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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6221 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6221

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 155 Main Avenue West in Winsted, Minnesota, as the ``James A. Rogers 
                           Jr. Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2021

Mrs. Fischbach (for herself, Mr. Hagedorn, Ms. Craig, Mr. Phillips, Ms. 
    McCollum, Ms. Omar, Mr. Emmer, and Mr. Stauber) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 155 Main Avenue West in Winsted, Minnesota, as the ``James A. Rogers 
                           Jr. Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. JAMES A. ROGERS JR. POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 155 Main Avenue West in Winsted, Minnesota, shall be known 
and designated as the ``James A. Rogers Jr. Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James A. 
Rogers Jr. Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 27, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19793]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for 
Reinstatement; Comment Request

AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The NCUA is submitting the following information collection to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). This information collection is published to obtain 
comments from the public.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until September 26, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to 
the NCUA Clearance Officer listed below:
    Clearance Officer: Mr. Jeryl Fish, National Credit Union 
Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428, Fax No. 
703-837-2861, E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#551a161c1a18343c39153b3620347b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="18575b51575579717458767b6d79367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or 
a copy of the information collection request should be directed to 
Tracy Sumpter at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke 
Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428, or at (703) 518-6444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal for the following collection of 
information:
    Title: Forms and Instructions for Central Liquidity Facility Loans.
    OMB Number: 3133-0064.
    Form Number: NCUA--7000, 7001, 7002, 7003 and 7004.
    Type of Review: Reinstatement, without change, of a previously 
approved collection for which approval has expired.
    Description: Forms used by each borrower from the CLF.
    Respondents: Credit unions that borrow from the CLF.
    Estimated No. of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 25.
    Estimated Burden Hours per Response: 1 hour.
    Frequency of Response: Other. As the need for borrowing arises.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 25 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: 0.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on August 20, 
2008.
Mary Rupp,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-19793 Filed 8-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Wendell W. Diez, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Lou Diez, also known as Mary Lou Boyer, Defendant-Appellee.

Gen. No. 10,680.

Fourth District.

July 27, 1966.

Rehearing denied August 29, 1966.

Jasper S. Gullo, of Springfield, for appellant; James T. Londrigan, of Springfield, for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE CRAVEN.

Not to

be published in full.
#### NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY CO. v. GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY CO.

No. 2556.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 6, 1943.

Durrett & Hardin, of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Johnson & Kantrow, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated cases of Great American Insurance Company v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. and New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., 15 So.2d 241, this day handed down.

It is ordered that the judgment appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6951

DEMETRIUS J. WADE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director for Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Elizabeth Kay Dillon , District Judge. ( 7:19

- cv - 00763

- EKD

- JCH )

Submitted : November 22, 2021 Decided: January 20, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN , Circuit Judge , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Demetrius J. Wade , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Demetrius J. Wade seeks to appeal t he district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court ’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is deb atable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wade has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wade’s motion for 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7415
CHARLOTTE JEAN PAONE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONNIE D. CROCKETTE, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-95-947-AM) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlotte Jean Paone, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); F ED . R. C IV . P. 54(b). 2 See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the dismissal without prejudice of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's complaint was dismissed without prejudice to her right to file a proper claim alleging facts that show specific injury to herself. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 1 Because Appellant may be able to save thisaction by amending her complaint, the dismissal order which Appellant seeks to appeal is not an appealable final order. 2 Accordingly we 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
**Exhibit 21.1**

**(as of December 31, 2008)**

 

**List of Subsidiaries**

 

| **Subsidiaries**             | **State of Incorporation** |
|------------------------------|----------------------------|
| CPG International I Inc      | Delaware                   |
| AZEK Buildings Products Inc. | Delaware                   |
| Scranton Products Inc.       | Delaware                   |
| Santana Products Inc.        | Delaware                   |
| CPG Sub I Corporation        | Delaware                   |
| Vycom Corp.                  | Delaware                   |
| Sanatec Sub I Corporation    | Delaware                   |
| Procell Decking Inc.         | Delaware                   |
| AZEK Canada Inc.             | Province of Ontario        |
Exhibit 32.2



Statement of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Enterprises (the "Company") certifies that:



(i)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

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







August 2, 2007



/S/  Dennis V. ArriolaDennis V. ArriolaChief Financial Officer
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00352

- CR

RICARDO DE LA CRUZ

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the County Court at Law of San Patricio County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 81178

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cau se on
appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 12, 2019
NO. 03-13-00025-CV

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

JERRY SCARBROUGH, ET AL.,

APPELLANTS,

V.

HELEN PURSER, ET AL.,

APPELLEES.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

BELL COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

POST-SUBMISSION LETTER BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellees, Helen Purser, Sue E. Purser a/k/a Sue E. Van Zanten, Gary W.

