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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5174 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5174

  To amend the Department of Energy Organization Act with respect to 
  functions assigned to Assistant Secretaries, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2018

 Mr. Walberg (for himself and Mr. Rush) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Department of Energy Organization Act with respect to 
  functions assigned to Assistant Secretaries, 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 ``Energy Emergency Leadership Act''.

SEC. 2. FUNCTIONS ASSIGNED TO ASSISTANT SECRETARIES.

    Subsection (a) of section 203 of the Department of Energy 
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7133(a)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new paragraph:
            ``(12) Energy emergency and energy security functions, 
        including--
                    ``(A) responsibilities with respect to 
                infrastructure, cybersecurity, emerging threats, 
                supply, and emergency planning, coordination, response, 
                and restoration; and
                    ``(B) upon request of a State, local, or tribal 
                government or energy sector entity, and in consultation 
                with other Federal agencies as appropriate, provision 
                of technical assistance, support, and response 
                capabilities with respect to energy security threats, 
                risks, and incidents.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### SUPPLY COMPANY v. VICK

No. 11.

No. 77 (Fall Term).

Reported: 304 N.C. ---.

Petition by plaintiff to rehear allowed 8 July 1981.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GERARD M. VIRGA, JR. and his wife,

DENISE VIRGA,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv242/RS-EMT

CSPS METAL, INC., a California

corporation; WAL-MART STORES,

INC. d/b/a SAM’S CLUB; SAM’S EAST,

INC.; and SAM’S CLUB,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Report Of Parties’ Planning Meeting (Doc. 13). The attorneys

have disregarded the guidance in the Initial Scheduling Order regarding the discovery

deadline and a trial date. 

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall file an amended joint report not later than

November 18, 2010, with dates consistent with a discovery deadline of March 15, 2011,

and jury trial on May 23, 2011, or June 6, 2011.

ORDERED on November 8, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PENSACOLA MOTOR SALES,

a Florida corporation, d/b/a

BOB TYLER TOYOTA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:09cv571/RS-MD

EASTERN SHORE TOYOTA, LLC, an

Alabama Limited Liability Company;

DAPHNE AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, an

Alabama Limited Liability Company;

SHAWN ESFAHANI, Individually;

and DAPHNE ENTERPRISES, INC.,

an Alabama corporation,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File A Second Amended Complaint

(Doc. 46). 

Plaintiff has previously filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 24) on February 16,

2010. The discovery deadline is July 15, 2010, and jury trial is scheduled for September

27, 2010. I find that the amendments sought by Plaintiff will cause undue delay in the

resolution of this case.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint to assert the

eight additional domain names which include Plaintiff’s trademark. Plaintiff

shall file the second amended complaint not later than June 9, 2010.
2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend is denied as to certain domain names unrelated

to Plaintiff and identified in paragraphs 1-30 of Plaintiff’s motion to amend. 

Those domain names appear to be evidentiary matters which are not

essential elements of the causes of action asserted by Plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff’s motion to amend to include MJMI Internet, LLC, Advanced Dealer

Systems, and any other fictitious party/defendant is denied. Joinder of MJMI

Internet, LLC and Advanced Dealer Systems appears unnecessary for the

complete relief sought by Plaintiff and will unduly delay resolution of this

case. Furthermore, although Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 24)

identified “John Does 1-10" as parties-defendants, they were not challenged

or otherwise brought to the court’s attention. As a general matter, fictitiousparty pleading is not permitted in federal court. See New v. Sports &

Recreation, Inc., 114 F.3d 1092, 1094, n. 1 (11 Cir. 1997); Richardson v. TH

Johnson, F.Supp.2d 2007 WL 9570721. The second amended complaint

shall not include fictitious parties.

ORDERED on June 3, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

EEX Corporation
2500 City West Blvd #1400
Houston, TX 77042

        We hereby consent to the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K, for 
the year ended December 31, 1997, for EEX Corporation in accordance with the 
requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, with the inclusion in such Annual 
Report of our reserve report incorporated therein, and references to our name in
the form and context in which they appear, and the incorporation by reference 
thereof into the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-8, No. 333-24595 
and No. 333-41979.

                                         NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.


                                         By: /s/ CLARENCE M. NETHERLAND
                                            -----------------------------
                                             Clarence M. Netherland
                                             Chairman

Houston, Texas
March 17, 1998
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RONALD E. JACOBS,

Petitioner, 

vs. Case No: 3:09cv575/MCR/EMT

SECRETARY, DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS, 

Respondent. 

