alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #12174]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Alabama, dated 05/13/2010. *Incident:*
                         Deepwater BP Oil Spill. *Incident Period:*
                         04/20/2010 and continuing.
 DATES: *Effective Date:*
                         05/13/2010. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         02/14/2011.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Baldwin, Mobile. *Contiguous Counties:* Alabama: Clarke, Escambia, Monroe, Washington. Florida: Escambia. Mississippi: George, Greene, Jackson. *The Interest Rates are:* PercentBusinesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 121740. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Alabama, Florida, Mississippi. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002) May 13, 2010. Karen G. Mills, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2010-12074 Filed 5-19-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 30, 2013

p0923

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2013

147142

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147142

COA: 308379

Wayne CC: 11-007730-FH

CHRISTOPHER KIRK ELLEDGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 26, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2594

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to contract with

the Mancos Water Conservancy District to use the

Mancos Project facilities for impounding, storage, diverting, and carriage of nonproject water for the purpose

of irrigation, domestic, municipal, industrial, and any

other beneficial purposes.

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

S 2594 ES

1 SECTION 1. CARRIAGE OF NONPROJECT WATER BY THE

2 MANCOS PROJECT, COLORADO.

3 (a) SALE OF EXCESS WATER.—

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the Act of

5 August 11, 1939 (commonly known as the ‘‘Water

6 Conservation and Utilization Act’’) (16 U.S.C. 590y

7 et seq.), if storage or carrying capacity has been or

8 may be provided in excess of the requirements of the

9 land to be irrigated under the Mancos Project, Colo10 rado (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘project’’), the

11 Secretary of the Interior may, on such terms as the

12 Secretary determines to be just and equitable, con13 tract with the Mancos Water Conservancy District

14 and any of its member unit contractors for impound15 ing, storage, diverting, or carriage of nonproject

16 water for irrigation, domestic, municipal, industrial,

17 and any other beneficial purposes, to an extent not

18 exceeding the excess capacity.

19 (2) INTERFERENCE.—A contract under para20 graph (1) shall not impair or otherwise interfere

21 with any authorized purpose of the project.

22 (3) COST CONSIDERATIONS.—In fixing the

23 charges under a contract under paragraph (1), the

24 Secretary shall take into consideration—

25 (A) the cost of construction and mainte26 nance of the project, by which the nonproject
3

S 2594 ES

1 water is to be diverted, impounded, stored, or

2 carried; and

3 (B) the canal by which the water is to be

4 carried.

5 (4) NO ADDITIONAL CHARGES.—The Mancos

6 Water Conservancy District shall not impose a

7 charge for the storage, carriage, or delivery of the

8 nonproject water in excess of the charge paid to the

9 United States, except to such extent as may be rea10 sonably necessary to cover—

11 (A) a proportionate share of the project

12 cost; and

13 (B) the cost of carriage and delivery of the

14 nonproject water through the facilities of the

15 Mancos Water Conservancy District.

16 (b) WATER RIGHTS OF UNITED STATES NOT EN17 LARGED.—Nothing in this Act enlarges or attempts to en18 large the right of the United States, under existing law,

19 to control any water in any State.

Passed the Senate October 13 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2594

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to contract with the Mancos Water Conservancy District to use the Mancos Project facilities for impounding, storage, diverting, and carriage of nonproject water for the purpose of irrigation, domestic, municipal, industrial, and any other beneficial purposes.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4732 

To authorize Federal agencies to establish prize competitions for innovation 

or adaptation management development relating to ocean acidification. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2014 

Mr. KILMER (for himself, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. HECK

of Washington, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. PETERS of California, and Mr. 

REICHERT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To authorize Federal agencies to establish prize competitions 

for innovation or adaptation management development 

relating to ocean acidification. 