Purser, Jr., Joann M. Purser, and Elizabeth H. Tipton, move this Court for leave to file

Appellees’ Post-Submission Letter Brief, received by this Court on November 12,

2015. Appellees’ Post-Submission Letter Brief was tendered to answer more

completely certain questions asked by the justices during oral argument on October

22, 2015.

ACCEPTED

03-13-00025-CV

7953315

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

11/23/2015 2:57:58 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/23/2015 2:57:58 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
In the interest of justice, Appellees ask that the Court grant leave and file the

Post-Submission Letter Brief received on November 12, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P.

38.7.

Respectfully submitted,

DARYL L. MOORE, P.C.

BY: /s/ Daryl L. Moore

Daryl L. Moore (Lead Counsel)

State Bar No. 14324720

1005 Heights Boulevard

Houston, Texas 77008

Telephone: 713/529-0048

Facsimile: 713/529-2498

Email: daryl@heightslaw.com

BAIRD,CREWS, SCHILLER & WHITAKER, P.C.

BY: /s/ Jack R. Crews

Jack R. Crews (Co-Counsel)

State Bar No. 05072300

Kevin K. Bonner

State Bar No. 24069300

15 North Main Street

Temple, Texas 76501-7629

Telephone: 254/774-8333

Facsimile: 254/774-9353

Counsel for Appellees

-2-
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

On November 23, 2015, I, Daryl L. Moore, certify that, I conferred with

counsel for appellants, Michele Chimene, who stated she is not opposed to this

motion.

/s/ Daryl L. Moore

Daryl L. Moore

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Relying on the word count function in the word processing software used to

produce this document, I certify that the number of words in this motion, excluding

the contents listed in TRAP Rule 9.4(i), is 93.

This motion complies with the typeface requirements of TRAP Rule 9.4(e)

because it uses a conventional typeface no smaller than 14-point (WordPerfect X6 14-

point Times New Roman).

/s/ Daryl L. Moore

Daryl L. Moore

-3-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On November 23, 2015, I sent a true and correct copy of this motion for leave

via E-service to the following:

Michele Barber Chimene

THE CHIMENE LAW FIRM

2827 Linkwood Dr.

Houston, Texas 77025

michelec@airmail.net

Attorneys for Appellants,

Jerry Scarbrough, Melissa Deaton,

and Denise Steele

/s/ Daryl L. Moore

Daryl L. Moore

-4-
#### Stansbery *v.*The State of Ohio.

(No. 23318

Decided April 6, 1932.)

*Mr. Foster E. King,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. David Creger,*prosecuting attorney, for defendant in error.

*151By the Court

(Kinkade, J.).

The defendant below was convicted and sentenced on a charge of having violated the prohibition laws, which judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The defendant prosecutes error here, assigning many grounds of error, including abuse of discretion by the trial judge in refusing a third continuance asked for by reason of the illness of counsel.

Much of the evidence offered by the state consisted of admissions of fact made by the accused, which was testified to by witnesses called by the state, and which evidence tended to establish guilt. The defendant asked that the intoxicants found in his possession be suppressed as evidence against him. This request was refused.

This court does not pass upon the weight of the evidence. However, in view of the somewhat unusual claims of counsel with respect to the claimed abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, we have carefully considered all the evidence in the bill of exceptions, and have also examined all errors claimed by counsel for the defendant in argument in this court.

We are unable to find any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, nor do we find any prejudicial error in the action of the trial court in refusing to disregard and suppress the evidence in the form of intoxicants found in the possession of the defendant. We find no prejudicial error manifest in the record.

The judgment of conviction and sentence must therefore be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Matthias, Hay, Aeren and Stephenson, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2


                     Consent of Independent Accountants


Re:  NeXstar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Registrations:
       On Form S-8 (File No. 33-80938)
      and Form S-8 (File No. 33-97206)
      and Form S-8 (File No. 333-34515)
      and Form S-8 (File No. 33-88074)
      and Form S-8 (File No. 333-07887)
      and Form S-8 (File No. 333-07889)
      and Form S-8 (File No. 33-90994)
      and Form S-3 (File No. 333-00758)
      and Form S-3 (File No. 333-35827)


Gentlemen:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the above referenced 
registration statements of our report dated January 7, 1999, except for Note 
13, for which the date is March 1, 1999, on our audit of the consolidated 
financial statements of Proligo LLC as of November 30, 1998 and for the 
period from August 15, 1998 through November 30, 1998 which report is 
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 17, 1999
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 China Vitup Health Care Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the Report), I, Feng Gu, 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: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  May 19, 2009 /s/Feng Gu     Chief Executive Officer
#### Eugene Harris CORBETT, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Hoyt BRILL, in his capacity as Warden of the Prairie Correctional Facility; State of Hawaii Attorney General, Respondents — Appellees.

