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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 685

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the use of volunteers

for Federal Bureau of Investigation tours and at the Bureau’s training

facilities, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1995

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the

use of volunteers for Federal Bureau of Investigation

tours and at the Bureau’s training facilities, 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 ‘‘F.B.I. Volunteer Act

5 of 1995’’.
2

•HR 685 IH

1 SEC. 2. USE OF VOLUNTEERS BY FBI.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 33 of title 28, United

3 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow4 ing:

5 ‘‘§ 540A. Use of volunteers

6 ‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the

7 Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is author8 ized—

9 ‘‘(1) to solicit, accept, hold, maintain, utilize,

10 and administer personal property (which may not in11 clude cash assistance)—

12 ‘‘(A) obtained by gift, bequest, devise, or

13 otherwise for use at Federal Bureau of Inves14 tigation tour facilities and at those facilities

15 which have as a principal purpose the training

16 of State and local law enforcement personnel;

17 and

18 ‘‘(B) acquired in the name of the United

19 States;

20 ‘‘(2) to recruit, train, and accept the services of

21 individuals or entities, without compensation, as vol22 unteers for or in aid of Federal Bureau of Investiga23 tion tour operations and training facilities; and

24 ‘‘(3) to provide for incidental expenses incurred

25 from such gifts or volunteers.
3

•HR 685 IH

1 ‘‘(b)(1) Except as otherwise provided by this sub2 section, a volunteer under subsection (a) shall not be

3 deemed a Federal employee and shall not be subject to

4 provisions of law relating to Federal employment, includ5 ing those provisions relating to hours of work, rates of

6 compensation, leave, unemployment compensation, and

7 Federal employee benefits.

8 ‘‘(2) For purposes of chapter 171 of this title (com9 monly referred to as the ‘Federal Tort Claims Act’), a vol10 unteer under this subsection shall be considered an em11 ployee of the Government (as defined in section 2671 of

12 this title).

13 ‘‘(3) For purposes of subchapter I of chapter 81 of

14 title 5, relating to compensation to Federal employees for

15 work injuries, a volunteer under this subsection shall be

16 considered an employee (as defined in section 8101 of title

17 5).’’.

18 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

19 at the beginning of chapter 33 of title 28, United States

20 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new

21 item:

‘‘540A. Use of volunteers.’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 159 (Friday, August 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47903-47908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18642]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-95]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-95 with attached transmittal, 
policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: August 5, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 47904]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.033


[[Page 47905]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.034


[[Page 47906]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.035


[[Page 47907]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.036


[[Page 47908]]


[FR Doc. E8-18642 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6250

JACK MOORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SIDNEY HARKLEROAD,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00255)

Submitted: July 11, 2007 Decided: July 20, 2007

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

JACK MOORE, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge III, NORTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jack Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed

in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss

the 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. 

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 158 (Thursday, August 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 47606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18795]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) 
National Advisory Council will meet on September 8 and 9, 2008.
    The meeting is open to the public and will include a report from 
the SAMHSA Acting Administrator and updates on legislative developments 
and SAMHSA's National Registry of Evidence-Based Practices. The meeting 
will also include discussions focusing on Creating and Sustaining 
Recovery-Oriented Systems of Care and Positioning SAMHSA for an Era of 
Health Care Reform.
    Attendance by the public will be limited to space available. Public 
comments are welcome. Please communicate with the SAMHSA National 
Advisory Council Designated Federal Official, Ms. Toian Vaughn (see 
contact information below), to make arrangements to attend, to comment 
or to request special accommodations for persons with disabilities.
    Substantive program information, a summary of the meeting, and a 
roster of Council members may be obtained as soon as possible after the 
meeting, either by accessing the SAMHSA Committee Web site, http://www.nac.samhsa.gov, or by contacting Ms. Vaughn. The transcript for the 
meeting will also be available on the SAMHSA Committee Web site within 
three weeks after the meeting.

    Committee Name: SAMHSA National Advisory Council.
    Date/Time/Type: Monday, September 8, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 5 
p.m.: Open. Tuesday, September 9, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 
a.m.: Open.
    Place: 1 Choke Cherry Road, Sugarloaf and Seneca Conference 
Rooms, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
    Contact: Toian Vaughn, M.S.W., Designated Federal Official, 
SAMHSA National Advisory Council, and SAMHSA Committee Management 
Officer, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 8-1089, Rockville, Maryland 
20857, Telephone: (240) 276-2307; FAX: (240) 276-2220; and e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#691d06000807471f081c0e0107291a0804011a084701011a470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b1c5ded8d0df9fc7d0c4d6d9dff1c2d0dcd9c2d09fd9d9c29fd6dec7">[email protected]</span></a>.