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 ‘‘Ocean Acidification 

5 Innovation Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HEADING. 

7 Section 12404 of the Federal Ocean Acidification Re8 search and Monitoring Act of 2009 (33 U.S.C. 3703) is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4732 IH

1 ‘‘(d) PRIZE COMPETITIONS.— 

2 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any Federal agency with a 

3 representative serving on the interagency working 

4 group established under this section may, either in5 dividually or in cooperation with one or more agen6 cies, carry out a program to award prizes competi7 tively under section 24 of the Stevenson-Wydler 

8 Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 

9 3719). 

10 ‘‘(2) PURPOSES.—Any prize competition carried 

11 out under this subsection shall be for the purpose of 

12 stimulating innovation to advance our Nation’s abil13 ity to understand, research, or monitor ocean acidifi14 cation or its impacts, or to develop management or 

15 adaptation options for responding to ocean acidifica16 tion. 

17 ‘‘(3) PRIORITY PROGRAMS.—Priority shall be 

18 given to establish programs under this section that 

19 address communities, environments, or industries 

20 that are in distress due to the impacts of ocean 

21 acidification, including— 

22 ‘‘(A) the development of monitoring or 

23 management options for communities or indus24 tries that are experiencing significant financial 

25 hardship; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 4732 IH

1 ‘‘(B) the development of adaptation op2 tions to alleviate economic harm and job loss 

3 caused by ocean acidification; 

4 ‘‘(C) the development of measures to help 

5 vulnerable communities or industries, with an 

6 emphasis on rural communities and businesses; 

7 and 

8 ‘‘(D) the development of adaptation and 

9 management options for impacted shellfish in10 dustries.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 93 (Friday, May 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 27294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11548]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[Docket No. 100427198-2060-01]


Privacy Act System of Records

AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/
CENSUS-10 and 5.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) publishes this notice to 
announce the effective date of a Privacy Act System of Records notice 
entitled COMMERCE/CENSUS-5, Decennial Census Program.

DATES: The system of records becomes effective on May 14, 2010.

ADDRESSES: For a copy of the system of records please mail requests to: 
Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Room HQ--8H168, U.S. Census 
Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-3700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, 
Room HQ--8H168, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-3700, 301-763-
6560.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 18, 2010, the Department of 
Commerce published and requested comments on a proposed amended Privacy 
Act System of Records notice entitled COMMERCE/CENSUS-5, Decennial 
Census Program (75 FR 13076). That notice proposed to combine the 
American Community Survey, and the Population and Housing Census 
Records of the 2000 Census Including Preliminary Statistics for the 
2010 Decennial Census, into the COMMERCE/CENSUS-5, Decennial Census 
Program. No comments were received in response to the request for 
comments. By this notice, the Department is adopting the proposed 
amended system as final without changes effective May 14, 2010.

     Dated: May 7, 2010.
Brenda Dolan,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act 
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-11548 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2005, for TNP Enterprises, Inc. ("Company"), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on August 8, 2005 ("Report"), I, Thomas G. Sategna, VicePresident and Corporate Controller of the Company, certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1)     theReport fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)     theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:   August 8, 2005 | By:    | /s/ Thomas G. Sategna         |
|----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                                  |        | Thomas G. Sategna             |
|                                  |        | Vice President and Controller |
|                                  |   |                          |
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-11009 Conference Calendar

ALLEN GLENN THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CHERI R. PERRY, Correctional Officer III; RICHARD A. AVANTS, Captain; MARIO V. SANCHEZ, Sergeant; ROBERT KELLEHER, Grievance Investigator; EMILY L. BOND, Assistant Warden; JOE D. TRUMBO, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:00-CV-31

