alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1107]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 533

[Docket No. 94-20; Notice 4]
RIN 2127-AF16


Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standard, Model Year 1998

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On January 3, 1996, NHTSA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (61 FR 145) to establish a corporate average fuel economy 
standard for light trucks for model year 1998. The comment closing date 
was given as February 20, 1996, under the ``Dates'' heading on page 145 
but as March 4, 1996, under the ``Comments'' section on page 155. The 
comment closing date on page 155 should be February 20, 1996.

    Issued on: January 18, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-1107 Filed 1-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafael Valdes, Also Known as Rafael Valdes Duartes, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered December 3, 1986, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of from 20 years to life, is unanimously affirmed.

The People cannot introduce evidence on rebuttal merely to attack defendant’s credibility. However, the People’s use of the videotaped interrogation session in this case was entirely proper in light of the fact that defendant himself brought into issue a material fact upon which the videotape was relevant. Where, as here, a witness testifies concerning a fact material to the case, he may be contradicted by extrinsic evidence. *(People v Schwartzman,*24 NY2d 241, 244, *cert denied*396 US 846.) Accordingly, the use of the videotape of the interrogation session as rebuttal evidence was proper.

Defendant’s sentence was not an abuse of discretion on the part of the sentencing court. The court properly weighed all relevant factors in defendant’s history, criminal and otherwise, and the nature of the crime charged in arriving at a proper sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302.) Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

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 annual report of The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K, for the period ended October 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Darl C. McBride, Chief Executive 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:



|By: | /s/DARL C. MCBRIDEDarl C. McBride
President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

Date:
January 28, 2004

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7265

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MOHAMED HASSAN SOLIMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District 

Judge. (2:06-cr-00169-RBS-FBS-1; 2:08-cv-00278-RBS)

Submitted: May 13, 2010 Decided: August 24, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mohamed Hassan Soliman, Appellant Pro Se. Robert John Krask, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mohamed Hassan Soliman seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Soliman has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. In 

addition, we deny Soliman’s motion for appointment of counsel. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1389

SANDRA LYNETTE SPENCER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

TYCO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION; AIR EXPRESS

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CA-01-949-1)

Submitted: September 29, 2003 Decided: October 16, 2003

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sandra Lynette Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Kristin Elise Toussaint,

George Andrew Harper, JACKSON LEWIS L.L.P., Greenville, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Sandra Lynette Spencer appeals the district court’s orders

granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss and for summary judgment in

her employment discrimination action and denying her motion for

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Spencer v. Tyco Electronics Corp., No. CA-01-

949-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 27 and May 7, 2003). We 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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5756 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 to permit the 

sale of technologies to certain water and irrigation districts to expedite 

the removal of harmful algal blooms, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 

Mr. HARDER of California (for himself and Ms. MACE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology 

A BILL 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 

to permit the sale of technologies to certain water and 

irrigation districts to expedite the removal of harmful 

algal blooms, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Families from 

5 Toxic Algal Blooms Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM TECHNOLOGIES. 

7 Section 128 of the Water Resources Development Act 

8 of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 610 note) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5756 IH

1 (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub2 section (f); and 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(e) HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM TECHNOLOGIES.—In 

6 carrying out the demonstration program under subsection 

7 (a), the Secretary may enter into agreements with water 

8 and irrigation districts located in the focus areas described 

9 in subsections (c) and (d) for the use or sale of any new 

10 technologies developed under the program to expedite the 

11 removal of harmful algal blooms in such areas.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT



         We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
No. 333-30550 and No. 333-62112 on Form S-8 of FLAG Telecom Holdings Limited of
our report dated March 28, 2002 on our audit of the consolidated financial
statements of FLAG Telecom Holdings Limited, and our report dated December 30,
1999 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of FLAG Limited,
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of FLAG Telecom Holdings Limited for
the year ended December 31, 2001.


/s/ Arthur Andersen
Arthur Andersen
Hamilton, Bermuda
March 28, 2002
#### Margie L. TEWELL, Appellant, v. Fred O. TEWELL, Respondent.

