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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1833 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1833

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 17, 2019

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 35 Tulip Avenue in Floral Park, New York, as the ``Lieutenant 
              Michael R. Davidson Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT MICHAEL R. DAVIDSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 35 Tulip Avenue in Floral Park, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lieutenant Michael R. Davidson Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lieutenant 
Michael R. Davidson Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 16, 2019.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Clear All

        14 July 2022    

#                     Fleet Commanders Vow to Improve Accuracy, Timeliness of Sailors’ Pay                 

                The four-star commanders of Naval Forces Europe-Africa, U.S. Fleet Forces Command and U.S. Pacific Fleet have released a joint directive that aims to quickly improve the timeliness and accuracy of Sailors’ pay.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Dr. Adya S. Tripathi, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Tripath Technology Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Tripath Technology Inc.



|       |  |                                                
|------ |  | -----------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ ADYA S. TRIPATHI                           
|Name:  |  | Dr. Adya S. Tripathi                           
|Title: |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer



Date: February 9, 2006



I, Jeffrey L. Garon, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Tripath Technology Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Tripath Technology Inc.



|       |  |                                                    
|------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ JEFFREY L. GARON                               
|Name:  |  | Jeffrey L. Garon                                   
|Title: |  | Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer



Date: February 9, 2006
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1177 CA 15-00662** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

SUSAN M. WEICHERT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROY A. BROWN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

SUSAN M. WEICHERT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE.

JEFFREY DEROBERTS, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Anthony J. Paris, J.), entered June 23, 2014. The order granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), contending that defendant was never in default and thus that Supreme Court erred in entertaining defendant’s motion. We reject that contention, inasmuch as the record establishes that defendant did not appear at the inquest on damages, which resulted in the entry of the amended judgment that was the subject of defendant’s motion. Also contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant’s motion, upon determining that defendant established “a reasonable excuse for the default as well as a meritorious defense” ( Calaci v Allied Interstate, Inc. [appeal No. 2], 108 AD3d 1127, 1128; see Matter of Reilly v City of Rome , 114 AD3d 1255, 1256). Here, after granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability and prior to the inquest on damages at which defendant failed to appear, the court sua sponte relieved defendant’s counsel without providing notice to defendant that it had done so, and it is undisputed that defendant was unaware that he was no longer represented or required to appear at the damages inquest. Defendant also demonstrated a meritorious defense to the amount of damages sought by plaintiff. Plaintiff sought and was awarded nearly $250,000 based on damages to her rental property caused by defendant, but defendant demonstrated that he at one time had an option to purchase that rental property for $65,000. As the court noted in granting defendant’s motion, it was “quite obvious that the award [was] excessive and disproportionate to the value of the property and it may well appear that plaintiff’s uncontested proof was quite a bit**-2- 1177 CA 15-00662** 

exaggerated.”

Entered: November 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Opinion filed September 15, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-22-00001-CV

___________

COUNTRY SKIES AVIATION, LLC; DIMAS AVALOS; JAMES 

G. CHASTAIN; NICKY COOK; AND JAMES C. WILSON,

Appellants

V.

THOMAS HUBBLE D/B/A ODESSA AVIATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 161st District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. B-17-08-0838-CV

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants, Country Skies Aviation, LLC; Dimas Avalos; James G. Chastain; 

Nicky Cook; and James C. Wilson, have filed in this court an unopposed motion to

dismiss this appeal. In the motion, Appellants state that the parties have settled their 

dispute and have agreed to bear their own costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), (d). 
2

According to Appellants, Appellee agrees to the relief requested in Appellants’ 

motion. 

Accordingly, we grant Appellants’ unopposed motion and dismiss this appeal.

PER CURIAM

September 15, 2022

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1

Williams, J., not participating. 

1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001046135
<NAME> DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       5000000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.0
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-05351-AKH Document 11 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05351-AKH Document 11 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 24 - POWER OF ATTORNEY



                           MONARCH SERVICES, INC.
                             POWER OF ATTORNEY

       KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned Directors and
Executive Officers of MONARCH SERVICES, INC., a Maryland corporation, hereby
constitute and appoint JACKSON Y. DOTT and MARSHALL CHADWELL and either of
them, the true and lawful agents and attorney-in-fact of the undersigned with
full power and authority in either said agent and attorney-in-fact, to sign
for the undersigned and in their respective names as Directors and/or Executive
Officers of Monarch Services, Inc., the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Monarch
Services, Inc. and any and all further amendments to said report, hereby
ratifying and confirming all acts taken by such agent and attorney-in-fact,
as herein authorized.


                                          DATE


/s/   Jackson Y. Dott                     July 19, 2004
--------------------------------
Jackson Y. Dott, Director
(Principal Executive Officer)



/s/   A. Eric Dott                        July 19, 2004
--------------------------------
A. Eric Dott, Director



/s/   Marshall Chadwell                   July 19, 2004
--------------------------------
Marshall Chadwell, Chief
Financial Officer (Principal
Accounting and Financial Officer)



/s/   David F. Gonano                     July 19, 2004
--------------------------------
David F. Gonano, Director



/s/   Trent Walklett                      July 28, 2004
--------------------------------
Trent Walklett, Director
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


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








In
      connection with the Annual Report of Bluestar Health, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alfred
      Oglesby, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) Information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:
                February 1, 2006
            /s/
                Alfred OglesbyBy:
                Alfred OglesbyIts:
                President








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Bluestar Health, Inc. and will be retained by Bluestar Health, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-200-070]

Take notice that on May 1, 2001, Reliant Energy Gas Transmission Company (REGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective May 1, 2001.