-------------------- April 10, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Allen Glenn Thomas (TDCJ # 633145) appeals the dismissal as frivolous of his pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) civil rights complaint wherein he alleged that several of the defendants had conspired to retaliate against him for filing grievances, and had violated his right to due process in connection with a disciplinary action.No. 01-11009 -2- The district court shall dismiss a prisoner’s IFP civil rights complaint if the court determines that the action is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Black v. Warren , 134 F.3d 732, 733 (5th Cir. 1998); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii), § 1915A. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Berry v. Brady , 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999). We review the dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint as frivolous for an abuse of discretion. Berry , 192 F.3d at 507. Thomas argues that the district court impermissibly dismissed his complaint based on credibility determinations and that the court should have required the defendants to answer the complaint in order to resolve factual disputes. The record does not, however, support Thomas’s assertion that the dismissal of his complaint was based on credibility determinations. Nor does the record support his assertion that the district court resolved factual disputes against him. Thomas also argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to view his complaint as asserting a denial of due process based on a violation of the TDCJ policy prohibiting the filing of disciplinary actions based on a retaliatory motive. To state a claim of retaliation, Thomas must show, inter alia , that the complained of incident would not have occurred absent the retaliatory motive. See Johnson v. Rodriguez , 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir. 1997). Thomas fails to do so in this case. Thomas’s assertion that he was not allowed to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses at the disciplinaryNo. 01-11009 -3- hearing, and his assertion that the disciplinary captain excluded evidence fail because Thomas has not shown that his disciplinary conviction has been overturned or otherwise declared invalid.

See Clarke v. Stalder , 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998)(en banc)(citing Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997)) . The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. All outstanding motions are DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,216
<SECURITIES>                                    15,833
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,089)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,696
<PP&E>                                       1,346,923
<DEPRECIATION>                                (49,721)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,341,898
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,970
<BONDS>                                        541,367
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           417
<OTHER-SE>                                     783,144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,341,898
<SALES>                                        137,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               137,761
<CGS>                                           44,571
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,571
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,239
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,606
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 49,345
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             49,345
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 26,852
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    76,197
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.11
        

</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00240

- CV
In the Interest of G.S., a child
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- FAM

- 60575

- 5

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. No c osts are assessed , due to appellan t ’ s inability to pay costs. We further order this decision cer tified below for observance. December 1, 2022
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42720

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

TAMMY LYNN MOORE

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 565

Filed: July 27, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling , District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy , Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Feming , Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for responde nt.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Tammy Lynn Moore pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine. Idaho Code § 37

-

2732(c)(1) . The district court sentenced Moore to a unified term of five years with two years

determinate, and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district

court relinquished jurisdiction and executed the original sentence

. Moore filed an Idaho

Criminal Rule 35 motion for a reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. Moore

appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying her Rule 35 motion.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton

, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In2 presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the

record, including any new information submitted with Moore ’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Moore ’s

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
# Cloture Motions - 70th Congress

**

----

|   |  |  |
|--------|--|--|
| From December 5, 1927 through March 3, 1929, 1                    cloture                    motion was                     filed.              |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                            |
| Motions             Filed in                 1929                                                                                               | Action             and Result |
| **Date**                                                                                                                                        | **Measure** | **Subject** | **Filed By** | **Date** | **Vote** | **Result** |
| March 1                                                                                                                                         | H.R.15430 | Federal Radio Commission | Watson | March 1 | no vote | N |
|                                                                                                                                            |
|                                                                                                                                                 |
|  **Vote Key:**                    61-32 No. 2 (for example) - tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC - Unanimous                     Consent. |
|  **Result Key:**                    F - Failed; I - Invoked; N - No action; V - Vitiated; W - Withdrawn.                                   |
|                                                                                                                                                 |
|                                                                                                                                            |

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure
**Exhibit 21**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

ALFA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES 

(As of March 31, 2007) 

Alfa Corporation (a Delaware corporation)

Alfa Insurance Corporation (an Alabama corporation) 

Alfa General Insurance Corporation (an Alabama corporation) 

Alfa Vision Insurance Corporation (an Alabamacorporation) 

Alfa Alliance Insurance Corporation (a Virginia corporation) 

Alfa Life Insurance Corporation (an Alabama corporation) 

Alfa Financial Corporation (an Alabama corporation) 

The Vision Insurance Group, LLC (a Tennessee limitedliability company) 

Alfa Agency Mississippi, Inc. (a Mississippi corporation) 

Alfa Agency Georgia, Inc. (a Georgia corporation) 

Alfa Benefits Corporation (an Alabama corporation) 

 

52