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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3573 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3573

  To direct the Secretary of State to seek to enter into negotiations 
 with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office to rename 
    its office the ``Taiwan Representative Office'', and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 3, 2022

Mr. Rubio (for himself and Mr. Menendez) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of State to seek to enter into negotiations 
 with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office to rename 
    its office the ``Taiwan Representative Office'', 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. DESIGNATION OF AND REFERENCES TO TAIWAN REPRESENTATIVE 
              OFFICE.

    (a) Statement of Policy.--It shall be the policy of the United 
States, consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 3301 et 
seq.) and the Six Assurances, to provide the people of Taiwan with de 
facto diplomatic treatment equivalent to foreign countries, nations, 
states, governments, or similar entities, and, consistent with this 
policy, to rename the ``Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative 
Office'' in the United States as the ``Taiwan Representative Office''.
    (b) Renaming.--The Secretary of State shall seek to enter into 
negotiations with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative 
Office to rename its office in Washington, DC, the ``Taiwan 
Representative Office''.
    (c) References.--If the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative 
Office is designated as the Taiwan Representative Office, any reference 
in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the 
United States Government to the Taipei Economic and Cultural 
Representative Office shall be deemed to be a reference to the Taiwan 
Representative Office, including for all official purposes of the 
United States Government, all courts of the United States, and any 
proceedings therein.
    (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed as entailing restoration of diplomatic relations with the 
Republic of China (Taiwan) or altering the position of the United 
States with respect to the international status of Taiwan.
                                 <all>
```
#### MRS. ADDIE LILLIAN SMITH v. UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., W. G. FIELDS and Wife, MINNIE B. FIELDS, GLYNN FIELDS and Wife, JACKIE FIELDS, W. G. FIELDS, JR., and Wife, NANETTE WOOD FIELDS, FRANK M. CARLISLE and Wife, THEO FIELDS CARLISLE, Individually and Doing Business as UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

(Filed 13 January, 1956.)

Appeal by defendants from *Bickett, J.,*May Term, 1955, of ORANGE.

This is a civil action to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff when the defendants’ garbage truck, which had been parked near the plaintiff’s home, with the motor running, where it remained unattended for some ten minutes, rolled downhill toward plaintiff’s house and struck the plaintiff who was on her porch, pinning her to the porch and inflicting upon her serious injuries.

. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and from the judgment entered thereon the defendants appeal, assigning error.

*John T. Manning and Baade, Fuller, Newsom & Graham for appellee.*

*Bonner D. Sawyer and L. J. Phipps for appellants.*

PeR Cueiam.

We have carefully examined the defendants’ assignments of error and in our opinion they present no prejudicial error of sufficient merit to justify a new trial. Hence, in the trial below we find

No error.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6862

HABAKKUK E. BEN YOWEL, a/k/a B. Robinson, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of VA Department of Corrections; MARK WARNER, Governor of Virginia; JERRY KILGORE, Attorney General of Virginia; MARK R. DAVIS, (Present and/or former) Senior Assistant Attorney General of Virginia; R. ANGELONE, (former) Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; JAMES S. GILMORE, III, (former) Governor of Virginia; JOHN HAGAR, (former) Lt. Governor of Virginia; MARK L. EARLY, Attorney General of Virginia; FRED L. FINKBEINER, (Present and/or former) Chairman of Virginia Board of Corrections; R. A. YOUNG, (Present and/or former) Regional Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; L. W. JARVIS, (Present and/or former) Warden of Bland Correctional Center; G. K. WASHINGTON, Warden of Buckingham Correctional Center; W. P. ROGERS, Regional Administrator of Virginia Department of Corrections; ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden of Powhatan Correctional Center; J. COLIN CAMPBELL, (present and/or former) Judge of the Circuit Court of Bland County; DAVID B. BEACH, (present and/or former) Clerk of VA Supreme Court, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-147)- 2 - Submitted: September 3, 2004 Decided: October 26, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Habakkuk E. Ben Yowel, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Habakkuk E. Ben Yowel appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000) for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. SeeYowel v. Johnson , No. CA-04-147 (E.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2004). We deny Yowel’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 12, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 131905 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, STELLA SIDUN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 131905 COA: 264581 Court of Claims: 04-000240-MT WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 15, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed whet her the defendant’s effo rts to provide notice satisfied due process, in light of Jones v Flowers , 547 US 220; 126 S Ct 1708; 164 L Ed 2d 415 (2006).

