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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5587 

To direct the Secretary of the Army to conduct a comprehensive study 

of long-term water management in the southeastern United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2008 

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, and Mr. SCOTT

of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Army to conduct a comprehensive study of long-term water management in the southeastern United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COMPREHENSIVE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED 

4 STATES WATERSHED MANAGEMENT STUDY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army, in co6 ordination with the Secretary of the Interior, the Sec7 retary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, and the 

8 heads of other appropriate agencies, shall conduct, at Fed9 eral expense, a comprehensive study of long-term water 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5587 IH

1 management in the southeastern United States, especially 

2 in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin, the 

3 Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River basin, and the Savannah 

4 River basin. 

5 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the study shall be to 

6 develop recommendations to address current and future 

7 water needs in the southeastern United States. 

8 (c) DATA COLLECTION.—To the maximum extent 

9 possible, the Secretaries and the heads of other Federal 

10 agencies referred to in subsection (a), in conducting the 

11 study, shall utilize existing data and share collected data 

12 with Federal, State, and local government entities. 

13 (d) INVENTORY OF ACTIONS.—In conducting the 

14 study, the Secretary of the Army shall assemble an inven15 tory of actions taken or planned to be taken to address 

16 long-term watershed management needs in the south17 eastern United States. 

18 (e) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In conducting the 

19 study, the Secretary of the Army may enter into coopera20 tive agreements with State and local agencies, non-Federal 

21 and nonprofit entities, and regional researchers. 

22 (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

23 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the 

24 Army to carry out this section $7,000,000. Such sums 

25 shall remain available until expended. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5587 IH

1 (g) SUBMISSION OF REPORT.—Not later than 3 years 

2 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

3 the Army shall prepare and submit to the Committee on 

4 Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep5 resentatives, the Committee on Environment and Public 

6 Works of the Senate, and the Governor of each State that 

7 has within its boundaries any area covered by the study 

8 a report on the results of the study. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
CITICORP TRUST BANK, FSB v. VAUGHAN.

No. COA04-1364.

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed August 2, 2005.

Certification Date August 22, 2005.

Appeal from the Gaston (03CVS2756)

Case reported without published opinion Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5492 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5492

  To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to 
   construct a greenhouse facility at its museum support facility in 
              Suitland, Maryland, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2008

  Ms. Matsui (for herself, Mr. Becerra, and Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to 
   construct a greenhouse facility at its museum support facility in 
              Suitland, Maryland, 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. CONSTRUCTION OF GREENHOUSE FACILITY.

    The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution is authorized 
to construct a greenhouse facility at its museum support facility in 
Suitland, Maryland, to maintain the horticultural operations of, and 
preserve the orchid collection held in trust by, the Smithsonian 
Institution.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is authorized to be appropriated $12,000,000 to carry out 
this Act. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. BROWN.

No. COA04-76.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 5, 2005.

Certification Date April 25, 2005.

Appeal from Guilford (02CRS97874, 02CRS97892, 02CRS98958, 02CRS98959).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
#### Sangro Management Corp., Appellant, v Clinton Hills Apts. Owners Corp., Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 585]

*546In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.H.O.), dated March 23, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (5) and (7) to dismiss the complaint as barred by documentary evidence and as time-barred, and for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The complaint seeks to recover, among other things, damages based on the defendant’s alleged breach of a contract to sell shares in a cooperative corporation allegedly entered into after the plaintiff bid for such shares at a public auction. This cause of action is governed by a four-year statute of limitations *(see*UCC 2-725; *Measom v Greenwich & Perry St. Hous. Corp.,*227 AD2d 312 [1996]; *McLeod v Cowles,*215 AD2d 460 [1995]). Thus, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that this cause of action was time-barred.

The plaintiff argues that because the defendant “had no intention of selling the auctioned units to [it] from day one,” it asserted a valid, and timely, cause of action sounding in fraud. We disagree. “General allegations that [a] defendant entered into a contract while lacking the intent to perform it are insufficient to support [a fraud] claim” *(New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co.,*87 NY2d 308, 318 [1995]; see *WIT Holding Corp. v Klein,*282 AD2d 527 [2001]; *Non-Linear Trading Co. v Braddis Assoc.,*243 AD2d 107, 118 [1998]; *cf. Sabo v Delman,*3 NY2d 155, 162 [1957]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.
H. R. 5479 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 117 North 

Kidd Street in Ionia, Michigan, as the ‘‘Alonzo Woodruff Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ALONZO WOODRUFF POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 117 North Kidd Street in Ionia, Michigan, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Alonzo Woodruff 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 ‘‘Alonzo Woodruff Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
70 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021

MONTANA 

#48

$0.6 B SPENT IN 

STATE 

#44

1.0% OF STATE GDP

0.1%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING 

$586

PER RESIDENT 

#47

$0.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING 

#48

8,982 NUMBER OF 

PERSONNEL 

#47

$0.4 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 0%

Supplies and

Equipment: 29%

Service: 63%

By Service 

Army

14%

Navy/Marines

8%

Air Force

65%

Other Defense

13%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 10%

Active Duty: 37%

National 

Guard: 37%

Civilian: 16%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

40%

Navy/Marines

3%

Air Force

56%

Other Defense

0%

Research and

Development: 8% 

Top Defense Contractors 

S & K Technologies

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

James Talcott Construction, Inc.

T & L Sales

2101 LLC

Montana State University

S2 Corp.