Toian Vaughn,
Committee Management Officer, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-18795 Filed 8-13-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Frank Dojahn, Appellant, v. Herman Schomaker, Respondent.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs, on the ground that the evidence does not present a question for the jury as to the liability of the owner of the premises. Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PG&E Corporation for the quarter ended June 30, 2010
(Form 10-Q), I, Peter A. Darbee, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President of PG&E Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| |  |     |  |                                                                                                                                                             
| |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | (1) |  | the Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PG&E
Corporation.



PETER A. DARBEEPETER A. DARBEEChairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President


August 4, 2010



---

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PG&E Corporation for the quarter ended June 30, 2010
(Form 10-Q), I, Kent M. Harvey, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of PG&E Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| |  |     |  |                                                                                                                                                             
| |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | (1) |  | the Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PG&E
Corporation.



KENT M. HARVEYKENT M. HARVEYSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer


August 4, 2010
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7249

JOSEPH R. HEDDINGER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SEWALL SMITH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-98- 1079-L) Submitted: December 15, 1998 Decided: December 29, 1998 Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Joseph R. Heddinger, Appellant Pro Se. Regina Hollins Lewis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Joseph R. Heddinger seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for the reason that Heddinger received constitutionally effective assistance of counsel. See Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687-94 (1984). 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.

DISMISSED
223 So.2d 585

#### James Edward SMITH v. HOUSTON COUNTY HOSPITAL BOARD et al.

4 Div. 352.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 29, 1969.

Richard H. Ramsey, III, and J. Huntley Johnson, Dothan, for appellant.

Alto V. Lee, III, Wm. G. McKnight, Wm. L. Lee, III and Hardwick, Hause & Segrest, Dothan, for appellees.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; Keener Baxley, Judge.

BLOODWORTH, Justice.

This appeal is affirmed on authority of Jenkins v. Houston County Hospital Board et al., 284 Ala. 180, 223 So.2d 583, decided this date.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.
#### ROSS v. W. HORACE WILLIAMS, Inc.

No. 16477.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 14, 1937.

Clarence E. Strauch, of New Orleans, for' appellant.

*110Edward Rightor and W. H. Sellers, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

WE STERFIELD, Judge.

Theodore Ross brought this suit against his employer, W. Horace Williams, Inc., claiming ten weeks compensation at the rate of $20 per week because of injuries alleged to have been received on the 19th of December, 1935, while working as a carpenter for the defendant. He alleged that he suffered a sacro-iliac strain while lifting a heavy piece of timber during the course of his employment. Defendant denied that plaintiff was injured, but its insurance carrier, nevertheless, paid plaintiff two weeks’ compensation.

There was judgment below in favor of defendant dismissing plaintiff’s suit, and he has appealed.

Ross was treated by three doctors, each of whom testified on behalf of defendant. He was first seen by Dr. Geismar on January 3, 1936, and again a few days later, though the exact date is not given. Dr. Geismar could find nothing wrong with Ross, but suggested that he see Dr. Edward A. Ficklen. Dr. Ficklen examined plaintiff on January 10, 1936, and diagnosed his trouble as a sacro-iliac strain. He was given diathermic treatments and a sacro-iliac belt to wear. Dr. Ficklen 'treated him until January 24th, at which time he told Ross that in his opinion he was able to return to work. Because Ross complained that he was still suffering pain in the sacro-iliac region, he was then sent to Dr. Theodore Simon on January 29, 1936, Dr. Simon, after examining the negatives resulting from two X-ray pictures which had been taken under the direction of Dr. Ficklen, reported that he could find no evidence of a sacro-iliac strain. Dr. Eleazar Bowie, who made the X-ray films, also testified that he could find no evidence of “spondylolisthesis,” which means that there was no displacement of the “lumbar spine forward” as would be expected in the case of a sacroiliac strain.

Dr. Guy Funk, an osteopath, testified on behalf of plaintiff. He stated that plaintiff was afflicted with a sacro-iliac strain when he first began to treat him on February 11, 1936, and only recovered from that ailment on February 28, 1936, when he was discharged.

