alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD
                              FORM 10-Q
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION

(Dollars in Thousands)

                                                     Unaudited
                                                  Six months ended
                                                       June 30

                                                  1999      1998
<S>                                               <C>       <C>
Source of Cash:
     Net income                                   $418      $413

     Decrease in accounts payable                   (6)       (6)

          Cash provided from operations           $412      $407


Use of Cash:

     Dividends paid                                408       408

     Increase (decrease) in cash                  $  4      $ (1)
</TABLE>

Notes:

     (1)  The foregoing interim financial statements are unaudited but,
          in the opinion of management, reflect all adjustments
          necessary for a fair presentation of the results of operations
          for the interim periods.

     (2)  Registrant has elected to be treated for tax purposes as a
          real estate investment trust. As such, the Trust is exempt
          from paying federal corporate income tax on any income that is
          distributed to shareholders. It has been Registrant's policy
          to distribute annually all of its ordinary taxable income.
          Consequently, no provision has been made for federal income
          tax.
IIB 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6933 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 28, 2022 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require reporting 

relating to certain cost-share requirements. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 6933 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cost-Share Account3 ability Act of 2022’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. 

5 Section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 

6 U.S.C. 16352) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(g) REPORTING.—Not later than 120 days after the 

9 enactment of the Cost-Share Accountability Act of 2022, 

10 and at least quarterly thereafter, the Secretary shall sub11 mit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

12 and Committee on Appropriations of the House of Rep13 resentatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 

14 Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the 

15 Senate, and shall make publicly available, a report on the 

16 use by the Department during the period covered by the 

17 report of the authority to reduce or eliminate cost-sharing 

18 requirements provided by subsections (b)(3) or (c)(2).’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 27, 2022. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 133065 & (16) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133065 COA: 274182 Calhoun CC: 05-001959-FC MICHAEL A. AMOS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of June 20, 2007, the prosecuting attorney was direct ed to answer the application for leave to appeal the December 14, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the appli cation for leave to appeal is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302 (G)(1), in lieu of gran ting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of sentence and RE MAND this case to the Calhoun Circuit Court for the resentencing of the defendant on all of hi s criminal sexual conduct convictions. The circuit court erred by asse ssing the defendant 50 points under Offense Variable 11 for penetrations that did not aris e out of the particular sentencing offenses. People v Johnson , 474 Mich 96 (2006). If the defendant is scored points for OV 11, the
trial court must indicate that the acts of se xual penetration “arose out of” the sentencing offenses. MCL 777.41(2)(a). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DE NIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented sh ould be reviewed by this
Court.

p0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10369

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

ERIC DANIEL CORREA-CAMBRON,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:16-CR-17-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eric Daniel Correa-Cambron appeals the 46-month within-guidelines 

sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), 

(b)(2). He argues that his sentence violates due process because it exceeds the 

statutory maximum sentence allowed by § 1326(a). He concedes that the issue 

of whether his eligibility for a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b) must 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 14, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10369 Document: 00514385698 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2018
No. 17-10369

2

be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). However, he seeks to preserve 

the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent 

Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider this issue.

The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, 

an extension of time to file a brief. Summary affirmance is appropriate when, 

among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a 

matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of 

the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162-63 (5th Cir. 

1969). In Almendarez-Torres, the Supreme Court held that, for purposes of a 

statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must 

be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 523 

U.S. at 239-47. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions 

did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 

486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-

26 (5th Cir. 2007). Thus, Correa-Cambron’s argument is foreclosed.

In light of the foregoing, the Government’s motion for summary 

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s 

alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

 Case: 17-10369 Document: 00514385698 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2018
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6952 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6952

 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 
                    higher wages to their employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 2022

 Mr. Johnson of South Dakota introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 
                    higher wages to their employees.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rewarding Achievement and 
Incentivizing Successful Employees Act'' or the ``RAISE Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF HIGHER WAGES.

    Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(a)) 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) Notwithstanding a labor organization's exclusive 
representation of employees in a unit, or the terms and conditions of 
any collective bargaining contract or agreement then in effect, nothing 
in either--
            ``(A) section 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(5), or
            ``(B) a collective bargaining contract or agreement renewed 
        or entered into after the date of enactment of the RAISE Act,
shall prohibit an employer from paying an employee in the unit greater 
wages, pay, or other compensation for, or by reason of, his or her 
services as an employee of such employer, than provided for in such 
contract or agreement.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Prime Hospitality Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, A.F.
Petrocelli, President and 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 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/ A.F. Petrocelli
------------------------
A.F. Petrocelli
President and Chief Executive Officer

May 10, 2004
Exhibit 21.1

List of Subsidiaries



|                                     |  |                                    
|------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------
|Name                                 |  | State of Incorporation or Formation
|Stripes Holdings LLC                 |  | Delaware                           
|Susser Holdings, L.L.C.              |  | Delaware                           
|Susser Finance Corporation           |  | Delaware                           
|APT Management Company, L.L.C.       |  | Texas                              
|Applied Petroleum Technologies, Ltd. |  | Texas                              
|Stripes LLC                          |  | Texas                              
|Susser Petroleum Company LLC         |  | Texas                              
|T&C Wholesale, Inc.                  |  | Texas                              
|GoPetro Transport LLC                |  | Texas                              
|Stripes Acquisition LLC              |  | Texas                              
|TCFS Holdings, Inc.                  |  | Texas                              
|Town & Country Food Stores, Inc      |  | Texas                              
|Corpus Christi Reimco, LLC           |  | Texas                              
|C&G Investments, LLC                 |  | Delaware                           
|Cash & Go Management, LLC            |  | Texas                              
|Cash & Go, Ltd.                      |  | Texas                              
|Susser Company, Ltd.                 |  | Texas
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Harrison, Appellant.

