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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 500 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 500

                     To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 1995

  Mr. Ballenger (for himself, Mr. Armey, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. 
 Archer, Mr. Baker of California, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Bass, 
 Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Bono, Mr. Burr, Mr. Canady of Florida, 
 Mr. Coble, Mr. Cox of California, Mr. Crane, Mr. Dornan, Mr. Dreier, 
Mr. Fawell, Mr. Funderburk, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Goodling, Mr. Goss, Mr. 
    Graham, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. 
 Hutchinson, Mr. Istook, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Largent, Mr. 
  Linder, Mr. Livingston, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Moorhead, Mr. Packard, Mr. 
Porter, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Taylor of 
North Carolina, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Christensen) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Economic 
                              Opportunity

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                     To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act.

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

SECTION 1. DAVIS-BACON ACT.

    (a) Repeal.--The Act of March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.) 
(commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon Act) is repealed.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law to a wage requirement of 
the Act of March 3, 1931, shall after the date of the enactment of this 
Act be null and void.

SEC. 2. COPELAND ACT.

    Section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 276c) (commonly 
referred to as the ``Copeland Act'') is repealed.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by sections 1 and 2 shall take effect 30 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act but shall not affect any 
contract in existence on such date of enactment or made pursuant to 
invitation for bids outstanding on such date of enactment.
                                 <all>
```
#### McDONALD v. UNION INDEMNITY CO.

No. 4547.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 30, 1933.

C. Y. Pattison, of Lake Charles, and Thatcher, Browne, Porteous & Myers, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Fern M. Wood, of Leesville, for appellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

Plaintiff, an employee of the Barber Bros. Construction Company, instituted this suit against Union Indemnity Company, surety of the employer for workmen’s compensation liability, to recover 65 per cent, of his weekly wages for the period of his disability, following injuries received by him in the course of his employment, not to exceed 400 weeks.

Defendant admits that plaintiff was in the employ of the Barber Bros. Construction Company when he claims to have been injured, but denies that he was injured or disabled from the effect of any accident to him while thus employed, and therefore denies any liability to him for compensation.

Plaintiff was given judgment, as prayed for, and defendant appealed suspensively.

Appeal Dismissed.

In this court the appellee filed motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that appellant, Union Indemnity Company, had been dissolved and placed in the hands of receivers by the civil district court of Orleans parish, for liquidation, and that there is no defendant and no appellant before the court, the receivers not having been made, and not having made themselves, parties to the suit or to the appeal.

Counsel for appellant, in brief, opposes this motion to dismiss the appeal, and say it is no,t sustainable because there is no evidence before this court that the allegations of fact set out in the motion are true, and refer us to the recent ease of Mustack v. Union Indemnity Company, 147 So. 749, 753, wherein the Court of Appeal for the First circuit declined to dismiss an appeal by the defendant, based on the same grounds as the present one, because such motion was only supported by the ex parte affidavit of counsel of plaintiff, and, as the court said, “there is no showing of which we can take cognizance from any court that would justify us in acting on the motion as presented.”

We do not find ourselves in the predicament described by our brothers of the First circuit. In several recent cases the present status of defendant and of its business was, on proper and sufficient evidence, recognized by us. We only have to take cognizance of our own official action. Tennessee-Arkansas Gravel Co. v. Harvey & Jones et al. (Da. App.) 147 So. 739; Levy v. Union Indemnity Company (La. App.) 146 So. 182.

The motion is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed, as prayed for.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The 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

APR 11 2002

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES CHRISTOPHER

ASHFORD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GARY GIBSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 01-5156

(D.C. No. 99-CV-785-B)

(N.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , McKAY , 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Charles Ashford, a state prisoner convicted of one count of sexual assault

on a child, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s

denial of his habeas corpus petition. To obtain a COA, he must make

“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2).

Ashford challenges several evidentiary rulings made by the state trial court.

In light of the governing legal standard, this court has reviewed his request for

a COA, his appellate brief, and the district court’s order; it has also read the

transcript from his trial. Based on that review, and for substantially the reasons

stated by the district court in its Order of September 4, 2001, we are convinced

Ashford’s § 2254 petition is not deserving of further proceedings, debatable

among jurists of reason, or subject to different resolution on appeal. His request

for a COA is DENIED. This appeal is accordingly DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge
#### H. P. Lough v. A. A. White.

Opinion filed October 7, 1904.

(100 N. W. 1084)

Appealable Order.

1. An order of the district court dismissing an appeal from a justice’s court judgment is not appealable.

Appeal from District Court, Cass county; *Pollock,*J.

Action by H. P. Lough against A. A. White. Judgment for plaintiff; defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*John E. Greene (Benton, Lovell Holt on brief),*for appellant.

*Barnett '& Reese,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The defendant has attempted to appeal from an order of the district court dismissing his appeal from a justice’s court judgment. Under our statute, as repeatedly held by this court, such orders are not appealable. See In re Weber, 4 N. D. 119, 59 N. W. 523, 28 L. R. A. 621; Field v. Elevator Co., 5 N. D. 400, 67 N. W. 147; Prondzinski v. Garbutt, 9 N. D. 239, 83 N. W. 23.

The appeal must therefore be dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18462]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13092-000]


Rhode Island Energy Group, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

August 5, 2008.
    On December 31, 2007, Rhode Island Energy Group, LLC filed an 
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Sakonnet River Project, to be 
located on the Sakonnet River in Newport County, Rhode Island.
    The proposed Sakonnet River Project consists of: (1) A proposed 
shrouded tidal turbin generating unit having an installed capacity of 
500 kilowatts, (2) a proposed transmission line, and (3) appurtenant 
facilities. The Rhode Island Energy Group, LLC, project would have an 
average annual generation of 2 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local 
utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. John J. Callahan, Rhode Island Energy Group, 
LLC, P.O. Box 130, Portsmouth, RI 02871, phone (401) 683-0031.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, (202) 502-6062.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13092) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-18462 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the
Partnership), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Partnership.



|                                                                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Kevin L. Foxx                                                                                                                
|Kevin L. Foxx                                                                                                                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer of SemGroup Energy
Partners G.P., L.L.C., general partner of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P.

May 8, 2008



|                                                                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael J. Brochetti                                                                                           
|Michael J. Brochetti                                                                                               
|Chief Financial Officer of SemGroup Energy Partners
G.P., L.L.C., general partner of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P.

May 8, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            9972
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7256
<ALLOWANCES>                                       103
<INVENTORY>                                       8770
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 26397
<PP&E>                                           11370
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   35328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             7280
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            13057
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            97
<OTHER-SE>                                       14894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     35328
<SALES>                                          36114
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 38062
<CGS>                                            30392
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    30392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 17937
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   290
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (25)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10582)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10582)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (805)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11387)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.27)



</TABLE>
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 BLS Media, Inc. a Nevada corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Gary
Prager, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (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 result of operations of the
      Company.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
BLS Media, Inc., and will be retained by BLS Media, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
   /s/ Gary
      PragerGary
      Prager
                    Chief Financial
      Officer
                      May
      14, 2008
# FIL ED

Ma y 9, 1996

Cecil W. Crow son A pp ellat e C ou rt C lerk IN THE CO UR T OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NA SH VILLE F EBR UA RY

1996 SESSI ON

STATE OF TENN ESSEE

, ) ) Appel lee

, ) No. 01C 01- 9507- CR -0 0220

) ) Dav ids on C ounty

v

. ) ) H on. A nn Lac y

Jo hns, Ju dg e ) RO BER T LEE B AILEY , J R.

, ) ( Sal e of Co cai ne and Ev adi ng Ar re st) ) Appel lan t. )

CO NC UR RI NG OPI NI ON

I concu r in the ma jority

opinio n, bu t I w rite sepa rately to stress my conce rn

about the u se of ev ide nce of compl ain ts about dr ug deal ing near a s chool for t he

ost ensi ble pur pose of ex pla ini ng w hy the pol ic e w er e c onduc ti ng the under cov er

investig ation w here they did. W e ne ed n ot “assum e” it to be ina dm issible -- w e sho uld

decl ar e i t t o be becau se it s r is k o f prej udi ce subs tanti all y outw eig hs it s n ominal

re lev ance. Ther e w as no g ood r eason for t he pol ic e to ex pla in any thi ng othe r than that

they w er e c onduc ti ng an u nder cov er dr ug i nv est ig ati on. One t re ati se has re cog niz ed as

an “ ar ea of appar entl y

w ide spr ead abu se” the all ow ing of pol ic e off ic er s t o r ela te

hear say st atements , s uch as compl ain ts and r epor ts, for t he s uppos ed pur pose of

ex pla ini ng the off ic er s’ pr esenc e and condu ct. 2 John W il li am Str ong M cC or mic k O n

Ev ide nce at 10 4 ( 4th e d. 19 92) ; s ee al so Stat e v . R andal l Gi bbs, D ic ks on C o., No.

01C0 1-94 09-CC-003 00 (T enn . Crim. App . July14, 19 95) (Sum me rs, concurring). Such

an a buse occurred in th is case. It is onlybeca use th e evidence is ov erw helm ing i n

show ing the defendant’ s g uil t t hat I ag re e tha t t he c onv ic ti on s houl d be aff ir med.

Jo se p h M. T ip to n , J u d ge
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4320

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to require a credit card issuer to

disclose only 1 annual percentage rate of interest in any preapproved

application or solicitation to open a credit card account under an open

end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to require a credit

card issuer to disclose only 1 annual percentage rate

of interest in any preapproved application or solicitation

to open a credit card account under an open end

consumer credit plan, 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 ‘‘Truth in Credit Card

5 Offers Act’’.
2

•HR 4320 IH

1 SEC. 2. TRUTH IN CREDIT CARD OFFERS.

2 (a) DISCLOSURE OF ACTUAL APPLICABLE ANNUAL

3 PERCENTAGE RATE.—Section 127(c) of the Truth in

4 Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1637(c)) is amended—

5 (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as para6 graph (6); and

7 (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the follow8 ing new paragraph:

9 ‘‘(5) PREAPPROVED CREDIT CARD SOLICITA10 TIONS.—If any application, solicitation, or offer to

11 open a credit card account under an open end

12 consumer credit plan is designated or described as

13 ‘preapproved’ or contains similar terms which would

14 lead a reasonable person to conclude that the con15 sumer’s acceptance of the terms of the account will

16 result in the issuance of a credit card, only 1 annual

17 percentage rate of interest may be disclosed in such

18 application or solicitation as the annual percentage

19 rate applicable to such account at the time the ac20 count is opened.’’.

21 (b) CONSPICUOUS DISCLOSURE OF ANNUAL PER22 CENTAGE RATE.—Section 122(c)(2) of the Truth in Lend23 ing Act (15 U.S.C. 1632(c)) is amended by adding at the

24 end the following new subparagraph:

25 ‘‘(D) CONSPICUOUS DISCLOSURE OF AN26 NUAL PERCENTAGE RATE.—The typeface used
3

•HR 4320 IH

1 to disclose the annual percentage rate shall be

2 twice as high as the typeface used for any other

3 item in the table.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>



                                                                  Exhibit 32.9

                                  CERTIFICATION


         The undersigned hereby certify that Crown NorthCorp, Inc.'s report on
Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and the
information contained in the report fairly represents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the company.



Dated: September 21, 2005                   By:  /s/ Ronald E. Roark
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Ronald E. Roark, Vice Chairman
                                                and Chief Executive Officer


                                            By: /s/ Rick L. Lewis
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Rick L. Lewis, Vice President,
                                                Treasurer and Chief Financial
                                                Officer


                                            By: /s/ Stephen W. Brown
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Stephen W. Brown, Secretary


   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Crown NorthCorp, Inc. and will
    be retained by Crown NorthCorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
                 Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Jacob W. Staley and Joseph Shaw, as Executors, etc., of Jacob Stalee, Deceased, Appellants, v. Michael D. Murray and Others, Respondents.

(No. 1.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### Ex Parte Thomas William Ryter.

No. 25709.

January 23, 1952.

Relator represented himself.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is an application for the writ of habeas corpus by which relator seeks his discharge from the penitentiary.

When the application for the writ was presented to the judges of this court, it appeared from the allegations contained therein that relator had been permitted to plead guilty before the court and waive trial by jury in a capital case without the benefit of counsel. Upon those allegations we granted the application to file, and directed that certified copies of the indictments, judgments, and sentences in the cases referred to be obtained and filed herein — which has been done.

It now appears from said documents that the plea of guilty and waiver were entered in an ordinary felony case, and that relator was represented upon the trial by counsel.

The allegations of the application not being supported by the facts, the writ of habeas corpus is refused.

Opinion approved by the court.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1049
VICTOR HAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ELAINE CHAO, Secretary, United States Department of Labor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-03- 3591-RWT) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victor Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Sendek Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Victor Hayes appeals the district court’s order dismissing his employment discrimination complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeHayes v. Chao , No. CA-03-3591- RWT (D. Md. filed Sept. 20, 2004 & entered Sept. 21, 2004). 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