The question of whether plaintiff had recovered from his injury when discharged by defendant’s physician at the end of two weeks, for which he was paid compensation, is one which can only be decided with the aid of expert medical testimony, and this evidence, as adduced on the trial of the case, clearly preponderates in favor of the affirmative. Plaintiff has, therefore, failed to establish his claim for additional compensation.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed. •

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13

   DESCRIPTION OF THE REINSURANCE AGREEMENT FOR 2005 BETWEEN ACIC AND AMERICAN
      REINSURANCE COMPANY, ASPEN INSURANCE LTD. AND MAX RE LTD. EFFECTIVE
                                JANUARY 1, 2005

The Company, on behalf of American Compensation Insurance Company (ACIC), its
wholly owned subsidiary, entered into reinsurance contracts for the fiscal year
beginning January 1, 2005. The following summarizes the significant terms of
these reinsurance agreements.

LIABILITY OF THE REINSURER

The Reinsurers shall pay to ACIC, with respect to Workers' Compensation and
Employers' Liability Business, the amount of Net Loss for each Occurrence, as
defined in the contracts, in excess of ACIC's retention, but not exceeding the
Limits of Liability of the Reinsurer as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
LOSS LAYER                        REINSURER                         COMMENT
<S>                               <C>                               <C>
$800,000 excess of $200,000       42.5% American Reinsurance Co.    *
                                  35.0% Max Re Ltd.
                                  22.5% Aspen Insurance Ltd.
</TABLE>

   * All business written by the Company.
     Recoveries from the MN WCRA will inure to the benefit of this treaty

COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION

The agreement shall apply to new and renewal policies of ACIC becoming effective
at and after 12:01 A.M., January 1, 2005, and to policies in force at 12:01
A.M., January 1, 2005, with respect to losses resulting from Occurrences taking
place at or after the aforesaid time and date.

Parties may terminate these agreements at any December 31st by sending to the
other, by registered mail to its principal office, not less than 90 days prior
written notice. The Reinsurer may also terminate the agreements in the event of
significant adverse events at ACIC or in the event of a change in control of
ACIC or RTW, Inc.

REINSURANCE PREMIUM

ACIC agreed to pay the reinsurers based on premiums earned for the Loss layer as
shown above. This rate is in excess of the rate that we paid in 2004.
J. 

J. 

See id. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying 

appellant's motion. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge 

Deangelo Lamont Mitchell 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2
#### Mr. and Mrs Claude SONGY, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COASTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 72-1354.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1972.

Sidney M. Bach, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

R. Gordon Kean, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., for Coastal, Miss. Chemical and First Miss. Corp.

John C. Satterfield, Yazoo City, Miss., Carlos G. Spaht, Gerald L. Walter, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., for CF Industries, Inc.

John C. Combe, Jr., New Orleans, La., Harry C. Strauss, Jackson, Miss., Holla-man M. Raney, Asst. Gen. Counsel, MIS-COA, Yazoo City, Miss., for First Mississippi and others.

Before COLEMAN, AINSWORTH and DYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal challenges the district court’s refusal to permit plaintiffs-appellants to proceed as a class under the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c) (1) to recover damages and obtain injunctive *710relief from air and noise pollution allegedly caused, by defendants-appellees industries’ chemical manufacturing activities.

We conclude that our jurisdiction cannot be supported under the “death knell” concept; Korn v. Franchard Corp., 2 Cir. 1971, 443 F.2d 1301, Green v. Wolf Corp., 2 Cir. 1968, 406 F.2d 791, cert. denied 395 U.S. 977, 89 S.Ct. 2131, 23 L.Ed.2d 766, Eisen v. Carlisle and Jacquelin, 2 Cir. 1966, 370 F.2d 119, cert. denied 386 U.S. 1035, 87 S.Ct. 1487, 18 L.Ed.2d 598, or under the so-called “collateral order” exception of the statute, Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 1949, 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528. The district court’s ruling is not a final judgment under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291, Gosa v. Securities Investment Company, 5 Cir. 1971, 449 F.2d 1330.

Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Mary H. Cunningham and Others, Respondents, v. Thomas L. Feitner and Others, as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants. (Taxes of 1901.)

Motion denied, without costs. Present — Hirschherg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit (99)(c)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe
Line Company (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Christopher A. Helms, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Thomas J. Webb, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of 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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Christopher A. Helms
-----------------------------------
Name:  Christopher A. Helms
Title: President and
       Chief Executive Officer
Date:  May 12, 2003

/s/ Thomas J. Webb
-----------------------------------
Name:  Thomas J. Webb
Title: Executive Vice President and
       Chief Financial Officer
Date:  May 12, 2003

This certification accompanies the 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 the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.