d0905 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 12, 2007

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4771]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Fossil Energy
[FE Docket No. 95-08-NG]


BC Gas Utility Ltd.; Order Granting Authorization to Import 
Natural Gas From and Export Natural Gas to Canada

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of order.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy of the Department of Energy gives 
notice that it has issued an order granting BC Gas Utility Ltd. (BC 
Gas) five-year authorization to import near Sumas, Washington, up to 
12.6 Bcf of Canadian gas for injection into storage in Dagget County, 
Utah, and later to export up to 12.0 Bcf of this gas back to Canada 
after withdrawal from storage. The term of this authorization is from 
May 1, 1995, through April 30, 2000. In addition, BC Gas is authorized 
to sell some of the stored gas in the Untied States under spot and 
short-term arrangements.
    This order is available for inspection and copying in the Office of 
Fuels Programs Docket Room, 3F-056, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-9478. The 
docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., February 14, 1995.
Clifford P. Tomaszewski,
Director, Office of Natural Gas, Office of Fuels Programs, Office of 
Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 95-4771 Filed 2-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
#### IRVIN I. GURFEIN, Trading as SOUTHERN PLATE *&*WINDOW GLASS COMPANY, v. ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC.

(Filed 14 December, 1955.)

Carriers § 11—

Evidence that merchandise in good condition was delivered to a carrier and that it was delivered by the carrier in damaged condition, makes out a *prima facie*case precluding nonsuit.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Preyer, J.,*at 29 August, 1955, Term (Civil), of Guilford. ....

Civil action to recover damage to property in transit from, Toledo,, Ohio, to plaintiff in Greensboro, North Carolina.

*290Upon the trial in Superior Court plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that defendant, a common carrier of property by motor truck in interstate commerce, accepted from Toledo Plate & Window Glass Company, in Toledo, Ohio, one case of plate glass silvered for mirrors in good condition for transportation by motor truck and trailer to plaintiff in Greensboro, North Carolina, for which defendant issued a straight bill of lading; that after the shipment arrived at plaintiff’s place in Greensboro the driver of defendant’s truck said “We tore these braces loose and it slipped down in the truck”; that the glass was delivered “in a totally damaged condition”; and that the wholesale value of the glass was $809.96 plus freight.

When plaintiff rested its case, motion of defendant for judgment as of nonsuit was allowed, and to judgment in accordance therewith dismissing the action, and taxing plaintiff with the cost, plaintiff excepted, and appeals therefrom to Supreme Court and assigns error.

*Thomas Turner and J. J. Shields for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Blackwell, Blackwell & Canady for defendant, appellee.*

Per CuRiam.

The evidence offered by plaintiff, taken in the light most favorable to it, makes out a *prima facie*case for consideration by the jury. Hence the judgment as of nonsuit entered in the court below is

Reversed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of HF Financial Corp. (the “Company”)for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curtis L. Hage,Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Curtis L. Hage                   |                           |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|   | Curtis L. Hage, Chairman,  President |
|   | and Chief  Executive Officer         |
|   |                                 |
|   | Date:                                |   September 26, 2005 |   |
|        |                                      |                                |  |

 

----

*                                         Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to HF Financial Corp. and will be retained by HF Financial Corp. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
quarterly report of bebe stores, inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Walter Parks,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|                    |  |  |  |  |  |                                                    
|------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 11, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Walter Parks                                   
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Walter Parks                                       
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3749]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AB


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of 
Comment Period on Koala Review

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Status review; notice of reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Service gives notice that the comment period on the status 
review of the Australian koala, as initiated in response to a petition 
to add the species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 
will be reopened until April 1, 1995.

DATES: All comments and information received through April 1, 1995, 
will be considered in making a final decision on whether the requested 
action is warranted, and will be included in the administrative record.

