alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5569 

AN ACT 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program until 

September 30, 2010. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5569 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Flood Insur3 ance Program Extension Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PRO5 GRAM. 

6 (a) PROGRAM EXTENSION.—Section 1319 of the Na7 tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2008’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘September 30, 2010’’. 

10 (b) FINANCING.—Section 1309(a) of such Act (42 

11 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended— 

12 (1) by striking ‘‘September 30, 2008’’ and in13 serting ‘‘September 30, 2010’’; and 

14 (2) by striking ‘‘$20,775,000,000’’ and insert15 ing ‘‘$20,725,000,000’’. 

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 subsections (a) and (b) shall be considered to have taken 

18 effect on May 31, 2010. 

19 SEC. 3. BUDGET COMPLIANCE. 

20 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

21 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

22 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

23 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

24 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

25 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro-
3 

•HR 5569 EH

1 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

2 vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 23, 2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5569 

AN ACT 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program 

until September 30, 2010.
#### HIGHWAY COMM. v. REALTY CORP.

No. 45 PC.

Case below: 4 N.C. App. 215.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 19 May 1969.
'31/2013 10:33 FAX 01 1 

PIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 21-0390 

****** 

RANDY LAEDEKE, and, 

DARLA PRENN, for 

THE ESTATE OF LILA M. LAEDEKE, 

Plaintiff Appellee, 

-VSBILLINGS CLINIC, 

Defendant Appellant. 

* * * ** 

ORDER 

HLLO 

APR 2 8 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of IVIontana 

GRANTING APPELLANT'S 

MOTION FOR ONE 

LAST ADDITIONAL DAY 

EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE OPENING BRIEF 

Appellant has filed a motion for a one last additional one day extension of firm 

from April 27,2022, to April 28,2022 to file Appellant's Opening Brief in the above 

entitled case because the print shop in Helena producing the copies and binding advis.t;c1 

they had some issues today and did not get Appellant's brief and copies delivered to tii, ,

Clerk of Supreme Court today but assured it would be done tomorrow. For good causi 

shown: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Appellant's motion for one last additional 

one day extension of time is GRANTED AND APPELLANT and shall file and serve hi3 

opening brief on or before April 28,2022. 

Dated this 2 -~day of rz___\ , 2022. 

By ie,//vdf;fr\t 

04/28/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0390
**
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**THETRUSTEE***

**OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

In connection with the accompanying amendment on Form 10-K/A to the report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ross C. Durr, Senior Vice President and Mineral Interest Directorof PNC Bank, National Association, on behalf of PNC Bank, National Association, the Trustee of the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the “Trust”),* not in its individual capacity but solely as Trustee of the Trust, hereby certify that: 

 
 1.
The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (as explained in Note 1 to the Trust’s financial statements contained in the Report, in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin Topic 12:E, FinancialStatements of Royalty Trusts, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner that differs from generally accepted accounting principles; such presentation is customary to other royalty trusts); and 

 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Trust. 

Date: January 17, 2024 

 

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS

TRUSTEE OF THE

SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
By: 
/s/ Ross C. Durr
Name: Ross C. DurrTitle: 
Senior Vice President and

Mineral InterestDirector

 
*
The Trust has no executive officers. 
**
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5



       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998

<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998

<CASH>                                         212
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               212
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          26,533
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       105,530
<OTHER-SE>                                     25,442
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (26,321)
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15,464)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15,464)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### PERSONNEL CORP. v. ROGERS

No. 20 PC.

Case below: 5 N.C. App. 219.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 29 August 1969.
#### ADAMS-MILLIS CORPORATION v. TOWN OF KERNERSVILLE

No. 71 PC.

Case below: 6 N.C. App. 78.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 December 1969.
Case 7:07-cv-03216-LMS     Document 41      Filed 03/04/2008     Page 1 of 1
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 Justice

                    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in                     *United States*                     v.                     *California Olive Ranch,*                     (E.D. Cal.) 2:05-cv-02205-LKK-PAN, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 2, 2005.                