No. 00-16722.

D.C. No. CV-99-00471-ACK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 2002.

Decided Nov. 14, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, ALARCON and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Eugene Harris Corbett appeals the district court’s denial of his § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and we AFFIRM.

*866Corbett contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer, Francis Akamine, failed to discover until the eve of trial information that would have supported the mitigating defense of Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance (“EMED”). As a result of this failure, Akamine did not present expert testimony in support of that defense. A successful EMED defense would have reduced Corbett’s offense from second degree murder to manslaughter.

The parties do not dispute that Aka-mine’s conduct fell outside the wide range of reasonable professional assistance required by *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). They do dispute whether that deficient performance prejudiced Corbett. Counsel presented enough evidence for the jury to find that Corbett acted under EMED, and the jury received an EMED instruction, which properly described the State’s burden of disproving EMED beyond a reasonable doubt. Although expert testimony *might*have raised such a doubt, here there has been no showing of what an expert actually *would*have testified. A proffer of such evidence may not always be necessary to support a finding of prejudice, but here the circumstances supporting an EMED defense were sufficiently questionable that we require more than pure speculation about the nature and substance of an expert’s testimony.

For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Corbett’s petition.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 4.36

 

FOIA CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN INFORMATION IN THIS AGREEMENT. THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN REDACTED AND DENOTED BY ASTERISKS [***].

 

September 26, 2012

 

Dr. Dionisio M. Tun Molina

Vice-President of Engineering and Operations

Lic. Veronica Gutierrez Zamora Garcia

General Counsel

Satélites Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V

Avenida Paseo de la Reforma No. 222,

Pisos 20 y 21

Col. Juarez, Delegación Cuauhtémoc

CP 06600 México, D.F.

 

Re: Amendment No. 3 to the Launch Services Agreement, dated 

February 3, 2012, between Satélites Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V and

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (the “LSA”)

 

Dear Mr. Tun Molina:

 

The purpose of this letter is to document the mutual understanding between Satélites Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V (“Customer”) and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“Contractor”) as regards certain amendments to the LSA in accordance with Section 31 (Modifications) thereof (such amendments, “Amendment No. 3”). Any Capitalized terms not defined and used in this Amendment No. 3 shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in LSA.

 

Contractor and Customer, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, agree to the following amendments to the LSA Optional Services, which shall be incorporated therein and made a part thereof:

 

1. Option 1, Non-Standard Connectors, is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following.

 

	
Service
    	
 
    	
Description
    	
 
    	
SOW
   Section
    	
 
    	
Price
    	
 
    	
Exercise
   No Later
   Than:
    
	
1
    	
 
    	
Non-Standard   Connectors  
   SPACEX shall provide [***]
    	
 
    	
[***]
    	
 
    	
[***]
    	
 
    	
[***]
    


 











 

FOIA CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN INFORMATION IN THIS AGREEMENT. THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN REDACTED AND DENOTED BY ASTERISKS [***].

 

2. Option 2, Additional Connectors and Harnessing, has been determined to be [***].

 

The Parties recognize that except as expressly modified herein, the LSA remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms and conditions. This Amendment No. 3 contains the entire understanding between the Parties concerning the matters described herein, supersedes any prior written or oral agreement between the Parties related these matters, and shall be amended only through a written amendment executed by each of the Parties hereto. There are no additional “side letters”, amendments or similar agreements between the Parties related to the matters described herein.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment No. 3 by their duly authorized officers.

 

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. Satélites Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V

 

	
By:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
Name:   Gwynne Shotwell, President
    	
 
    	
Name:
    
	
Date: September 26, 2012
    	
 
    	
Date:
IB

Union Calendar No. 167

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 680

[Report No. 104–316]

To extend the time for construction of certain FERC licensed hydro projects.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1995

Mr. SOLOMON (for himself and Mr. MCNULTY) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

NOVEMBER 7, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To extend the time for construction of certain FERC licensed

hydro projects.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION.

4 Notwithstanding the limitations of section 13 of the

5 Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Com6 mission, upon the request of the licensee or licensees for
2

•HR 680 RH

1 FERC projects numbered 4244 and 10648 (and after rea2 sonable notice), is authorized in accordance with the good

3 faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of

4 such section 13 and the Commission’s procedures under

5 such section, to extend the time required for commence6 ment of construction for each of such projects for up to

7 a maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This section

8 shall take effect for the projects upon the expiration of

9 the extension (issued by the Commission under such sec10 tion 13) of the period required for commencement of con11 struction of each such project.

Union Calendar No. 167

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 680

[Report No. 104–316]

A BILL

To extend the time for construction of certain

FERC licensed hydro projects.

NOVEMBER 7, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed