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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2187 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2187

To amend title 10, United States Code, to make receipts collected from 
    mineral leasing activities on certain naval oil shale reserves 
  available to cover environmental restoration, waste management, and 
   environmental compliance costs incurred by the United States with 
                        respect to the reserves.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2001

   Mr. Hefley (for himself, Mr. Udall of Colorado, and Mr. McInnis) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for 
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to make receipts collected from 
    mineral leasing activities on certain naval oil shale reserves 
  available to cover environmental restoration, waste management, and 
   environmental compliance costs incurred by the United States with 
                        respect to the reserves.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF RECEIPTS FROM MINERAL LEASING ACTIVITIES ON 
              CERTAIN NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVES.

    Section 7439(f)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended in 
the second sentence by striking ``Subject to a specific authorization 
and appropriation for this purpose, such moneys may be used for 
reimbursement of'' and inserting ``The moneys received shall be 
available, without further appropriation and until September 30, 2006, 
for expenditure by the Secretary of the Interior to cover''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 03-cr-87-01-PB

Lionel Robinson

ORDER

Re: Document No. 35, Motion on Supervised Release

Ruling: 

I would prefer that the defendant remain under supervision for

another year but I agree that the immediate termination of

supervised release is preferable to denying the defendant the

opportunity to relocate to the district where his chances of 

successful rehabilitation are greatest. Accordingly, I will grant

the motion in 30 days unless the probation office in North

Carolina agrees to supervise the defendant for another 12 months.

In the meantime, the defendant's conditions of supervised release

are modified to permit him to remain in North Carolina without

active supervision by the local probation office.

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

U.S. District Judge

Date: March 9, 2009

cc: Counsel of Record

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:03-cr-00087-PB Document 36 Filed 03/09/09 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Minerals Management Service 

# AGENCY:

Minerals Management Service, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for Proposed Sale 208. 

# SUMMARY:

The MMS announces the availability of the proposed Notice of Sale for proposed Sale 208 in the CPA. This Notice is published pursuant to 30 CFR 256.29(c) as a matter of information to the public. With regard to oil and gas leasing on the OCS, the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to section 19 of the OCS Lands Act, provides the affected States the opportunity to review the proposed Notice. The proposed Notice sets forth the proposed terms and conditions of the sale, including minimum bids, royalty rates, and rentals. 

# DATES:

                        Comments on the size, timing, or location of proposed Sale 208 are due from the affected States within 60 days                               ( print page 57650)                            following their receipt of the proposed Notice. The final Notice of Sale will be published in the                         **Federal Register**                         at least 30 days prior to the date of bid opening. Bid opening is currently scheduled for March 18, 2009.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The proposed Notice of Sale for Sale 208 and a “Proposed Notice of Sale Package” containing information essential to potential bidders may be obtained from the Public Information Unit, Gulf of Mexico Region, Minerals Management Service, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394. Telephone: (504) 736-2519. 

Dated: September 26, 2008. 

Randall B. Luthi, 

Director, Minerals Management Service.

 [FR Doc. E8-23369 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 982 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 188
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 982

                          [Report No. 110-526]

Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 979) recommending 
that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, 
  Chief of Staff, White House, in contempt of Congress for refusal to 
comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary and 
   for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 980) authorizing the 
    Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial 
               proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2008

  Ms. Slaughter, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 979) recommending 
that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, 
  Chief of Staff, White House, in contempt of Congress for refusal to 
comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary and 
   for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 980) authorizing the 
    Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial 
               proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas.

