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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4155 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4155

To authorize natural gas exports to certain foreign countries, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2014

 Mr. Poe of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 
 on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize natural gas exports to certain foreign countries, 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 ``Fight Russian Energy Exploitation 
(FREE) Act''.

SEC. 2. NATURAL GAS EXPORTS TO UKRAINE.

    Section 3(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b(c)) is amended 
by inserting ``or to the member states of the European Union or the 
former Soviet states of Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, 
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and 
Uzbekistan'' after ``trade in natural gas''.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON GLOBAL EXPORTS OF NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of State shall submit to Congress a report on the 
following:
            (1) The economic policies of foreign countries with natural 
        gas resources and reserves as such policies relate to the 
        development and production of their natural gas resources and 
        reserves and the extent and status of their natural gas 
        resources and reserves.
            (2) The potential to export the natural gas production of 
        such foreign countries to the global market and the impact of 
        the export of such natural gas production on the global market.
            (3) A description of actions taken by the United States 
        Government to foster natural gas exports to foreign countries 
        that may have an interest in importing natural gas from the 
        United States.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Francisco ECHEVERRIA

No. 131P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Katherine Jane Allen, Assistant Appellate Defender, Francisco Echeverria, for Echeverria, Francisco.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

Peter A. Regulski, Assistant Attorney Geneal, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina Francisco.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of April 2017 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 8th of June 2017."
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Viewpoint Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
  hereof (the Report), we, Patrick Vogt and Christopher C. Duignan, Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 § U.S.C. 1350, as
  adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

|   
|---
|(1)
|   
|(2)

|                      |  |     |  |                                                                                
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 16, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ PATRICKVOGT Patrick VogtPresident and Chief Executive Officer              
|Dated: March 16, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ CHRISTOPHERC. DUIGNAN Christopher C. DuignanInterim Chief Financial Officer



---
In the MATTER OF the Foreclosure of Real Property Under a Deed of Trust Executed by Robert C. COLLINS and Rhonda B. Collins Dated June 20, 2006 and Recorded on June 23, 2006 in Book K-30 at Page 975 in the Macon County Public Registry, North Carolina

No. 69P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Fred H. Jones, Attorney at Law, Franklin, for Collins, Robert C., et al.

Rebecca K. Lindahl, Attorney at Law, Daniel Trimmer, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Beneficial Financial I.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of March 2017 by Respondents 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 3rd of May 2017."
BROADNAX v. RAMEY.

No. 320P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Leroy Courtland Broadnax, Eden, for Broadnax, Leroy Courtland.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

*618Craig Blitzer, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of September 2015 by Petitioner for Relief from Conviction and Sentence:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 9, 2011

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, No.11-3012

v. (D.C. No. 2:10-CR-20094-JWL-1)

OSCAR GARCIA, (D. Kan.)

Defendant-Appellant.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

After examining counsel’s Anders brief and the appellate record, this panel

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant Oscar Garcia pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States

after being deported subsequent to conviction for an aggravated felony, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court imposed a sentence of fifty-seven

months’ imprisonment, at the bottom of the applicable guideline range, and
-2-

Appellant filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, Appellant’s counsel has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), explaining why

counsel believes there to be no reasonable grounds for appeal. Appellant and the

government were both given the opportunity to file a response to the Anders brief

but neither did so. 

After conducting “a full examination of all the proceedings,” id. at 744, we

agree with defense counsel that Appellant has no non-frivolous grounds to raise

on appeal. The record reveals no valid basis on which Appellant could challenge

the entry of his plea of guilty or the district court’s calculation of the applicable

guidelines range for his sentence, which was not objected to below. As for the

substantive reasonableness of Appellant’s sentence, the record reflects the district

court carefully considered all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and

concluded that a bottom-of-the-guidelines-range sentence would be most

appropriate in this case. We see no grounds in the record for Appellant to rebut

the presumption of reasonableness attached to this within-guidelines sentence. 

