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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4687 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for the inspection of 

pipeline facilities that are transferred by sale and pipeline facilities that 

are abandoned, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2014 

Ms. HAHN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, 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 amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for the 

inspection of pipeline facilities that are transferred by 

sale and pipeline facilities that are abandoned, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pipeline Inspection 

5 Enforcement Act of 2014’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4687 IH

1 SEC. 2. PIPELINE INSPECTIONS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 60108 of title 49, United 

3 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(e) INSPECTION OF TRANSFERRED PIPELINE FA6 CILITIES.—With respect to a pipeline facility that is trans7 ferred by sale, the Secretary shall require by regulation 

8 that— 

9 ‘‘(1) not later than 180 days after the date of 

10 the sale, the person purchasing the facility conduct 

11 an inspection of the facility to confirm the status of 

12 any pipeline listed as active or abandoned; and 

13 ‘‘(2) the regulatory authority responsible for in14 spections of the facility ensure that the inspection 

15 described in paragraph (1) is conducted. 

16 ‘‘(f) INSPECTION OF ABANDONED PIPELINE FACILI17 TIES.—With respect to a pipeline facility that newly lists 

18 a pipeline as abandoned, the Secretary shall require by 

19 regulation that the regulatory authority responsible for in20 spections of the facility, together with the person owning 

21 or operating the facility, conduct an inspection of the facil22 ity to confirm the status of the pipeline as abandoned.’’. 

23 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub24 section (a) shall apply to a pipeline facility that is transVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:18 May 28, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4687.IH H4687

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4687 IH

1 ferred or listed as abandoned after the date of enactment 

2 of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina, v. Jerry JARVIS, Defendant.

No. COA18-296

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

NO ERROR.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-6922

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GAIL FULLER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-92-13-A, CA-94-834-AM) Submitted: March 22, 1996 Decided: August 30, 1996 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gail Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Joseph Hulkower, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 2 PER CURIAM: Mrs. Fuller raised several points in her motion, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate, correct, or set aside her sentences. In general, Mrs. Fuller alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, improper application of the sentencing guidelines, use of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, denial of a fair trial because certain evidence was not presented, conflict of interest, and denial of a fair trial because the court denied her a continuance. We affirm the denial of these aspects of Mrs. Fuller's petition on the opinion of the district court. Another question has come to our attention, however. The district court charged the jury in accordance with circuit precedent that the element of materiality in 18 U.S.C. § 1001 was a question for the court. United States v. Gaudin , 63 U.S.L.W. 4611 (U.S. June 19, 1995) decided that materiality was a matter for the jury, not the court. Mrs. Fuller did not raise this question on direct appeal or on habeas review. Had this been a direct appeal, it might have been reversible subject to a plain and harmless error anal ysis. Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 (1989), however, and its progeny prevent us from addressing this issue because it is a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED . *
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4809 

To provide greater technical resources to FCC Commissioners. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2010 

Mr. MCNERNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide greater technical resources to FCC 

Commissioners. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FCC Commissioners’ 

5 Technical Resource Enhancement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT OF TECHNICAL STAFF. 

7 Section 4(f)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 

8 (47 U.S.C. 154(f)(2)) is amended by inserting after the 

9 first sentence the following new sentence: ‘‘Each commis10 sioner may also appoint an electrical engineer or computer 

11 scientist to provide the commissioner technical consultaVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:34 Mar 12, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4809.IH H4809

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4809 IH

1 tion when appropriate and to interface with the Office of 

2 Engineering and Technology, Commission Bureaus, and 

3 other technical staff of the Commission for additional 

4 technical input and resources, provided that such engineer 

5 or scientist holds an undergraduate or graduate degree 

6 from an institution of higher education in their respective 

7 field of expertise.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
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 on Form 10-Q of Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




1.           the Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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 results of operations of the Company.




Date:  August 6, 2010
/s/ Shawn K. Poe

Shawn K. Poe

Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1] 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of Commanche Properties, Inc. (“Commanche”). The Commission is concerned that Commanche may have unjustifiably relied on Rule 504 of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933 in conducting an unlawful distribution of its securities which failed to comply with the resale restrictions of Regulation D. Commanche, a company that has made no public filings with the Commission, is quoted on the Pink Sheets under the ticker symbol CMCH, and has recently been the subject of spam e-mail touting the company's shares. 

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above listed company. 

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. e.s.t. January 31, 2005 through 11:59 p.m. e.s.t., on February 11, 2005. 

By the Commission. 