Corbett Technology Solutions, Inc.

AdvR, Inc.

Sonju Industrial Coatings, Inc.

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$0.3 $0.3

$0.2 $0.2 $0.2

$0.1

$0.2

FY18 FY19

$0.2

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY20 FY21

$400.5 MILLION 8,982

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active

Duty

Civilian National

Guard

Cascade 3,243 877 962

Lewis and Clark ND 383 923 

Yellowstone 35 27 335 

Missoula 28 24 169

Gallatin 11 14 262

Flathead ND ND 153 

Silver Bow 12 20 70 

Phillips 0 0 89 

Lincoln 0 49 39 

Park 0 0 71 

(M = millions)

$65.7 M

$25.1 M

$13.7 M

$12.4 M

$12.3 M

$9.4 M

$8.2 M

$6.0 M

$4.6 M

$4.4 M

Reserve

57 

316

277 

156

ND 

14 

40 

0 

0 

0 

Total

5,139

ND 

674

377 

ND 

ND 

142 

89 

88 

71 
FISCAL YEAR 2018

(M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018 MONTANA

FISCAL YEAR 2021 

Lincoln Phillips Valley

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

Ravalli

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (K = thousands, M = millions) 

Lake

Cascade

Gallatin

Flathead

Deer Lodge

Yellowstone

Lewis and Clark

Missoula

Silver Bow

Ravalli

(M = millions)

$90.4 M

$75.2 M

$29.7 M

$13.3 M

$12.3 M

$6.3 M

$4.4 M

$3.9 M 

$2.8 M

$897.5 K

Cascade

Lewis and Clark

Yellowstone

Gallatin

Missoula

Silver Bow

Lincoln

Flathead

Valley

Phillips

$263.3 M

$68.8 M

$17.0 M

$9.9 M 

$9.5 M

$9.0 M 

$5.8 M

$4.2 M

$4.0 M

$1.7 M

Flathead

Lake

Lewis and Clark

Cascade

Missoula

Deer Lodge

Silver Bow

Gallatin

Yellowstone

Flathead

Missoula

Lewis and Clark

Cascade

Silver Bow

Gallatin

Yellowstone

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021 7

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

1
# L_2012064EN.01000301.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 64/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 64/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 181/2012

of 2 March 2012

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Melon de Guadeloupe (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Melon de Guadeloupe’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Melon de Guadeloupe’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 March 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 189, 29.6.2011, p. 37.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

FRANCE

Melon de Guadeloupe (PGI)

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 131 (Monday, July 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 41148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14752]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board's (NSB) Executive Committee hereby gives 
notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of 
National Science Board business pursuant to the National Science 
Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.

TIME AND DATE: Monday, July 11, 2022, from 12:30-1:30 p.m. EDT.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by video conference through the 
National Science Foundation.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda of the teleconference is: 
Committee Chair's Opening Remarks; Approval of Executive Committee 
Minutes of April 5, 2022; and Discuss issues and topics for an agenda 
of the NSB meeting scheduled for August 3-4, 2022.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Nirmala Kannankutty, ([email protected]), 703/292-8000. Members of 
the public can observe this meeting through a You Tube livestream. 
Access the livestream at: https://www.youtube.com/?v=gicfB6iPjpU.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-14752 Filed 7-7-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6743** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. VINCENT CLAY ROBERTSON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Samuel G. Wilson , District Judge. ( 7:12

- cr - 00018

- SGW

- RSB

- 1; 7:13

- cv - 80634

- SGW

- RSB )

Submitted : August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Vincent Clay Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. Ashley Brooke Neese, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Vin cent Clay Robertson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating t hat reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robertson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately pres ented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 Marketing Worldwide, Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James Marvin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/
      James MarvinJames
      MarvinChief
      Financial OfficerDate:
      August 5, 2009
Wolfgang E. LOHRMANN, M.D. v. IREDELL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL INCORPORATED d/b/a Iredell Memorial Hospital's Healthcare System.

No. 655P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

Samuel O. Southern, Raleigh, Harriett Twiggs Smalls, Greensboro, Douglas G. Eisele, Statesville, for Lohrmann.

Anthony H. Brett, Winston-Salem, Donald R. Esposito, Jr., Charlotte, for Iredell Memorial Hospital.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of November 2005 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd day of March 2006."
STATE of North Carolina v. Titus Mil-Quigless COTTEN.

No. 416P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Mark Montgomery, Durham, for Titus Mil-Quigless Cotten.

William B. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, William Graham, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of August 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
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 on Form 10-Q of Bimini Capital Management,
Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert E. Cauley, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby 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), as applicable, 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
      as of, and for, the periods presented in the
  Report.





May
      11, 2009
            /s/
      Robert E. CauleyRobert
      E. Cauley
              Chairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer
Exhibit32.2

GLOBAL SIGNAL INC.CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Global Signal Inc., (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period endingSeptember 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon  the date hereof (the "Report"), I,William T. Freeman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|           |                                                                                                                     |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)  | The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and |

|           |                                                                                                                                                    |
|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)  | The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. |

/s/ William T. FreemanWilliam T.Freeman Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andAssistant Secretary

November 8, 2005

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Global Signal Inc. and will be retained by GlobalSignal Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

This certification accompaniesthis Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemedfiled by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "ExchangeAct"). Such certification will not be deemed to beincorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that theregistrant specifically incorporates it byreference.

----