Because our thorough review of the record persuades us that Appellant can

raise no meritorious issue on appeal, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw

and DISMISS the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
##### 



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
    /s/ Charles A. Casalinova

Charles A. Casalinova
Chief Financial OfficerMay 10, 2007
 The foregoing certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange
Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to
be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except
to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
Michael B. DALY, Plaintiff, v. Christy B. DALY, Defendant.

No. COA16-885

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 5, 2017

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Ronald FARROW.

No. COA15-583.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 1, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-11339

Summary Calendar

 

GEORGE A. CLEVELAND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GILDA HARVEY; VICTOR RODRIQUEZ,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CV-485-Y

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

February 15, 2002

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George A. Cleveland, Texas prisoner #422864, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

On appeal, Cleveland challenges the dismissal of his claims

relating to his parole revocation proceeding. As Cleveland has

not alleged that his revocation has been overturned, he cannot

raise a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenge to the revocation proceedings. 

Littles v. Bd. of Pardons and Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th

Cir. 1995).
No. 01-11339

-2-

Cleveland contends that he has been denied parole based upon

false information in his record, resulting in cruel and unusual

punishment. Texas law does not create an expectation of release

on parole, and Cleveland does not have a constitutional right to

release. See Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 32 (5th Cir. 1995);

Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308-09 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Cleveland alleges that he was denied parole in retaliation

for his writ-writing activities. He has failed to “allege a

chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be

inferred.” Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). 

His conclusional allegations of retaliation are insufficient to

support relief. Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 195 (5th Cir.

1996).

Cleveland asserts conclusionally that he was denied parole

because of discriminatory motive. He has failed, however, to

brief this argument, as even a pro se prisoner is required to do. 

See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Issues

that are not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned. Brinkmann

v. Dallas Co. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.3d 744, 748 (5th Cir.

1987).

Cleveland also contends for the first time on appeal that he

was improperly denied good-time credits upon the revocation of

his parole. An issue raised for the first time on appeal is not

reviewable unless it involves a purely legal issue. Diaz v.

Collins, 114 F.3d 69, 71 n.5 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Cleveland has failed to show that the district court erred

in dismissing his civil rights lawsuit. See Black v. Warren, 134
No. 01-11339

-3-

F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). Consequently, the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.
CITY OF ASHEVILLE v. STATE of North Carolina, et al.

No. 391PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

I. Faison Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General.

Robert W. Oast, Jr., City Attorney, for City of Asheville.

Daniel G. Clodfelter, Charlotte, for City of Asheville.

T. Randolph Perkins, Charlotte, for City of Asheville.

Jonathan M. Watkins, Charlotte.

Jason G. Idilbi, Charlotte.

Robert B. Long, Jr., Asheville, for City of Asheville.

Ronald K. Payne, Asheville.

Isham F. Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Robin T. Currin, City of Ashville Attorney, for City of Asheville.

William Clarke, Asheville, for State of North Carolina.

Stephen W. Petersen, Raleigh, for State of North Carolina.

Robert F. Orr, Asheville, for City of Asheville.

Matthew W. Sawchak, Raleigh, for City of Asheville.

Allegra Collins, Raleigh, for International Municipal Lawyers Association.

Edward J. Coyne, III, Greenville, Attorney at Law, for Brunswick Regional Water & Sewer H2GO.

Jeremy M. Wilson, Wilmington, for Brunswick Regional Water & Sewer H2GO.

Gabriel Du Sablon, for City of Wilson.

James P. Cauley, III, Wilson, for City of Wilson.

*474Gregory F. Schwitzgebel, III, Associate General Counsel, for North Carolina League of Municipalities.

Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, for North Carolina League of Municipalities.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of December 2015 by International Municipal Lawyers Association for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
**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 Triangle Petroleum Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2007, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Aly
      Musani, 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Triangle Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Triangle Petroleum
      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.








