
McCann, P.Eng.

Dated: March 31, 2017

---
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 62 (Thursday, April 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 14962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7540]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, April 24, 2009.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Staff Assistant.
 [FR Doc. E9-7540 Filed 3-31-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P