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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 85 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1091-E1092]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

                                 ______

                               speech of

                           HON. DAN SCHAEFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 16, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 961) to 
     amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act:

  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin].
  This amendment is intended to resolve a potentially serious conflict 
between two Federal statutes: the Federal Power Act, which gives the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] the authority to regulate 
hydroelectric generation facilities; and the Clean Water Act, which 
regulates water quality related to such facilities.
  Being from the West, I have always been a strong supporter of States' 
rights. State and local governments, in my opinion, generally have a 
better perspective on local needs and desires than the bureaucrats in 
Washington do. So I generally have a fairly negative view of measures 
which would take away from the power of the States.
  This amendment takes on this very difficult issue in the conflict 
between the Clean Water Act and the Federal Power Act. The current 
situation is not a positive one, with an unclear division of final 
decisionmaking.
  As chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, it is clear to me 
that a clear decisionmaking process is needed. The electric power 
generated by a hydro project can often serve several States, over 
several hundred miles of transmission lines. Clearly, it is the role 
and the responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure that this 
interstate system works efficiently and reliably.
  Under the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
is tasked with this role. It makes sense that, as with any other issue 
affecting FERC licensing, Clean Water Act decisions would also be 
subject to a process by which FERC would exercise its authorities in a 
consistent manner.
  This amendment, I believe, accomplishes this objective. It retains a 
strong role for State involvement. I could not support the amendment if 
I thought the case were otherwise. It also clears up the current fog 
which exists between FERC and the States, and comports 
[[Page E1092]] Clean Water Act decisions with the clear intent of the 
Federal Power Act. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