    Resolved, That House Resolution 979 and House Resolution 980 are 
hereby adopted.
                                                 House Calendar No. 188

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 982

                          [Report No. 110-526]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 979) recommending 
that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, 
  Chief of Staff, White House, in contempt of Congress for refusal to 
comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary and 
   for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 980) authorizing the 
    Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial 
               proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           February 13, 2008

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 08-cv-499-SM

David M. Hulick, et al

NOTICE OF RULING / ORDER

Re: Document No. 83, Motion to Compel 

Ruling: The Hulicks' motion to compel is granted. The 

government shall produce the two revenue officers for deposition 

within the next 21 days. With respect to the Hulicks' request for 

fees and costs, the government shall file a memorandum on or before 

March 14, 2012, explaining why the Hulicks are not entitled to their 

costs and fees under FRCP 37(a)(5)(A). That memorandum shall be no 

longer than ten (10) pages. That memorandum shall address why it was 

necessary for the Hulicks to litigate this discovery dispute in the 

face of: (a) the court's having granted the parties' joint request 

for a continuance, (b) the court's subsequent ruling that the 

Hulicks' outstanding request to extend discovery (to allow for these 

depositions prior to trial) was moot, and (c) the government's 

agreement in principle, at an earlier point in this litigation, to 

Case 1:08-cv-00499-SM Document 87 Filed 03/01/12 Page 1 of 2
extend discovery to allow for these depositions prior to trial.

Date: March 1, 2012 /s/ Landya B. McCafferty

Landya B. McCafferty

US Magistrate Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:08-cv-00499-SM Document 87 Filed 03/01/12 Page 2 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02285-BNB

CENTER FOR LEGAL ADVOCACY, 

d/b/a The Legal Center for People With Disabilities and Older People,

Plaintiff,

v.

REGGIE BICHA, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of

Human Services, and

TERESA A. BERNAL, in her official capacity as Interim Superintendent of the Colorado Mental

Health Institute at Pueblo,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings [Doc. # 20, filed

11/14/2011] (the “Motion to Stay”). 

I am informed that the parties are engaged in settlement discussions which may lead to a

resolution of the case. I have recently granted the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Modify

Scheduling Order [Doc. # 42] to allow the parties to focus their efforts on settlement rather than

preparation of the case for trial. In view of these circumstances,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay [Doc. # 20] is DENIED without prejudice, to

be renewed, if at all, after the parties determine that the case cannot be resolved through

settlement.

Case 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 47 Filed 02/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Dated February 27, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 47 Filed 02/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted), the undersigned, Charles J. Drake, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of Integral Vision, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies
that, to the best of his knowledge:




1.The
Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009
(the “Periodic
Report”), to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.The
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period
covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the
period covered by the Periodic Report.


DATED: March 31,
      2010
                  
                  
                  /S/ Charles J.
      DrakeCharles
      J. DrakeChairman
      of the Board andChief
      Executive Officer
#### Charles S. COHEN, Petitioner, v. Nathan MAYO, as Custodian of the Florida State Prison, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

Feb. 1, 1955.

Charles S. Cohen, in pro. per.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

THOMAS, Justice.

When the petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus the Attorney General advised the court that the writ should issue. Now in the return of the Commissioner of Agriculture, as custodian of the Florida State Prison, signed by the Attorney General as his counsel, the suggestion is made “that the petitioner should be remanded to the trial court so that the State Attorney may have the opportunity to file a new habitual criminal information against him.”

In the information filed 2 October 1942, charging the petitioner with having become a habitual criminal, the dates of committing the primary and subsequent offenses are not given, the terms of sentences are not shown and the dates of conviction, except the years, do not appear.

Even under the decision in Washington v. Mayo, 159 Fla. 477, 31 So.2d 870, which relaxed to some degree the rule announced in Joyner v. State, 158 Fla. 806, 30 So.2d 304, the information in the instant case was insufficient. Perry v. Mayo, Fla., 72 So.2d 382.

•Therefore, under the decision in Harvey v. Mayo, Fla., 72 So.2d 385, the petitioner is remanded to the trial court for proceedings outlined in the opinion in that case which need not now be repeated.

It is so ordered.

MATHEWS, C. J., and HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Casey A., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Department of Social Services Child Protective Services, Respondent; Glen A., Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 495]

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.), dated April 11, 2001, which denied his motion to dismiss the petitioner’s application to restore to the calendar a neglect petition against him based upon his alleged violation of an order of the same court, dated October 22, 1999, which granted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal of the underlying neglect proceeding.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the application is dismissed.