This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against California Olive Ranch pursuant to section 309(b) and (d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(b) and (d), to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the Defendant for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants without a permit into the waters of the United States. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these allegations by requiring Defendant to mitigate the environmental impacts by purchasing mitigation credits at the Dove Ridge Conservation Bank and to pay a civil penalty.

                    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Pamela S. Tonglao, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 23986, Washington, DC 20026-3986 and refer to                     *United States*                     v.                     *California Olive Ranch,*                     (E.D. Cal.), 2:05-cv-02205-LKK-PAN, DJ #90-5-1-1-17457.                

                    The proposed Consent Decree may be viewed at                     *http://www.usdoj.gov/​enrd/​open.html.*

Stephen Samuels,

Assistant Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment & Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 05-22361 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
```

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                                  May 14, 2003

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q by Kaiser Aluminum
& Chemical Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), for the period
ending March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), as filed on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the undersigned, Jack A. Hockema, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to such officer's knowledge:

      (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
           15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
           78o(d)); 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 the dates and for the periods expressed in the
           Report.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of
the date first above written.

                                    /S/ Jack A. Hockema
                                        Jack A. Hockema
                                        Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and will be retained by
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DIEGO GONZALEZ-GARCIA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-84 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed October 26, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Thomas Krug, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender and J.L. Perez, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CHARLES EDWARD RIES, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-5101

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed October 26, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; James A. Yancey, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, 

Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)

I, Philip Kives, certify that:

1.               I have reviewed this Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2006 of K-tel International, Inc.;

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

a.               Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b.              Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c.               Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a.               All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.              Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: February 14, 2007
|   | /s/ Philip Kives                      |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Philip Kives                          |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### RUTH ELIZABETH GRAHAM, Appellant, v. CARSON-TAHOE HOSPITAL, WILLIAM R. KING, HENRY F. DAVIS, JACK S. HARPER, Et Al., Respondents.

No. 7791

September 30, 1975

540 P.2d 105

*610
      *Arthur J. Bayer, Jr.,*of Carson City, and *Allan Lerch,*of San Francisco, California, for Appellant.

*Wait, Shamberger & Georgeson,*of Reno, for Respondents.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Pursuant to NRCP 36(a), appellant was served with a request for admissions of fact. Appellant, although granted an extension of time by respondents in which to comply, failed to serve timely answers or timely objections to this request. As a consequence, she admitted the facts which negate the existence of the cause of action against the respondents as alleged in her complaint.

Appellant asserts on appeal that the answer to the request for admissions of fact was timely filed and that, if not, the answer which was tardily filed cannot be deemed admitted for purposes of granting a summary judgment.

The record on appeal refutes appellant’s initial contention by showing that she was in fact late in submitting her answers to the request for admissions of fact; and our holding in Lawrence v. Southwest Gas Corp., 89 Nev. 433, 514 P.2d 868 (1973), see also, Western Mercury, Inc. v. The Rix Co., 84 Nev. 218, 438 P.2d 792 (1968), Dzack v. Marshall, 80 Nev. 345, 393 P.2d 610 (1964), refutes appellant’s second contention.

Additional issues raised by the appellant need not be considered as the above are dispositive of the appeal.

Affirmed.