                          ____________________
```
583 A.2d 338

#### SASDELLI OIL CO., INC. v. D.M. BOWMAN, INC.

March 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
January 13, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EXERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF IDAHO, LLC AND JAMES T. 

CARKULIS, Appellants

NO. 14-14-00788-CV V.

HIGH POWER ENERGY, LLC, BLUE RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC AND 

BLACK MOUNTAIN FINANCIAL, CORP, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on April 8, 2014. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellants, Exergy Development Group of Idaho, LLC and James T. Carkulis.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 32

                            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 Annual Report of American Soil Technology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Carl P. Ranno, Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss.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/ Carl P. Ranno
----------------------------------
Carl P. Ranno
Chief Executive Officer, President
and Chief Financial Officer
January 13, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20

- 0382

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

vs.

QUINCY SMITH

,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26( 2 ), the Appellant is

given an extension of time until January 2 9 , 2020 , to prepare, file, and serve the

Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 16 2020

12/16/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0382
422 A.2d 1162

#### Commonwealth v. Hernandez, Appellant.

Submitted April 12, 1979.

Norman A. Levine, Public Defender, for appellant; Howard C. Klebe, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, P. J., and WIEAND and HOFFMAN, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1253 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1253

 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in 
   Rochester, Minnesota, as the ``Charles W. Lindberg Department of 
                 Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 2007

Mr. Walz of Minnesota introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in 
   Rochester, Minnesota, as the ``Charles W. Lindberg Department of 
                 Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF CHARLES W. LINDBERG DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient 
Clinic located at 1617 Skyline Drive, Rochester, Minnesota, shall after 
the date of the enactment of this Act be known and designated as the 
``Charles W. Lindberg Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient 
Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, record, or other paper of the United States to the outpatient 
clinic referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a 
reference to the Charles W. Lindberg Department of Veterans Affairs 
Outpatient Clinic.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Quintiles Transnational Corp. and Subsidiaries
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 Quintiles Transnational Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
D. Ratliff, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to 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, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. /s/ John D. RatliffJohn D. RatliffExecutive Vice President andChief Financial OfficerAugust 13, 2004Date
 This certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of
any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
documents authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 20

- 00557

- CR
IN RE Christian L. GARRETT Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice Delivered and Filed: December 30, 2020
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
On November 18 , 2020 , relator filed a (1) motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

a nd (2) a “notice of intent” to file a writ of habeas corpus for pretrial relief. We granted relator’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered relator to file a writ of habeas corpus by December 14, 2020 should he decide to file one.
On December 11, 2020, relator filed a pro se writ of habeas corpus claiming he has been “unlawfully extradited, arrested and detained” since November 6, 2019 with “an unsigned indictment” for continuous sexual abuse of a child

. Relator requests that we dism iss this case with prejudice

.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019CR7642 , styled Garrett v. State , pending in the 175th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Catherine Torres

- Stahl presiding.04

- 20

- 00557

- CR

- 2

- Our original jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus is limited to cases in which a person’s liberty is restrained because the person has violated an order, judgment, or decree entered in a civil case. T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.221(d). We do not have original jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in criminal matters. Dodson v. State , 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1999, no pet.). The only courts authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus in criminal
matters are the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, and county courts. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN
. art. 11.05. Here, relator does not complain of an order, judgment, or decree en tered in a civil case. We therefore dismiss relator’s writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction

. PER CURIAM Do Not Publish
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2969 

To authorize the transfer of certain items under the control of the Omar 

Bradley Foundation to the descendants of General Omar Bradley. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 2, 2014 

Mr. TOOMEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the transfer of certain items under the control 

of the Omar Bradley Foundation to the descendants 

of General Omar Bradley. 

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 ‘‘General of the Army 

5 Omar Bradley Property Transfer Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN ITEMS OF THE OMAR BRAD7 LEY FOUNDATION TO THE DESCENDANTS OF 

8 GENERAL OMAR BRADLEY. 

9 (a) TRANSFER AUTHORIZED.—The Omar Bradley 

10 Foundation, Pennsylvania, may transfer, without considVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:25 Dec 03, 2014 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2969.IS S2969

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2969 IS

1 eration, to the child of General of the Army Omar Nelson 

2 Bradley and his first wife Mary Elizabeth Quayle Bradley, 

3 namely Elizabeth Bradley, such items of the Omar Brad4 ley estate under the control of the Foundation as the Sec5 retary of the Army determines to be without historic value 

6 to the Army. 

7 (b) TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF CLAIM FOR TRANS8 FER.—No item may be transferred under subsection (a) 

9 unless the claim for the transfer of such item is submitted 

10 to the Omar Bradley Foundation during the 180-day pe11 riod beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHRISTOPHER EMANUEL.

March 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:      November 16, 2009 | By:                                                                                          | /s/ David A.      Christian |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                         | David      A. Christian                                                                                |
|                         | Chief      Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors (Principal      Executive Officer) |

----
News United States Air Force
 F-16s surge during two-day drill at MisawaPublished April 6, 2016
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Jordyn Fetter
                        
                        
                        35th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **MISAWA AIR BASE, Japan (AFNS) --**
                Airmen with the 35th Fighter Wing conducted a two-day surge exercise April 4-5 with F-16 Fighting Falcons at Misawa Air Base."During surge operations, we're validating our wing's ability to generate (aircraft) in a simulated combat scenario," said Capt. Josh Plocinski, the 14th Fighter Squadron chief of standardization and evaluation.For Airmen and pilots, this meant each flying squadron increased in performance from nearly 20 to about 70 missions daily."During surge operations our timeline is accelerated, so we'll fly with shorter turn times to simulate what we could see in a combat environment," said Master Sgt. Michael Woroniecki, the 14th Aircraft Maintenance Unit weapons flight chief. "Surge operations like this test our ability to meet a higher demand operations tempo."To make this happen, 24-hour operations were put in place with personnel working 12-hour shifts. Sorties began at 8 a.m. and finished at midnight to increase preparedness and help pilots improve their flying skills in all weather conditions.Along with the increased pace of jet generation, both the 13th and 14th Fighter Squadrons operated out of the same building to simulate a deployed environment."At Misawa you're not used to sharing the same space or working with different people, but you still have to make the mission happen," Plocinkski said. "It takes more planning and coordination than we would normally do on a day-to-day basis."As scenarios were carried out, data was gathered to determine the success of the surge exercise."After action reports are completed by gathering input of what worked and didn't work, and how the missions themselves went," Plocinski explained. "We then take those lessons and apply them the next time we do this."Exercises like these are held when wing leadership determines it's necessary to sharpen proficiency in aircraft maintenance resiliency and operational agility. Plocinski said they enhance the wing's ability to effectively and efficiently generate F-16s and remain combat ready.f-16 



Misawa AB 



Japan 



PACAF 



training 



F-16 Fighting Falcon
#### Martha Scarboro RHEM, personal representative and administrator of the estate of John Rhem, Jr., deceased, Appellant, R & M Environmental, Incorporated, a North Carolina Corporation; John Rhem, Jr., a citizen of New Hanover County, North Carolina, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Daniel J. BRITAIN, a resident of Georgia; Paragon Insurance Service, Incorporated, a Georgia corporation, Defendants-Appellees, and The Travelers Companies, a Connecticut corporation; Citigroup Incorporated, a corporation authorized to do business in North Carolina; Travelers Insurance Company, Defendants.

No. 00-2011.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dee. 21, 2000.

Decided Jan. 8, 2001.

Bradley Andrew Coxe, Anderson, Daniel & Coxe, Wrightsville Beach, NC; David Bruce Collins, Jr., Wilmington, NC, for appellants. Andrew J. Hanley, Crossley, McIntosh, Prior & Collier, Wilmington, NC, for appellees.

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in their civil action. We have reviewed parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *R & M Envtl, Inc. v. Britain,*No. CA-99-99-7 F (E.D.N.C. July 12, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
583 A.2d 310

#### OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY v. ALLEN A. WEST.

January 23, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1166 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1166

   To direct the Secretary of Education to extend the same level of 
  increased flexibility to all rural local educational agencies under 
  part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
                                 1965.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2007

 Mr. Marshall introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of Education to extend the same level of 
  increased flexibility to all rural local educational agencies under 
  part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
                                 1965.

    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 ``Rural Education Equality and 
Improvement Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR RURAL LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

    (a) In General.--If the Secretary of Education takes any action 
(whether by regulation, guidance, or otherwise) to authorize increased 
flexibility for any category of rural local educational agencies, the 
Secretary shall extend the same level of increased flexibility to all 
rural local educational agencies.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Increased flexibility.--The term ``increased 
        flexibility'' means increased flexibility under, or facilitated 
        compliance with, part A of title I of the Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).
            (2) Rural local educational agency.--The term ``rural local 
        educational agency'' includes any local educational agency 
        described in section 6211(b) or section 6221(b)(1) of the 
        Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
        7345(b), 7351(b)(1)).
    (c) Application.--This section applies to any action described in 
subsection (a) that occurs on or after January 8, 2002 (the date of the 
enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-
110)).
                                 <all>
```
#### G. H. & S. A. R’y Co. v. W. E. Watson.