No. 55979.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Nov. 21, 1989.

Geoffrey Lynn Pratte, Farmington, for appellant.

Fred 0. Tewell, Lewiston, Mass., pro se.

CARL R. GAERTNER, Judge.

Wife appeals from the order of the circuit court which granted husband’s motion to modify a dissolution decree by terminating his obligation to pay child support. We affirm.

On May 6, 1988, the marriage of the parties was dissolved. The court adopted the separation agreement including husband’s agreement to $75 per week for the support of one minor child, Rhonda, born November 1, 1970. On October 17, 1988, husband filed a motion to modify the decree by eliminating child support for the reason that Rhonda would be 18 on November 1, 1988 and his obligation to pay child support should terminate on that date. The motion was heard on November 4, 1988, and on November 21, 1988, the trial court sustained husband’s motion. The court found that Rhonda had attained the age of 18, was not attending an institution of vocational or higher education and that her right to support terminated pursuant to § 452.340 Supp.RSMo.1988.

The identical issue was presented to our brethren in the Western District in *Kocherov v. Kocherov,*775 S.W.2d 539 (Mo.App.1989). In a thoroughly researched and well-reasoned opinion authored by the Honorable William E. Tumage, the court concluded:

> This court holds that [wife] had no vested right to receive future child support payments and therefore when the legislature provided that the obligation to pay child support terminated when the child reached the age of 18, a change of condition occurred which authorized the court to modify the judgment to terminate child support payments payable thereafter. Further, no accrued rights were affected by the change in age so that the statute does not have retrospective application and the savings statutes are not offended.

The opinion in *Kocherov,*which had not been handed down at the time the appellant’s brief was filed herein, effectively disposes of the contentions asserted by wife. We perceive no need to reiterate the language of the *Kocherov*opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

STEPHAN and HAMILTON, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5544 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5544

 To amend title 31, United States Code, to eliminate exceptions to the 
  provisions of such title commonly referred to as the Miscellaneous 
                 Receipts Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2023