#### HERBERT M. SCHALL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel. ITS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Respondent.

No. 9217

September 29, 1978

587 P.2d 1311

*661*Laub, Clark & Hall, Ltd.,*Reno, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, and *Shirley Smith,*Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This appeal is from an order of the district court affirming the decision of the Nevada State Personnel Advisory Commission to terminate the employment of Dr. Herbert M. Schall, a psychologist for Reno Mental Health Center.1 The hearings officer for the Commission supported the recommended termination of Dr. Schall on the ground of disgraceful personal conduct. The district court found that the evidence did not support a finding of disgraceful personal conduct, but proceeded to sustain the dismissal on the ground that his activity was incompatible with employment, a charge that had never been asserted against him.

1. The hearings officer found that Dr. Schall had discussed his personal matters with patients, sometimes causing them to be upset. This, the officer characterized as disgraceful personal *662conduct justifying termination. The phrase “disgraceful personal conduct” is not defined in the Rules of Personnel Administration. We assume that “disgraceful” carries the connotation of shameful or dishonorable. The ancient case of Polson v. Polson, 39 N.E. 498, 499 (Ind. 1895) noted that the words disgraceful, detestable, odious, scandalous, base, vile, shameful, ignominious are given by Webster as synonyms of infamous. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence presented to the hearings officer to even remotely suggest disgraceful personal conduct on the part of Dr. Schall, and we affirm the district court determination in this regard.

2. The central question tendered to us is whether the district court was empowered to sustain Dr. Schall’s dismissal for a reason never asserted against him. We believe it clear that the court lacked such authority. The expression of this court in Nevada Tax Com. v. Hicks, 73 Nev. 115, 135, 310 P.2d 852 (1957) is on point. We there stated: “Since what the commission has treated as the major offenses are without substantial evidentiary support, we feel that our proper course is to reverse the commission, accepting the apparent basis to be the true basis of its action.”

3. We order the reinstatement of Dr. Schall with all accrued back pay and rights, less the amount he has earned in gainful employment since dismissal. He also is entitled to interest on monies due him, his costs below and on appeal. Stevens v. Hocker, 91 Nev. 392, 536 P.2d 88 (1975); Hardison v. Carmany, 88 Nev. 670, 504 P.2d 1 (1972).

Reversed.

1

Reno Mental Health Center is an agency of the State of Nevada, Department of Human Resources, Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation.
**Exhibit 24**
POWER OF ATTORNEY
          KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned being adirector or officer, or both, of SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., a New York corporation(the “Company”), does hereby constitute and appoint ALAN J. LACY, GLENN R.RICHTER, and MICHAEL J. GRAHAM with full power to each of them to act alone, asthe true and lawful attorneys and agents of the undersigned, with full power ofsubstitution and resubstitution to each of said attorneys, to execute, file anddeliver any and all instruments and to do any and all acts and things whichsaid attorneys and agents, or any of them, deem advisable to enable the Companyto comply with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and anyrequirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission in respect thereto,relating to the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 3, 2004,including specifically, but without limitation of the general authority herebygranted, the power and authority to sign his or her name in the name and onbehalf of the Company or as a director or officer, or both, of the Company, asindicated below opposite his or her signature, to the annual report on Form10-K for the year ended January 3, 2004 or any amendment or papers supplementalthereto; and each of the undersigned does hereby fully ratify and confirm allthat said attorneys and agents or any of them, or the substitute of any ofthem, shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has subscribed his or hername, this 10th day of March, 2004.
   NAME TITLE      /s/Alan J. Lacy Chairman of the Board of Directors,Alan J. Lacy President and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)   /s/Glenn R. Richter Senior Vice President and ChiefGlenn R. Richter Financial Officer (Principal Financial  Officer)   /s/Michael J. Graham Vice President and ControllerMichael J. Graham (Principal Accounting Officer)
 

 
   /s/Hall Adams, Jr. DirectorHall Adams, Jr.     /s/Brenda C. Barnes DirectorBrenda C. Barnes     /s/William L. Bax DirectorWilliam L. Bax     /s/James R. Cantalupo DirectorJames R. Cantalupo     /s/Donald J. Carty DirectorDonald J. Carty     /s/W. James Farrell DirectorW. James Farrell     /s/Michael A. Miles DirectorMichael A. Miles     /s/Hugh B. Price DirectorHugh B. Price     /s/Dorothy A. Terrell DirectorDorothy A. Terrell     /s/Raul H. Yzaguirre DirectorRaul H. Yzaguirre
#### MOORE v. JOHN DOE

No. 73.

Case below: 19 N.C. App. 131.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 October 1973. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 2 October 1973.