/s/
      ALY MUSANI


Aly
      Musani


Chief
      Financial Officer


June
      13,
      2007
# CE2004088EN.01062101.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/621 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/621

---

(2004/C 88 E/0641)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2224/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Additional Protocol for Nuclear Material Safeguards

Subject:

In reply to my question H-0867/02 (1) the Commission stated that ‘the Union continues to encourage Iran to join the International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol for Nuclear Material Safeguards. It appears that Iran in general has been complying, including accepting inspections of its nuclear sites’.

1

In fact, on 17 June 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed the allegations made by the democratic opposition to the theocratic regime in Teheran, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which I referred to and which were widely known at the time of the Commission's reply, thus demonstrating that the situation as it appeared to the Commission did not and does not correspond to the actual situation.

How does the Commission explain the fact that, only a few months ago, it confined itself to repeating the propaganda issued by the dictatorial regime in Iran, and that it did not consider it appropriate to take account of reports, which have now been confirmed, of the war-mongering intentions of the repressive Iranian regime?

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to pay closer attention in future to objective information on the real situation in Iran, rather than contenting itself with uncritical acceptance of propaganda from the regime?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

(6 August 2003)

The EU has repeatedly stated that the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) constitutes one of the major areas of concern in its relations with Iran. While recognising Iran's right as a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the Commission strongly supports the view of the EU that Iran must be fully transparent and in compliance with this Treaty. The Commission welcomed the June 2003 report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but noted with concern that Iran had failed to fulfil certain of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguards agreement. It trusts that Iran will address these shortcomings without delay and hopes that Iran, will take steps to adhere to relevant international instruments — such as the IAEA Additional Protocol — to ensure adequate transparency.

It goes without saying that the Commission does not, as the Honourable Member implies, confine itself to ‘repeating the propaganda’ from a ‘dictatorial regime’ with ‘war mongering intentions’. The Commission along with the EU Member States has made every attempt to base itself on objective information. In this context, the Commission would hesitate to refer to the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) as ‘the democratic opposition’ to the regime in Teheran.

---

(1)  Written answer of 14.1.2003.

1

---
STATE v. Joseph M. ROMANO

199PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 2, 2016

Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, For Ramano, Joseph M.

*262Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, For State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 1st of November 2016 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd of November 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 17th day of November 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                            1,975,105
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       300,817
<ALLOWANCES>                         25,000
<INVENTORY>                         274,163
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  2,618,910
<PP&E>                            1,291,533
<DEPRECIATION>                    1,018,108
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    3,808,608
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               854,018
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                         13,707,259
<OTHER-SE>                      (10,752,669)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      3,808,608
<SALES>                           6,413,045
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  6,413,045
<CGS>                             1,136,077
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     1,136,077
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  6,170,093
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  (88,670)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (804,455)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (804,455)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (804,455)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.13)
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.30

                       Amendment to the Dime Bancorp, Inc.
                      Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan

                           Effective November 14, 2000


         The Dime Bancorp, Inc. Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan (the
"Plan") is hereby amended in the following particulars.

         1. Paragraph 7 of the Plan is amended to add a new subparagraph (d) at
the end thereof to read as follows:

         "(d) Adjustment of Company Phantom Stock and Company Phantom Stock
         Valuations. In the event of a merger, reorganization, consolidation,
         sale of substantially all assets, recapitalization, stock dividend,
         stock split, spin-off, split-up, split-off, distribution of assets
         (including cash) or other change in corporate structure affecting the
         common stock of the Company, a substitution or adjustment, as may be
         determined to be appropriate by the Committee (or, as applicable, the
         Umbrella Trust Committee) in its sole discretion, shall be made in the
         aggregate number of or type of shares of phantom stock credited to a
         Participant's Account, and to the method of calculation of the value of
         investments in phantom stock of the Company, including, but not limited
         to, the special phantom stock valuations in connection with a Change in
         Control (as defined in Paragraph 13)."