The neglect proceeding against the appellant was settled by order dated October 22, 1999, which granted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (hereinafter ACD) (Family Ct Act § 1039). The adjournment period of this ACD ran from October 22, 1999, to October 22, 2000. Family Court Act § 1039 (f) states that if such a proceeding “is not so restored to the calendar, the petition is, at the expiration of the adjournment period, deemed to have been dismissed by the court.”

Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Family Court, the petitioner did not timely seek to restore the proceeding to the calendar since its application to do so, although dated October 20, 2000, was not filed with the Family Court until October 25, 2000, or three days after the underlying neglect petition was deemed to have been dismissed. Therefore, the court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss the application to restore the neglect proceeding to the calendar (see *generally*Family Ct Act § 1031; Uniform Rules for Family Ct [22 NYCRR] § 205.9).

Despite the fact that the appellant subsequently agreed to *573settle the alleged violation by accepting a second ACD, the determination that the appellant violated the terms and conditions of the first ACD might indirectly affect his status in potential future proceedings. Therefore, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, this appeal has not been rendered academic *(see Matter of Marie B.,*62 NY2d 352; *see also Matter of Danielle*C., 253 AD2d 431). Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Townes, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21.1

List of Subsidiaries



|                                               |  |                       
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Name                                           |  | Place of Incorporation
|Radyne Corporation Pte Ltd                     |  | Singapore             
|                                               | 
|Comstream Corporation                          |  | Delaware              
|                                               | 
|Armer Communications Engineering Services, Inc |  | Delaware              
|                                               | 
|Tiernan Radyne ComStream Inc.                  |  | Delaware              
|                                               | 
|Xicom Technology, Inc                          |  | California            
|                                               | 
|Xicom Technology Europe, Ltd                   |  | United Kingdom        
|                                               | 
|AeroAstro, Inc.                                |  | Delaware
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 7 (Thursday, January 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 1875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-234]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. EL08-26-000]


City of Riverside, CA; Notice of Filing

December 31, 2007.
    Take notice that on December 21, 2007, the City of Riverside, 
California filed its fifth annual revision to its Transmission Revenue 
Balancing Account Adjustment, to become effective January 1, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abedeef9e8e4c5c7c2c5cef8dedbdbc4d9dfebcdced9c885ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="11575443525e7f7d787f74426461617e636551777463723f767e67">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 22, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-234 Filed 1-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Bennie Ray HURD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45667.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 28, 1972.

Joe B. Garza, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and Catharine T. Hill, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Hut-tash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

This is a revocation of probation appeal.

Appellant was convicted of attempting to pass as true a forged instrument on January 16, 1970, assessed a two (2) year sentence and placed on probation. One of the terms of his probation was:

> “(d) Report to the probation officer as directed, to-wit: monthly

On August 13, 1970, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s probation alleging he had failed to report to his probation officer from and after April 13, 1970. On November 12, 1970, the court held a hearing and revoked appellant’s probation.

Dallas County Probation Officer Lewis Bramblett testified that appellant had not reported to him since April 13, 1970 and that appellant had not given any reason for his failure to report as directed. He also stated the appellant called him on July 23, 1970 and said he would be in to make a report but that he never came.

The appellant testified that he suffered from a skin disease he contracted in Viet Nam for which he was hospitalized for approximately three months beginning in June, 1970. On cross-examination, he admitted that he was released from the hospital in September, 1970 but made no effort to contact or visit his probation officer although he was not continually bedridden or hospitalized during that period. He *825also stated that he understood the conditions of his probation and knew he was required to report to his probation officer monthly.

The only question for review in a revocation of probation appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the probation. Carnes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 940; Bennett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 476 S.W.2d 281; Seymore v. Beto, 5 Cir., 383 F.2d 384. The record reflects that the appellant failed, without valid explanation, to report to his probation officer as directed.

There is no abuse of discretion.

The judgment is affirmed.

ROBERTS, J., not participating.