ADDRESSES: Comments, information, and questions should be submitted to 
the Chief, Office of Scientific Authority; Room 725, 4401 North Fairfax 
Drive; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Arlington, Virginia 22203 (Fax 
number 703-358-2276). Express and messenger-delivered mail should be 
addressed to the Office of Scientific Authority; Room 750, 4401 North 
Fairfax Drive; Arlington, Virginia 22203. The petition finding, 
supporting data, and comments will be available for public inspection, 
by appointment, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at 
the Arlington, Virginia address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Charles W. Dane, Chief, Office of Scientific Authority, at the 
above address (phone 703-358-1708).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of October 4, 1994 
(59 FR 50557-50558), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 
announced the 90-day finding that a petition to add the Australian 
koala (Phasocarctos cinereus) to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife had presented substantial information indicting that the 
requested action may be warranted. A status review was initiated, with 
the original comment period ending February 1, 1995. During that 
period, requests to extend the comment period were received from the 
Fund for Animals and Australians for Animals (the original 
petitioners), the Zoological Society of San Diego, and the American Zoo 
and Aquarium Association's Marsupial and Monotreme Advisory Group. All 
indicated that more time was needed to collect pertinent information. 
In response, the Service has decided to reopen the comment period until 
April 1, 1995.

    Authority: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.).

    Dated: February 7, 1995.
Mollie H. Beattie,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 95-3749 Filed 2-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 14 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOE T. BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOM WHETHEL, Defendant-Appellee. No. 97-6126 (D.C. No. 96-CV-2093) (Western District of Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. **See** Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.- 2 -

Joe Thomas Bell appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action for failure to pay an installment of the filing fee established for him by the court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The court’s investigation prior to dismissing the action showed Mr. Bell apparently spent his prison account on “canteen” rather than meet the installments ordered by the court. The court concluded Mr. Bell was not serious about his suit and dismissed as a consequence. Mr. Bell has appealed, presenting documents to us indicating the failure to pay the required fee may have been caused by his jailers and that money had been drawn from Mr. Bell’s account but not paid to the court. For numerous, but really irrelevant reasons, he asserts the dismissal by the district court was erroneous. Our reading of the provisions of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act leaves us in grave doubt whether a district court may dismiss a prisoner’s case for failure to pay an installment of the docket fee. While the court relied on cases from other circuits to support its action, those cases antedated the PLRA and are not apposite. The only statutory grounds for dismissal of the in forma pauperis action are set forth in § 1915(e)(2). None of those provisions are related to the nonpayment of fees. In the absence of statutory authority, dismissal for that reason is contrary to § 1915(b)(4) which prohibits the denial of access to the court on the grounds of poverty. **See** Walp v. Scott , 115 F.3d 308, 310 (5th Cir 1997).- 3 -

Dismissal of the complaint was at worst, however, premature. The grounds for relief appear tenuous, and upon further determination by the district court, may even prove baseless. Nonetheless, we must REVERSE and REMAND WITH INSTRUCTIONS to reinstate the action. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge Judge Murphy dissents.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4235]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 1862-014-WA]


City of Tacoma; Notice of Intent To Hold a Public Meeting in 
Eatonville, Washington To Discuss the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS) for the Existing Nisqually Hydroelectric Project

February 15, 1995.
    In December 1994, the Commission staff mailed the DEIS for the 
licensing of the existing hydroelectric project, which consists of two 
adjacent hydroelectric generating facilities in the Nisqually River 
Basin, to the Environmental Protection Agency, resource and land 
management agencies, and interested organizations and individuals. This 
document evaluates the environmental and economic consequences of 
relicensing the applicant's (City of Tacoma (Tacoma)) existing 45 MW 
Alder facility and existing 69 MW LaGrande facility with enhancements 
as proposed by Tacoma, and alternatives to the applicant's proposal.
    The alternatives to the applicant's proposal include: no action 
(continued operation without any enhancement); and Tacoma's proposal 
with alternative operation and enhancements of recreation, fishery, and 
wildlife resources and other measures requested by conservation 
intervenors, agencies, and staff.
    The public meeting, which will be recorded by an official 
stenographer, is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 1, 1995 at 
the Eatonville High School Theater, 302 Mashell Avenue North, 
Eatonville, Washington.
    At the meeting, resource agency personnel and other interested 
persons will have the opportunity to provide oral and written comments 
and recommendations regarding the DEIS for the Commission's public 
record. In addition, written comments may be filed with the Secretary, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426 until March 14, 1995. All written comments should 
clearly show the following caption on the first page: Nisqually (P-
1862) DEIS.

    For further information, please contact Edward R. Meyer at (202) 
208-7998.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4235 Filed 2-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M