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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4316

To amend the Federal Power Act to provide a moratorium on the retail

wheeling of electric energy until the Clean Air Act is amended to reduce

significantly certain transboundary air pollution, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

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

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Federal Power Act to provide a moratorium

on the retail wheeling of electric energy until the Clean

Air Act is amended to reduce significantly certain

transboundary air pollution, 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. AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL POWER ACT.

4 Part II of the Federal Power Act is amended by add5 ing at the end the following new section:

6 ‘‘SEC. 215. MORATORIUM ON RETAIL WHEELING.

7 ‘‘(a) MORATORIUM.—After September 26, 1996, and

8 until an amendment to the Clean Air Act has been enacted
2

•HR 4316 IH

1 into law to reduce significantly transboundary air pollu2 tion associated with ozone and ozone precursors, PM–10,

3 mercury, and carbon dioxide, neither the Federal Energy

4 Regulatory Commission nor any State may permit any

5 person to enter into any arrangement for the sale of elec6 tric energy in interstate commerce to any retail electric

7 customer located within the exclusive service territory of

8 any State regulated or nonregulated electric utility serving

9 retail electric customers in that State. The prohibition set

10 forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to—

11 ‘‘(1) the sale of electric energy by a State regu12 lated electric utility or nonregulated electric utility

13 to retail customers located within the exclusive serv14 ice territory of such utility; or

15 ‘‘(2) the sale of electric energy pursuant to an

16 arrangement entered into before September 26,

17 1996.

18 ‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the

19 term ‘exclusive service territory’ means the service terri20 tory served by an electric utility as of the date of enact21 ment of this section or any modification of such territory

22 adopted after the enactment of this section that prohibits

23 more than a single electric utility from selling electric en-
3

•HR 4316 IH

1 ergy to retail customers within a specified geographic re2 gion.’’.

Æ
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-1085

_____________________________

JAMAL MARQUISE LAMONT 

WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Angela M. Cox, Judge.

October 14, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, OSTERHAUS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and M.J. Lord, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            6327
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,332
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         849,110
<DEPRECIATION>                               (179,658)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 862,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           169
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   862,624
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               158,760
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  141,108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,885
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,085
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (5301)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,181
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-20424

Daryl Edward Smith, Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HLUCHANIUK’S ORDER

The Court, having considered the Government’s objections to Magistrate Judge

Hluchaniuk’s Order denying the Government’s motion to cancel the evidentiary hearing on

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, the Court hereby OVERRULES the Government’s Objections

and AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk’s ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: January 5, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

January 5, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

4:09-cr-20424-SFC-MJH Doc # 20 Filed 01/05/10 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 50
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7471

HOWELL W. WOLTZ, TEP,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, 

District Judge. (5:09-cv-00209)

Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 8, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Howell W. Woltz, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Howell W. Woltz, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s orders accepting in part the recommendation of 

the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition, and denying 

reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. See Woltz v. United 

States, No. 5:09-cv-00209 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 30 & Oct. 14, 

2010). Further, we deny Woltz’s motion for bail pending appeal. 

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
Exhibit 9

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge,
that:

The Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the Report) of the Company 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/ V. Prem Watsa                                       
|V. Prem Watsa                                           
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Date: March 9, 2012

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Fairfax Financial Holdings
Limited and will be retained by Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



---

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the Report) of the Company 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/ John C. Varnell                                           
|John C. Varnell                                               
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Date: March 9, 2012

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Fairfax Financial Holdings
Limited and will be retained by Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
174 La. 558

#### Succession of IRBY.

No. 31150.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 29, 1932.

Rehearing Denied March 30, 1932.

Frank Soule and D. A. Morphy, both of New Orleans, for appellants.

C. C. Friedrichs and Connolly & Simoneaux, all of New Orleans, for appellee Canal Bank & Trust Co.

LAND, J.

Robert Garland Irby left a last will and testament in which he instituted the following legatees in these words: “I give and bequeath to my following friends the sums set after their respective names, to-wit:

Harry B. Caplan.$5,000.00

Mary and Garland Wolfe. 5,000.00

Euphemia Richard. 2,000.00

Mrs. Loretta Mills. 2,000.00

Philip Friou. 2,000.00

David Godchaux.. .. 2,000.00.”

Mary and Garland Wolfe were placed on the provisional account filed by the executor of decedent as joint legatees for the sum of $5,000, and they opposed the account in the lower court on the ground that each was bequeathed the sum of $5,000.00.

The oppositions of Mary and Garland Wolfe were rejected at their costs and they have appealed.

The testator gave and bequeathed to the legatees “the sums set after their respective names.”

The sum of $5,000 only is set after the names of “Mary and Garland Wolfe.” Clearly, the legacy is one conjointly made. Had the testator intended that these legatees should receive $5,000 apiece, he would have used the word “each” after their names, or would have fixed the amount of the legacy at $10,-000.

In our opinion, the interpretation, placed by the trial judge upon the legacy made to Mary and Garland Wolfe, is correct, and their oppositions to the provisional account of the executor were properly rejected.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 10.20

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO  THE MILLS CORPORATION  1999 STOCK OPTION PLAN

This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to The Mills Corporation 1999 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") is
adopted as of December 23, 2003 by the Board of Directors (the "Board") of The Mills Corporation (the
"Company").

