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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1385 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1385

   To include Nelson County, Virginia, in the Appalachian region for 
    purposes of the programs of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2005

  Mr. Goode introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To include Nelson County, Virginia, in the Appalachian region for 
    purposes of the programs of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF NELSON COUNTY AND FRANKLIN COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN 
              THE APPALACHIAN REGION.

    Section 14102(a)(1)(L) of title 40, United States Code, is amended 
by inserting ``Nelson,'' after ``Montgomery,''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATIONI, Craig Stout, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Vemics, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:a.  designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;b.  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period (the “Evaluation Date”); andc.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.6.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard tosignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  /s/ Craig Stout                        Craig StoutChief Operating Officer and Interim Chief Financial OfficerDate: October 13, 2009
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of AXCESS International Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Allan Griebenow, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. /S/ ALLAN GRIEBENOW  
 Dated: November 9, 2004
**Exhibit 34.5**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

U.S. Bank National Association 

Wehave examined management’s assertion, Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust U.S. Bank Asset Backed Securities Platform (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2012 and for the one-month transition period fromDecember 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 (the “Transition Period”) and as of December 31, 2013 and for the period from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 (together with the Transition Period, the“Reporting Period”), except for servicing criteria 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(iv), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(vi)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(ii), and 1122 (d)(4)(iv)–(xiv), which the Company has determined are not applicable tothe activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion onmanagement’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination wasconducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individualasset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the Reporting Period covered by this report. Our procedures were notdesigned to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selectedtransactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of December 31, 2012 andDecember 31, 2013, and for the Reporting Period, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/Ernst & Young LLP 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

March 14, 2014
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T STEPH EN LI EBB, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. V I N C E C U L L E N , A c t i ng W a r de n, A c t i ng W a r de n, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 17080 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 4 - c v - 0 4 2 1 3 - CW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C l audi aA . W i l ke n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 12, 2011 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: R E IN H A R D T , H A W K IN S , an dG O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S t e phe n L i e bb appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s pe t i t i on f

oraw r i tof habe a s c orpus . L i e bb a r gue s tha tthe r e w a s not“ s om e e vi de nc e ” t o s upportthe 

# FI LED APR14 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSdeni al of hi s par ol e. In l i gh tof Sw artho utv. C oo ke , 13 1 S . C t . 85 9 (20 11 ) ( per

c ur i a m ) , w e hol d tha tL i e bb’ s f e de r a l r i ghtof

due pr oc e s s w a s notvi ol a t e d. L i e bb doe s nota r gue tha the w a s de ni e d a n opportuni tyt o s pe a k a thi s he a r i ng a nd c o n te s t th e e v id e n c e a g a in s t h im , th a t h e w a s d e n ie da c c e s s to h is r e c o r din a d v a n c e , o rth a t h e w a s n o t n o tif ie do f th e r e a s o n s w h yp a r o le w a s d e n ie d . Se e i d. a t 8 6 2 . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f h is h ab e a s p e titio n . AF F I RME D.
##### 



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
    /s/ C.S. ParkDr. C.S. ParkChairman and Chief Executive Officer
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12527]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP93-206-003]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Technical Conference

May 17, 1995.
    In the Commission's order issued March 10, 1995, the Commission 
held that the filing in the above captioned proceeding raises issues 
that should be addressed in a technical conference.
    Take notice that the technical conference will be held on Thursday 
May 25, 1995, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 2402-A at the offices of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426. All interested parties and Staff are permitted 
to attend.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12527 Filed 5-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Senait ESHETE, Petitioner, v. John D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-1889.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 21, 2004.

Decided May 21, 2004.

Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Efthimia S. Pilitsis, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Senait Eshete, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Eshete first challenges the IJ’s finding that her asylum application is untimely. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D) (2000); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2003). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review this claim pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). Eshete next disputes the IJ’s finding that she failed to qualify for withholding of removal. We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that Eshete failed to properly exhaust this claim when she appealed to the Board from the IJ’s denial of relief. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000); *Farrokhi v. U.S. INS,*900 F.2d 697, 700 (4th Cir.1990).