_____________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Petitioner commenced this action

by filing a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). On May 25, 2010, this court entered

an order giving Petitioner twenty (20) days in which to verify his address of record and notify the

court of his continued interest in this case (Doc. 20). Petitioner failed to respond to the order;

therefore, on June 21, 2010, the court issued an order requiring Petitioner to show cause, within

twenty (20) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the

court (Doc. 22). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed with no

response from Petitioner.1

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 23 day of July 2010. rd

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

A copy of each order was mailed to Petitioner at the address he personally provided to the clerk of court on

1

June 24, 2010 (see Doc. 23). Over twenty (20) days from that date have elapsed, and the court has still received no

response from Petitioner.
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not control. A copy of

objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of

appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d

698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No: 3:09cv575/MCR/EMT
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                 SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES OF EEX CORPORATION
                 ----------------------------------------------



                               EEX Operating LLC
                               EEX Operating L.P.
                                EEX Capital Inc.
                             Enserch Offshore, Inc.
                     Enserch International Oil & Gas, Inc.
                            EEX International, Inc.
                         DALEN Resources California Co.
                           Corpus Christi Energy Co.
                        Corpus Christi Hydrocarbons Co.
                         Enserch (UK) Oil & Gas Limited
                             Enserch Far East Ltd.
                              Enserch India, Inc.
                             Enserch Malaysia Ltd.
                            Enserch Middle East Ltd.
                                EEX Asahan Ltd.
                     Enserch International Exploration Ltd.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN RE: REFERRAL OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL Misc No. 4-95-mc-40111

CASES TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

Charles J. Kahn, Jr. was appointed as a United States Magistrate Judge in the 

Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, effective March 4, 2011. With this 

appointment, the court’s administrative order, document #128, entered on January 31, 

2011 is hereby rescinded. Effective March 7, 2011 the Clerk is directed to reassign 

to Magistrate Judge Charles J. Kahn, Jr. all pending cases previously assigned to 

Magistrate Judge Miles Davis, except for the following cases, which will remain

assigned to Recall Magistrate Judge Miles Davis:

3:08-cv-510 3:08-cv-552

3:08-cv-562 3:10-cv-15

3:10-cv-71 3:10-cv-98

3:10-cv-154 3:10-cv-285

3:10-cv-295 3:10-cv-340

3:10-cv-351 3:10-cv-386

3:10-cv-418 3:10-cv-420

3:10-cv-480 3:10-cv-517

3:10-cv-524 3:10-cv-531

3:10-cv-538 5:08-cv-292

5:10-cv-217 5:10-cv-243

5:10-cv-264 5:10-cv-292

3:11-cv-2
The court’s administrative order Re: Referral of Civil and Criminal Cases to 

Magistrate Judges, dated September 30, 2008, document #112, will remain in effect 

with Magistrate Judge Kahn’s name replacing Magistrate Judge Miles Davis’ name in

the percentage of cases referred on a random basis.

Recall Magistrate Judge Davis will no longer receive random case referrals, but 

by order of the court may receive direct assignment of cases.

SO ORDERED this 7th day of March, 2011.

/s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
# C_2009204EN.01000901.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/9

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

2009/C 204/05

Image

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by the Vatican City State

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by the Vatican City State

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. The Commission publishes all new euro coin designs with a view to informing all parties required to handle coins in the course of their work as well as the public at large (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), the Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the Community providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national side features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country: Vatican City State

Subject of commemoration: International Year of Astronomy

Description of the design: The inner part of the coin depicts an allegory of the birth of the stars and planets together with several astronomical instruments. The mint mark ‘R’ is situated in the bottom left quadrant and the year ‘2009’ is at the bottom. The design is surrounded on the bottom left-hand side by the legend ‘ANNO INTERNAZIONALE DELL’ASTRONOMIA’ and on the top right-hand side by the name of the issuing country, ‘CITTÀ DEL VATICANO’.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued:

Date of issue: October 2009

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national sides of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
Exhibit
99.4








CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Plata
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended March 31, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Presentacion A. Coranes, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:





1. The
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.





Dated:
April 27, 2010





PRESENTACTION A.
CORANES


Presentacion
A. Coranes


Chief
Accounting Officer


Chief
Financial Officer and Director





-1-
Exhibit 32.1

CEO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Ronald J. Buschur,
Chief Executive Officer of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended January 3, 2010 (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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: February 19, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ RONALD J. BUSCHUR
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Ronald J. Buschur                    
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
#### Frederick C. ZANGARDI, Appellant, v. Walter N. TOBRINER, President, et al., Board of D. C. Commissioners, Appellees.