   Ms. Mace introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 31, United States Code, to eliminate exceptions to the 
  provisions of such title commonly referred to as the Miscellaneous 
                 Receipts Act, 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 ``Upholding the Power of the Purse 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EXCEPTIONS TO MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 3302 of title 31, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Except as provided by 
        another law'' and inserting ``Except as provided in subsection 
        (c)(3)''; and
            (2) in subsection (c), by add at the end the following:
            ``(3) The requirement in subsection (b) shall not apply to 
        any Federal program under which the Government is a custodian 
        of money for States or units of local government, or under 
        which the Government disperses amounts to States or units of 
        local government.''.
    (b) Application.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall begin 
to apply in fiscal year 2024.
                                 <all>
```
#### Alfonzo CURRY, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, ex rel. Robin LEWIS, Respondent.

No. 65801.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 13, 1994.

Daniel J. Bruntrager, Bruntrager & Billings, P.C., St. Louis, for appellant.

Roy R. Hardee, Mo. Dept, of Social Services, Div. of Legal Services, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Father was found in arrears in his child support obligation by an order of the Division of Child Support Enforcement (Division). Father appealed the order to the circuit court which affirmed the order. We affirm. The order of the Division is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record as a whole, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5814 

Making appropriations for certain Federal housing programs in the event 

of a Government shutdown. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2023 

Mr. SCHIFF introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Appropriations 

A BILL 

Making appropriations for certain Federal housing programs 

in the event of a Government shutdown. 

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 ‘‘Affordable Housing 

5 Stability During Shutdowns Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR SECTION 8 RENTAL ASSISTANCE 

7 VOUCHERS DURING GOVERNMENT SHUT8 DOWN. 

9 There are hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2024, 

10 out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise approVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:19 Oct 01, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5814.IH H5814

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5814 IH

1 priated, such sums as are necessary to provide assistance, 

2 during the period of a lapse in discretionary appropria3 tions beginning on or after the date of the enactment of 

4 this section and at a rate for operations and under the 

5 terms and conditions provided for such assistance in fiscal 

6 year 2023, under the following programs: 

7 (1) The housing choice voucher program for 

8 rental assistance under section 8(o) of the United 

9 States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), 

10 including the program under paragraph (13) of such 

11 section for project-based voucher assistance. 

12 (2) The program for project-based rental assist13 ance under section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1437f). 

14 (3) The program for assistance for supportive 

15 housing for the elderly under section 202 of the 

16 Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q). 

17 (4) The program for assistance for supportive 

18 housing for persons with disabilities under section 

19 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 

20 Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013). 

21 (5) The program for rental assistance for rural 

22 multifamily housing under title V of the Housing 

23 Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AldabraAcquisition Corporation (the "Company") onForm 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 (the"Report"), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, I Jason Weiss, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18  U.S.C.Sec.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

1.    The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

2.    The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.

By: /s/ Jason Weiss                                  Dated:August 15, 2005  Jason Weiss  ChiefExecutive Officer  (Principal Executive and Accountingand Financial Officer)

----
Order entered August 20, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00620-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.H.M. AND C.A.M., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-53138-2012

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s August 18, 2015 third motion for an extension of time to file a 

brief. Appellant shall file a brief by AUGUST 31, 2015. We caution appellant that no further 

extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




STATEMENT
      REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT


TO
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Axiom III, Inc (the
      "Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Lawrence M. Nault, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, certify that:




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




*
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/
      Lawrence M. Nault


Lawrence
      M. Nault


President,
      Chief Executive Officer,


Chief
      Financial Officer, Controller





May
      17,
      2007







This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of Section 18
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 14 - 00254 - CR

JAMES ALVIN GREENE APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 97TH DISTRI CT COURT OF MONTAGUE COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 2013

- 0021M

- CR

---------- 

### MEMORAND UM OPINION 1

---------- In two point s, James Alvin Greene contends that the trial court erred by requiring him to pay $2,564 in court costs in its judgment adjudicating him guilty
of sexual assault . We modify the judgment to reduce the court costs to $564 and affirm it as modified

.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 The State filed a petition to adjudicate appellant guilty of sexual assault, for which he was on deferred adjudication community supervision. The trial court found two of the allegations in the petition to adjudicate to be true. After receiving a presentencing report, the trial court assessed appellant’s punishment at ten years’ confinement

. The trial court did not orally assess a fine. The judgment included the imposition of “court costs” in the amount of $2,564. The bill of costs prepared by the District Clerk’s office shows that $2,000 of the court costs is attributable to a “fine” and that $450 i s attributable to attorney’s fees. In his first point, appellant contends that the court costs improperly included a $2,000 fine assessed in the original order placing him on deferred adjudication community supervision because the trial judge did not orally pronounce the fine as part of appellant’s sentence upon adjudicating him guilty. The State concedes that the $2,000 cannot pro perly be assessed as court costs. See Taylor v. State , 131 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Therefore, w e sustain appellant’s first point. In his second point, appellant challenges $450 of the remaining $564 in
court costs because he contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that he has the ability to pay $450 in attorney’s fees

. The original order placing appellant on deferred adjudication, which was the result of a plea bargain, included $450 in attorney’s fees

. Because appellant did n ot challenge this part of the court costs in a direct appeal from the order deferring adjudication, he has forfeited this complaint. Wiley v. State , 410 S.W.3d 313, 320

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see3 also Armstrong v. State , 340 S.W.3d 759, 767 (Tex. Crim . App. 2011) (explaining that attorney’s fees may be included in court costs and, being nonpunitive, are not required to be orally pronounced to be effective) . We overrule appellant’s second point. Conclusion Having sustained appellant’s first point and overruled his second point , we modify the trial court’s judgment to reduce the court costs to $564 and affirm the judgment as modified.
/s/ Terrie Livingston TERRIE LIVINGSTON CHIEF JUSTICE PANEL: LIVINGSTON , C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER , JJ. DO NOT PUBLI SH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: March 26, 2015
#### Eartell GREEN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 64991.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 19, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 22, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 20, 1994.

*299David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and CRIST and CRAHAN, J.J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.-035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).