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05-2055 Filed 1-31-05; 11:48 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
STATE v. Jonathan Adrian FULLER

418P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Guy J. Loranger, Attorney at Law, Jonathan Adrian Fuller, for Fuller, Jonathan Adrian

Kimberly Sharice Murrell, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of November 2018 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."
EXHIBIT 12.1



                       AKI HOLDING CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (dollars in thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                 Holding                                       Predecessor
                                -------------------------------------------------------------------------      -----------
                                                                                             December 16,     July 1, 1997
                                               Fiscal year ended June 30,                    1997 through        through
                                --------------------------------------------------------       June 30,       December 15,
                                   2002            2001           2000           1999            1998             1997
                                   ----            ----           ----           ----            ----             ----
<S>                             <C>            <C>             <C>           <C>              <C>               <C>
Income (loss) before
  income taxes and
  extraordinary item            $   6,720      $   2,942       $    (850)    $   (5,456)      $  (7,545)        $   3,234
Add:
Interest on all indebtedness
  which includes amortization
  of deferred financing costs      15,633         16,911          17,401         16,740          11,327             2,646
                                ---------      ---------       ---------     ----------       ---------         ---------

Earnings available for fixed
  charges                          22,353         19,853          16,551         11,284           3,782             5,880
Fixed charges                      15,633         16,911          17,401         16,740          11,327             2,646
                                ---------      ---------       ---------      ---------       ---------         ---------

Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges                      1.4x           1.2X             ---            ---             ---              2.2x


</TABLE>


Earnings were not sufficient to cover fixed charges by $850,  $5,456, and $7,545
for the years ended June 30, 2000 and 1999 and the period from December 16, 1997
to June 30, 1998, respectively.
CABARRUS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TEACHERS' AND STATE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM; Dale R. Folwell, State Treasurer (in official capacity only); Steven C. Toole, Director, Retirement Systems Division (in official capacity only), Respondents.

No. COA17-1019

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 18, 2018

AFFIRMED.
STATE v. Jimmy Lee FARMER

8A19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2019

Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, Attorney at Law, For Farmer, Jimmy Lee

Anna M. Szamosi, Assistant Attorney General, Brandy Cook, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 7th of March 2019 by Defendant:

*581"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of March 2019."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 15th day of March 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
EAGLE SERVICES & TOWING, LLC, George K. Clardy, Jr., and Sylvia W. Clardy, Plaintiffs v. ACE MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORP., Defendant

No. COA16-693

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 6, 2017

AFFIRMED.
JONES v. SLAGLE, et al.

421P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert S. Banks, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Gregory H. Jones, Wilmington, for Jones, Gregory H.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of November 2018 by Petitioner for Mandamus and Change of Venue:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."
#### P. Brazier, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed May 10, 1928.

*Joseph Weinstraub*and *Ralph M. Cooper,*Attorneys for Plaintiff in *Error;*

*Fred II. Davis,*Attorney General, and *Roy Campbell,*Assistant, Attorneys for Defendant in Error.

Buford, J.

In this ease the plaintiff in error was convicted with two others, the other two being convicted of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony, while the plaintiff in error was convicted on the second count of the information which charged that he and the two others did receive and aid in the concealment of certain property of the value of more than $50.00 which had been theretofore stolen, and which they then and there knew to have been stolen. The evidence against the plaintiff in error here offered to support the charge upon which he was convicted, we think, is not as strong as it was in the case against the defendant Knowles, in Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 Sou. 616.

There is not a word of evidence in the record which in anywise establishes it as a fact that the plaintiff in error *897Brazier ever at any time had in his possession or control, or at any time concealed or aided in the concealment of any one of the articles named and described in the information.

The case should be reversed on authority of Knowles v. State, *supra,*and it is so ordered.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
**EXHIBIT
      31.2**





**CERTIFICATION**





I,
      Mark
      Joseph Corrao, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of StrikeForce Technologies,
      Inc.;





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
      report;





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects
      the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
      as
      of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;





4.
      I am
      responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
      (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
      and we have:





a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others
      within the Corporation, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
      report is being prepared;





b)
      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
      of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
      by this report based on such evaluation; and





c)
      disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
      quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
      affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





5.
      I have
      disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
      reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
      board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):





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 registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
      report financial information; and





b)
      any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting.






*/s/
      Mark Joseph Corrao*





*Mark
      Joseph Corrao*


*Chief
      Financial Officer*




*June
      28, 2006*
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59793-59794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20496]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 06/76-0329]


Pharos Capital Partners II, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under 
Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Pharos Capital Partners II, L.P., One 
Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 180, Nashville, TN 37215, a Federal Licensee 
under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the 
Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought 
an exemption under section 312 of the Act and Sec.  107.730, Financings 
which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Pharos 
Capital Partners II, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt security 
financing to Alereon, Inc. The financing

[[Page 59794]]

is contemplated for working capital and general corporate purposes.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because Pharos Capital Partners, L.P. is an 
Associate of Pharos Capital Partners II, L.P. which owns more than ten 
percent of Alereon, Inc. Therefore, Alereon, Inc. is considered an 
Associate of Pharos Capital Partners II, L.P. as defined in 13 CFR 
107.50 of the SBIC Regulations.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for 
Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20416.

Jaime Guzma[nacute]n-Fournier,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 05-20496 Filed 10-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6025-01-P
#### W. C. Cooper, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division A.

Decision Filed June 11, 1928.

*E.*17. & *B. C. Davis,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred H. Davis,*Attorney General, and *II. E. Garter,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered and ordered by the Court that the said judgment of the Criminal Court of Record for Orange County be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur..
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<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>                                          47,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,300
<PP&E>                                       1,487,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                 191,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,414,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,300
<BONDS>                                        814,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     497,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,414,200
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               287,700
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  182,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 89,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             89,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    89,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>