Third Revised Sheet No. 8C

Original Sheet No. 8AI

Original Sheet No. 8AJ

Original Sheet No. 8AK

Original Sheet No. 8AL

REGT states that the purpose of this filing is to reflect the addition of four new negotiated rate contracts and the revision of an existing negotiated rate contract.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-11781 Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
J

- A32015

- 14

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 2015 PA Super 29 R.L.P., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant

v. R.F.M., Appellee No. 1540 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered October 14 , 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Civil Division at No(s): 2010

- 06638

BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and FITZGERALD,* JJ. CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY OLSON, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2015

I agree with the learned Majority's conclusion that the substantive provisions of the trial court's custody order should be affirmed. I also concur in the Majority's assessment that the original transcribed version of the trial court's order, with its att endant exchanges between the court and counsel, is far too convoluted and confusing to comply with Rule 1915.10(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. I write separately, however, as I am unable to agree with the mandatory nature of the Majority 's solution to the present problem; to wit the Majority's holding that, "in order to be sufficiently specific to be enforced, an order of custody must be entered as a separate written order, or as a separate section of a written opinion" designated under t he heading of "Order." See Majority Opinion at 1

- 2 and 7 (emphasis added).J

- A32015

- 14

- 2

-

As the Majority suggests, it is self

- evident that, in many if not most cases, the process of preparing a separate written order will provide the trial court with an opportunity t o organize its thoughts and coherently articulate the intended terms of its adjudicatory directive. The format of an order is no guarantee, however, that it will be sufficiently clear and specific to merit enforcement, as Pa.R.C.P. 1915.10(b) requires. M oreover, nothing in our procedural or appellate rules, or the relevant interpretive case law, dictates the precise format of an appealable or enforceable order. 1 Accordingly, unlike my learned colleagues, I would conduct any inquiry under Rule 1915.10(b) on a case - by case basis and allow remand for confirmation or clarification, as occurred in the present case, where an order does not meet the "sufficiently specific" criteria of that provision.

____________________________________________

1 Our appellate rules provide that “no order of a court shall be appealable until it has been entered upon the appropriate docket in the lower court,” Pa.R.A.P. 301(a)(1), and that “[e]very order shall be set forth on a separate document.” Pa.R.A.P. 301(b). In my view, so long as the transcribed notes of testimony docketed as th e trial court’s order are sufficiently clear and specific to permit enforcement of the terms of the court’s custody directive, then I believe that Pa.R.A.P. 301(a)(1) and (b) and Pa.R.C.P. 1915.10(b) have been satisfied.
NO. 07-06-0028-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	APRIL 26, 2006

	______________________________

	DARRELL JEROME HOLT,

				Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

				Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 287th DISTRICT COURT OF PARMER COUNTY;

	NO. 2682; HON. GORDON H. GREEN, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	__________________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	Darrell Holt (appellant) appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated.  After we granted appellant a prior extension, his brief was due no later than April 18, 2006 (a date requested by appellant’s counsel).  No brief has been received by this court.  Nor has appellant explained the delay. 

	Consequently, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the 287th District Court of Parmer County (trial court) for further proceedings.  Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:

	1.	whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; and,

	2.  	whether appellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel due to appellate counsel’s failure to timely file appellate brief.  See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 394, 105 S.Ct. 830, 834-35, 83 L.Ed.2d 821, 828 (1985) (holding that an indigent defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel on the first appeal as of right and that counsel must be available to assist in preparing and submitting an appellate brief). 

	We further direct the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing subjects.  Should the trial court find that appellant desires to pursue the appeal, is indigent, and has been denied effective assistance of counsel, we further direct it to appoint new counsel to assist in the prosecution of the appeal.  The name, address, phone number, telefax number, and state bar number of the new counsel, if any, who will represent appellant on appeal must also be included in the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Furthermore, the trial court shall also cause to be developed 1) a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and 2) a reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and argument presented at the aforementioned hearing.  Additionally, the trial court shall cause the supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before May 26, 2006.  Should additional time be needed to perform these tasks, the trial court may request same on or before May 26, 2006.

	It is so ordered.

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 5-3 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 1
December 7, 2005

To: Aurora Gold Corporation
3540 West 41st Avenue, Suite 204
Vancouver, BC V6N 3E6

Tel. 604-687-4432
Fax 604-687-4709

Attention: Cameron Richardson
Email: c.richardson@telus.net
       ----------------------


From: Tomas Almeida, Certified Translator

Re: Translation of Memorandum of Understanding regarding Novo Porto Project



                            Translator's Declaration

I,  Tomas  Almeida,  Certified  Portuguese to English Translator, Member in good
standing  of  the  Society  of  Translators and Interpreters of British Columbia
(STIBC),  which  is  a  member  association  of  the  Canadian  Translators  and
Interpreters Council (CTIC), hereby attest that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, the above-mentioned document is a true, correct and complete translation
of  the  Portuguese  document  presented  to  me.


Signed"Tomas  Almeida"
----------------------



Tomas Almeida
19780 Honeydew Drive
Pitt Meadows, BC V3Y 2S6

Tel. 604-465-6128
Fax 604-465-6129
Cell.604-202-0031
Email: talmeida@telus.net
       ------------------
#### Terry L.S. DORSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. Phillip MORGAN, Warden; J. Daddysman, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-8041.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 23, 2013.

Decided: May 1, 2013.

*205Terry Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Ap-pellees.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terry Dorsey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Dorsey v. Morgan,*No. 1:12-cv-00285-GLR, 2012 WL 5828826 (D.Md. Nov. 15, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*