No. 19138.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 27, 1965.

Decided June 22, 1965.

*371Mr. Norman H. Heller, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corp. Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellees.

Before Prettyman, Senior Circuit Judge, and Fahy and Burger, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a member of the Metropolitan Police Department, was retired under Section 4-526 (D.C.Code, 1961) for disability found not to have been contracted in the performance of duty. On appeal from the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appel-lees, Board of Commissioners, he urges that he should have been retired at the higher annuity specified by Section 4-527 (D.C.Code, 1961) since the disease which caused his disability was concededly aggravated by the performance of duty. In 1962 subsequent to appellant’s retirement, and therefore not applicable to his case, a new subsection was added to the statute by Congress. It does provide for annuity at the higher rate when disability is attributable to aggravation, due to the performance of duty, of a disease not contracted in the performance of duty. D.C.Code § 4-527(2) (Supp. IV, 1965).

On the basis of the language of the 1961 D.C.Code § 4-527, as for many years it was administratively interpreted contrarily to appellant’s position, followed by explicit Congressional acquiescence in such interpretation when in 1962 Congress amended Section 4-527 so as clearly to authorize the higher annuity for such aggravation as here occurred, we conclude that the retirement pay of appellant was properly computed under Section 4-526 rather than under Section 4-527 as it read prior to the 1962 amendment.

Affirmed.
Page 1 of 3

Case No. 4:09cv351-RH/WCS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RON MILLER,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:09cv351-RH/WCS

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE PETITION AND

DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before 

the court on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 21. No 

objections have been filed. The report and recommendation is correct and is 

adopted as the court’s opinion.

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires a district court to 

“issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to 

the applicant.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may 

issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); 

Case 4:09-cv-00351-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 02/19/12 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 4:09cv351-RH/WCS

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 

893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000) (setting 

out the standards applicable to a § 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said 

in Slack:

 To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that reasonable 

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 

should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues 

presented were “ ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further.’ ” 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). Further, in 

order to obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural 

grounds, a petitioner must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484. 

The petitioner has not made the required showing. 

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED.

2. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The petition is DENIED with 

prejudice.” 

Case 4:09-cv-00351-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 02/19/12 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 4:09cv351-RH/WCS

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on February 19, 2012.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-00351-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 02/19/12 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 21


                       Brookdale Living Communities, Inc.
                              List of Subsidiaries

                                                          Direct or Indirect
Subsidiaries                                                   Ownership
------------                                               ------------------
BLC Acquisitions, Inc.                                            100%
BLC of New York Holdings, Inc.                                    100%
BLC of Texas II L.P.                                              100%
BLC Property, Inc.                                                100%
Brookdale Holdings, Inc.                                          100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Arizona, Inc.                     100%
Brookdale Living Communities of California, Inc.                  100%
Brookdale Living Communities of California-RC, Inc.               100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Connecticut, Inc.                 100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Connecticut-WH, Inc.              100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Delaware, Inc.                    100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Florida, Inc.                     100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Illinois II, Inc.                 100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Illinois, Inc.                    100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Illinois-GE, Inc.                 100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Illinois-H.V., Inc.               100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Massachusetts-RB, Inc.            100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Michigan, Inc.                    100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Minnesota II, Inc.                100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Minnesota, Inc.                   100%
Brookdale Living Communities of New Jersey, Inc.                  100%
Brookdale Living Communities of New Mexico-SF, Inc.               100%
Brookdale Living Communities of New York, Inc.                    100%
Brookdale Living Communities of New York-BPC, Inc.                100%
Brookdale Living Communities of New York-CPW, Inc.                100%
Brookdale Living Communities of North Carolina, Inc.              100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Pennsylvania-ML, Inc.             100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Texas II, Inc.                    100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Texas, Inc.                       100%
Brookdale Living Communities of Washington, Inc.                  100%
Madison Senior Care, Inc.                                         100%
River Oaks Partners                                               100%
The Ponds of Pembroke, L.P.                                       100%