Case held, decision reserved, motion to relieve counsel’s assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of forcibly raping a 15-year-old girl in the City of Dunkirk during the early morning hours of April 6, 1986. Despite the fact that defendant was convicted following a lengthy jury trial in which numerous witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense, assigned appellate counsel concludes that the appeal is frivolous and that there are no issues of merit.

It is a denial of defendant’s constitutional right to effective assistance of appellate counsel for his lawryer to submit a brief requesting to be relieved of his assignment where there exist nonfrivolous issues for reversal of defendant’s conviction *(People v Casiano,*67 NY2d 906, 907; *People v Gonzales,*47 NY2d 606, 610). In our view, since there are at least two nonfrivolous issues with respect to the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence to support defendant’s conviction, we shall hold this case, reserve decision and assign new counsel to submit a brief addressing these issues and any others counsel’s review of the record may disclose *(see, People v Charnock,*163 AD2d 872 [decided herewith]; *People v Cummings,*162 AD2d 943; *People v Fuhrer,*143 AD2d 537; *People v Fedora,*142 AD2d 957; *People v Gaines,*122 AD2d 565). (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Adams, J.—rape, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7073

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. EDWIN ARNOLDO REYES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:01-cr-0533-PJM-20; 8:09-cv-1224-PJM)

Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin Arnoldo Reyes, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Edwin Arnoldo Reyes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 Reyes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DAVID POOLE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-0479

[February 15, 2024]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Lawrence M. Mirman,

Judge; L.T. Case No. 562009CF001995F.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine Austin, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Salvaty, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered August 28, 1985, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence, identification testimony, and a statement made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The police officers’ stop of the defendant’s vehicle near the locale of the assault and attempted robbery which had occurred only a few days earlier was based upon reasonable suspicion *(see, People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 223) inasmuch as the vehicle precisely matched a witness’s description of the getaway car used in the attack *(see, People v Landy,*59 NY2d 369, 376; *People v Jackson,*134 AD2d 283; *People v Rivera,*124 AD2d 682). In addition, not only was there a similarity between the defendant’s appearance and that of the attacker set forth in a police composite sketch, but the defendant also stated that he was coming from his girlfriend’s house which, coincidentally, happened to be adjacent to the scene of the subject attack. These factors elevated the level of suspicion to probable cause, justifying the police actions that followed, including a lineup identification of the defendant at the station house *(see,*GPL 140.10; *People v De Bour, supra).*

. Further, the record fully supports the hearing court’s determination that, in addition to the existence of probable cause, the defendant consented to accompany the officers to the station house, and that his subsequent inculpatory statements were voluntarily made. Both Detective Holmes and Officer Pate testified that Holmes informed the defendant that the police were investigating a robbery and asked him if he would of his own volition accompany the police back to the station house. The defendant said, “No problem. Sure I’ll give you a hand”. It was also unrefuted that neither handcuffs nor guns were used during the 10 to 15 minutes that elapsed from the time of the stop until leaving for the police station. Under these circumstances, a reasonable man, innocent of any crime, would not have thought he was in custody *(see, People v Hicks,*
      *49568 NY2d 234, 240; *People v Yukl,*25 NY2d 585, 589, *cert denied*400 US 851). Accordingly, the hearing court properly found that the defendant’s statements to the police were completely voluntary and not the result of a custodial interrogation *(People v Yukl, supra).*Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.
#### A. William MORRISON, Dewey H. Johnson, S. E. Simmons, Russell J. Davis and Clyde Morris, as members of and constituting the Florida Board of Pharmacy, Petitioners, v. Max PLOTKIN, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Jan. 21, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 1, 1955.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Phillip Goldman and James L. Graham, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., for petitioners.

Robert H. Givens, Jr., Miami, for respondent.

THOMAS, Justice.

The respondent filed a bill seeking a decree construing Sec. 465.071(1), Florida Statutes 1953 and F.S.A., and directing the Florida Board of Pharmacy “to prescribe, pursuant to subparagraph (d) [of the act] the additional requirements as to age, education, experience and moral character which will effectuate the intentions of the Legislature * * At first the chancellor dismissed the bill on motion of the present petitioner then, on rehearing, he rescinded his order.

We think he was correct the first time. The respondent concedes in his brief that he has not applied to the Board of Pharmacy for permission to take the examination so that his fitness to practice pharmacy in this state can be determined; and so far as we can learn from the record, he has not applied for reciprocal registration, or shown that Sec. 465.081, Florida Statutes 1953 and F.S.A., providing for registration here, under certain conditions, of pharmacists qualified in another state is applicable by reason of the fact the State of New Jersey, where the respondent claims to have been licensed, grants registration under the same circumstances to pharmicists of this state.

Our view is that the bill should have been dismissed because no justiciable issue was presented and because the plaintiff had made no effort to exhaust his administrative remedies. Ervin v. City of North Miami Beach, Fla., 66 So.2d 235; De Carlo v. Town of West Miami, Fla., 49 So.2d 596.

The petition for certiorari is granted and the order vacating the order granting the motion to dismiss is quashed with directions to dismiss the bill.

MATHEWS, C. J., and TERRELL, SEBRING and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
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 Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I John V. Winfield, President and 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, to the best of my knowledge,
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 results of operations of the
    Company.


Date: May 15, 2006                              /s/ John V. Winfield
                                                ----------------------------
                                                John V. Winfield, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth
Square, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]