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is desirable and in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan
to provide that the gain from the exercise of stock options granted under the Plan may be deferred by the optionee subject to the terms of the Company's Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan; and

WHEREAS, Section 24 of the Plan provides that the Plan may be amended by the Board.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is amended as follows:





---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be signed by the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Company, as of December 23, 2003.

| |  | THE MILLS CORPORATION
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | By:                  

|Attest: | /s/MARY ELLEN SERAVALLIMary Ellen Seravalli
Senior Vice President, Deputy General Counsel and Assistant Secretary | 
|------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

2

---

QuickLinks
#### George E. Farewell, Respondent, v. Commonwealth Hotel Company, Formerly Known as The Boylston Company, and John F. Reynolds, Impleaded with Frank B. Robinson, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
#### TWO WAY RADIO SERVICE v. TWO WAY RADIO OF CAROLINA

No. 29PA88.

Case below: 88 N.C. App. 314.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 9 March 1988.
#### Arthur Harris, as Administrator, etc., Plaintiff, v. Elizabeth A. Achilles, as Administratrix, etc., Defendant.

Motion granted so far as to modify judgment previously entered by striking therefrom the provision as to costs.
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  I N R E C OMPLAINT No. 08-90172



# 
OF J UDICIAL M ISCONDUCT ORDER



# 

Filed June 24, 2009

ORDER
KOZINSKI , Chief Judge: A misconduct complaint has been filed against a district judge. Complainant, a pro se state prisoner, filed a civil rights action in district court. The matter was assigned to the subject judge. Complainant alleges that the judge discriminated againsthim but does not explain how or on what basis. Discrimination is not always improper or unethical; in some circumstances, it is entirely appropriate. For instance, incarceration of individuals convicted of crimes, like complainant, is a wholly permissible form of discrimination. See McQueary v. Blodgett , 924 F.2d 829, 834-35 (9th Cir. 1991). Only unlawful or invidious discrimination might amount to judicial misconduct, and complainant has not alleged discrimination of that kind. This charge must therefore be dismissed for failure to allege conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. See JudicialConduct Rule 11(c)(1)(A). To the extent complainant may be understood to allege that the judge colluded with prison officials to deny his right of access to the courts, cf. Bounds v. Smith , 430 U.S. 817,

771821-22 (1977), claimant’s vague insinuations do not provide the kind of objectively verifiable proof that we require. This claim must therefore also be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii); Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(D). Complainant also alleges that the judge improperly closed his case. Because a misconduct complaint is not a proper vehicle for challenging the merits of a judge’s rulings, In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct , 685 F.2d 1226, 1227 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 1982), this charge must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii); Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(B).Complainant’s allegations against the state judge and prosecutor in his criminal case must also be dismissed, as this misconduct complaint procedure only applies to federal judges. See Judicial-Conduct Rule 4.
DISMISSED. 772 I N R E C OMPLAINT OF J UDICIAL M ISCONDUCTPRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
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 Quarterly Report of Q Lotus Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary A. Rosenberg, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and





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





The foregoing statement is furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) and for no other reason.





/s/ Gary A. RosenbergGary A. Rosenberg

Chief Executive Officer



August 18, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DASSAULT SYSTEMES, S.A., 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 09-10534

v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

KEITH CHILDRESS

d/b/a PRACTICAL CATIA TRAINING, 

Defendant. 

 / 

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO FILE AN ANSWER

Plaintiff filed this action on February 12, 2009, asserting that Defendant was infringing its

copyright and trademark rights and violating the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp.

Laws § 445.901 regarding Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s CATIA software. In lieu of answering the

Complaint, Defendant filed several motions. In return, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment.

The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. Defendant then filed a motion requesting

that the Court set aside the entry of default judgment. The Court denied Defendant’s motion,

entered a permanent injunction against Defendant’s use of the CATIA software, and entered a

judgment against Defendant in the amount of $964,465, plus attorney fees and cost. Defendant

appealed the Court’s opinion and order and judgment to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on

August 2, 2010.

On December 13, 2011, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Court’s judgment

in part and remanded the case with instructions, stating:

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment

in part and REVERSE in part. We REVERSE the district court’s

orders granting Dassault’s motion for default judgment and denying

Childress’s motion to set aside entry of default judgment, VACATE

2:09-cv-10534-LPZ-VMM Doc # 88 Filed 02/15/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1020
2

the permanent injunction against Childress and the default-judgment

entry awarding damages to Dassault, and REMAND for proceedings

consistent with this opinion. Because we agree with the district

court’s conclusion that the materials Dassault seeks from the FBI are

not comprised of protected grand jury information, we AFFIRM the

district court’s judgment that Dassault’s subpoena does not violate

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). For the reasons stated

above, we also AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Childress’s

motion to strike.

Dassault Systemes, SA, v. Childress, 663 F.3d 832, 847 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 2011). On February 9,

2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the mandate allowing this Court to resume its

jurisdiction over this case.

In reviewing the record of this case, Defendant has not yet filed an answer to Plaintiff’s

Complaint. So that this case may proceed forward, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant file

an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint within 21 days of the entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 15, 2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on February 15, 2012.

s/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-10534-LPZ-VMM Doc # 88 Filed 02/15/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1021
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.

 February 28, 2014

s0224

Order 

Clerk

February 28, 2014

148050 & (16)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148050

COA: 314972

Berrien CC: 2005-411847-FC

LAWRENCE WOODS, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 2, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Printing Components Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, John Dow, 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:

|(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 3rd day of October, 2007.

JOHN DOWJohn DowChief Financial Officer










































---