We accordingly dismiss the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DISMISSED*
Luke JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10207.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:14-CR-23 RM 

)

MELVIN DARNELL WHITE )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations upon a plea of guilty entered on June 10, 2014. Accordingly,

the court ADOPTS those findings and recommendations [docket # 23], ACCEPTS

defendant Melvin White’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant guilty of Count

1 of the Indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 26, 2014 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana
APRIL 2020
Exhibit 15(a)


Texas Utilities Company:

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited condensed
consolidated interim financial information of Texas Utilities Company and
subsidiaries (the "Company") for the periods ended March 31, 1999 and 1998, as
indicated in our report dated May 13, 1999; because we did not perform an
audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1999,
is incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-55931,
333-27989, and 333-32831, 333-56055, 333-68663 and 333-68663-01 on Form S-3
and Registration Statements No. 333-32833, 333-32835, 333-32837, 333-32839,
333-32841, 333-32843, and 333-45657 and 333-46671 on Form S-8 of Texas
Utilities Company.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report  prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that
Act.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
May 13, 1999
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12179]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No.: 84.060A]


Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies; 
Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 1995

    Purpose: Provides grants to support local educational agencies in 
their efforts to reform elementary and secondary school programs that 
serve Indian students in order to ensure that such programs are based 
on challenging State content standards and State student performance 
standards used for all students, and are designed to assist Indian 
students to meet those standards.
    Eligible Applicants: Local educational agencies (LEAs) and certain 
schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Indian tribes under 
certain conditions.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 23, 1995. 
Applications not meeting the deadline will not be considered for 
funding in the initial allocation of awards. Applications not meeting 
the deadline may be considered for funding if the Secretary determines, 
under section 9117(d), Part A of Title IX of the 1994 amendments of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (the Act), as amended, 
that funds are available and that reallocation of those funds to those 
applicants would best assist in advancing the purposes of the program. 
However, the amount and date of an individual award, if any, made under 
section 9117(d) of the Act may not be the same to which the applicant 
would have been entitled if the application had been submitted on time.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 23, 1995.
    Applications Available: May 12, 1995.
    Available Funds: The appropriation for this program for fiscal year 
1995 is $59,686,000, which should be sufficient to fund all eligible 
applicants.
    Estimated Range of Awards: $3,000 to $1,300,000.
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $47,000.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 1,200.

    Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this 
notice.

    Project Period: Up to 60 months.
    Applicable Regulations: The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR Parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 
82, 85, and 86.
    For Applications or Information Contact: The Director, Office of 
Indian Education, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence 
Avenue, S.W., Portals Building-Room 4300, Washington, D.C. 20202-6335. 
Telephone: (202) 260-3774. Deaf and hearing impaired individuals may 
call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 
a.m. and 7 p.m., Eastern time.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7811.

    Dated: May 9, 1995.
Thomas W. Payzant,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 95-12179 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Manohar SHRESTHA, et ux., petitioners, v. Ross LELIN.

No. 13-406.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

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

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

KEITH M. ABBOTT, * No. 11-550V

*

Petitioner, * Special Master Moran

*

v. * Filed: April 14, 2015

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which

* respondent does not object.

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ramon Rodriguez, III, Rawls, McNelis & Mitchell, P.C., Richmond, VA, for 

Petitioner;

Debra Begley, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

On April 10, 2015, respondent filed a stipulation of fact concerning final 

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above-captioned matter. Previously, petitioner 

informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent 

for review. Upon review of petitioner’s application, respondent raised objections 

to certain items. Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended his 

application to request $80,850.00, an amount to which respondent does not object. 

The Court awards this amount.

On August 30, 2011, Keith Abbott filed a petition for compensation alleging 

that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine, which he received on September 8, 2008, caused 

him to develop neuromuscular symptoms and/or fibromyalgia. Petitioner received 

compensation based upon the parties’ stipulation. Decision, issued Oct. 3, 2014. 

 

1 The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), 

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Because petitioner received compensation, he is entitled to an award of attorneys’ 

fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

Petitioner seeks a total of $80,850.00, in attorneys’ fees and costs for his

counsel. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states 

that he incurred $52.25, in out-of-pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this 

claim. Respondent has no objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees 

and costs. 

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

a. A lump sum of $80,850.00, in the form of a check made payable to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Ramon Rodriguez, III, for 

attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-15(e).

b. A lump sum of $52.25, payable to petitioner, Keith M. Abbott, for 

costs he incurred in pursuit of his petition.

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this 

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Mary Holmes, at (202) 357-

6360.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12234]



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

 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[ID-942-1420-00]


Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey; Idaho

    The plats of the following described land were officially filed in 
the Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho, 
effective 9:00 a.m., May 10, 1995.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the 
north boundary and subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 
4, T. 23N., R. 22E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group No. 880, was 
accepted, May 5, 1995.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the 
subdivisional lines, the subdivision of section 33, and a metes-and-
bounds survey in section 33, T. 24N., R. 22E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, 
Group No. 880, was accepted, May 5, 1995.
    These surveys were executed to meet certain administrative needs of 
the Bureau of Land Management.
    All inquires concerning the survey of the above described land must 
be sent to the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Idaho State Office, 
Bureau of Land Management, 3380 Americana Terrace, Boise, Idaho, 83706.

    Dated: May 10, 1995.
Mark Smirnov,
Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho.
[FR Doc. 95-12234 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-M