(No. 1330, Op. Book No. 2, p. 608.)

Appeal from Gonzales County.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 818. *Market value; when there is none, real value may he shown.*If from the smallness of the place or the scarcity of the. article, or other reasons, there is no market price for the property in question, its real value at the time and place must be ascertained as a fact by the jui’y, taking into consideration what would otherwise have influenced the market price if there had been one, such as price at the place of manufacture, cost of carriage, and a reasonable sum for importer’s profit. [Wood’s Mayne on Damages, 1st Am. ed. p. 401.]

§ 814. *Common carriers; measure of damages in actions against.*When a commou carrier has no notice of the purpose for which property is sent, or of any special purpose in sending it, or that there is a sale depending upon the delivery of it at a specified time, he will only *466be liable, in case of delay in the delivery beyond a reasonable time, or the time stipulated in the contract for its carriage, for the difference in value between the property at the time and place it should have been delivered, and its value at the time it was in fact delivered. • If, however, the carrier undertakes to deliver the property within a certain time, to meet the requirements of the shipper, and with knowledge of those requirements, and fails to do so, he is liable for more remote losses caused by the delay, and must indemnify the shipper for any special losses in consequence thereof, embracing all such as were anticipated, or might reasonably have been anticipated by the parties as a probable result of a delay under all the circumstances of the case. [Field on Dam. §§ 385, 386, 388, 389.]

March 18, 1882.

§815. *Carrier’s failure to transport and deliver is a breach of contract, and not a conversion; owner cannot refuse to receive property, unless, etc.*The carrier’s failure to transport and deliver property within a reasonable time is a breach of contract; it is not a conversion, and is not equivalent to a conversion of the goods. The owner cannot therefore refuse to receive them on account of the inexcusable delay, and recover their full value, unless the delay or negligence results in the loss of the goods or destroys their full value. [Edwards on Bailm. § 610.]

Reversed and remanded.