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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1920

To extend for 6 months the period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of 

the United States Code is reenacted. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2003

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To extend for 6 months the period for which chapter 12 

of title 11 of the United States Code is reenacted.

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

3 SECTION 1. SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR WHICH 

4 CHAPTER 12 OF TITLE 11, UNITED STATES 

5 CODE IS REENACTED. 

6 (a) AMENDMENTS.—Section 149 of title I of division 

7 C of Public Law 105–277 (11 U.S.C. 1201 note) is 

8 amended—

9 (1) by striking ‘‘January 1, 2004’’ each place 

10 it appears and inserting ‘‘July 1, 2004’’; and 
2

•S 1920 IS 

1 (2) in subsection (a)—

2 (A) by striking ‘‘June 30, 2003’’ and in3 serting ‘‘December 31, 2003’’; and 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘July 1, 2003’’ and insert5 ing ‘‘January 1, 2004’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 subsection (a) shall take effect on January 1, 2004.

Æ
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1823

To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to authorize the Assiniboine and 

Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation to lease tribally-owned land 

on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation for 1 or more interstate gas 

pipelines. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 5, 2003

Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mr. BAUCUS) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL

To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to authorize the 

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation to lease tribally-owned land on the Fort Peck Indian 

Reservation for 1 or more interstate gas pipelines.

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

3 SECTION 1. LEASE OF TRIBALLY-OWNED LAND BY ASSINI4 BOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT 

5 PECK RESERVATION. 

6 The first section of the Act of August 9, 1955 (25 

7 U.S.C. 415), is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: 
2

•S 1823 IS 

1 ‘‘(g) LEASE OF TRIBALLY-OWNED LAND BY ASSINI2 BOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK RESERVA3 TION.—

4 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsection 

5 (a) and any regulations under part 162 of title 25, 

6 Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regu7 lation), subject to paragraph (2), the Assiniboine 

8 and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation may 

9 lease to the Northern Border Pipeline Company trib10 ally-owned land on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation 

11 for 1 or more interstate gas pipelines. 

12 ‘‘(2) CONDITIONS.—A lease entered into under 

13 paragraph (1)—

14 ‘‘(A) shall commence during fiscal year 

15 2011 for an initial term of 25 years; 

16 ‘‘(B) may be renewed for an additional 

17 term of 25 years; and 

18 ‘‘(C) shall specify in the terms of the lease 

19 an annual rental rate—

20 ‘‘(i) which rate shall be increased by 

21 3 percent per year on a cumulative basis 

22 for each 5-year period; and 

23 ‘‘(ii) the adjustment of which in ac24 cordance with clause (i) shall be considered 

25 to satisfy any review requirement under 
3

•S 1823 IS 

1 part 162 of title 25, Code of Federal Regu2 lations (or any successor regulation).’’.

Æ
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DON EVAN CIOETA

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 562

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed November 18, 2016

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County

, Jeffrey Mahl , Judge.

Don E. Cioeta, Lake City, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent

- Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Don Cioeta , seeks review of the order summarily denying his motion for

postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm

as to all claims except claims two and seven. In claim two, Cioeta contends that his trial

counsel wa s ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress Cioeta’s statements to the

police. In claim seven, Cioeta argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to2 impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements. Because these two claims a re not

refuted by the record, it was error for the trial court to summarily deny them. Therefore,

we reverse that part of the order under review denying these two claims and remand for

an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record that co nc lusively refute the

claims.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

LAWSON, C.J., SAWAYA and WALLIS , JJ., concur.
#### THOMAS JOHNSON v. TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHAMPTON, COUNTY OF BURLINGTON.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied. (See 157 *N. J. Super.*518)
Recommendation: 

NASA Advisory Council Recommendation 

Space Basic Research (Engineering Science) Program 

2012-02-01 (TIC-Ol) 

The Council recommends that NASA establish a space basic research (engineering science) 

program relevant to its long-term needs and goals. 

• The Council suggests that the Chief Technologist collaborate with the Chief Scientist and 

the Chief Engineer to establish formal guidance and to consolidate, and seek future 

funding for, space basic research in engineering science. The Council further suggests 

that NASA begin by managing the Agency's space basic research portfolio as a pilot 

activity that is funded separately from the Space Technology Program, similar to how the 

Office of Chief Technologist coordinates the Agency's technology portfolio. 

Major Reasons for the Recommendation: 

The Council recognizes that the distinction has been established between basic research and 

technology. NASA's technology programs now have advocacy and, in the form of the Strategic 

Space Technology Investment Plan (SSTIP), strategic guidance. However, basic research (or 

engineering science) that may lead to the development of technology and engineering tools is no 

longer explicitly part of NASA's technology enterprise, which focuses on applying the 

disciplines of engineering science to synthesize a device, process or subsystem to enable a 

specific capability. 

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation: 

Erosion of NASA's research and technology capabilities. 

NASA Response: 

NASA concurs with this recommendation. The Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT), in 

collaboration with the Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS) and the Office of the Chief Engineer 

(aCE), authored a draft white paper to frame the issue and to lay the groundwork for a 

discussion with the Executive Council on Foundational Investments in Engineering Science. 

The aCE is leading efforts to develop options for funding and governance for basic research in 

engineering science, and those efforts will include direct involvement of OCT and OCS. 

Whether or not additional funds could be made available, coordination of ongoing activities and 

evolution is valuable. To provide this guidance and to establish the benefits of these 

investments, the NASA Engineering and Safety Center Technical Fellows are fully engaged in 

this activity and have started the process of building investment road maps, much like OCT has 

developed for their technology investments. These roadmaps are identifying and prioritizing 

areas where early work, within existing funding, might achieve early successes. The team plans 

to use the Strategic Space Technology Investment Plan as a guide for deciding how to prioritize 

early investments and to adjust the investment plan as required to fit the portfolio for engineering 

science investments. 

Enclosure
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 amendment no. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Huntsman International Holdings LLC (the "Company") for the
year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter R. Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|                                                                                |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                                                |  | 
|/s/PETER. R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive
OfficerNovember 23, 2004 |  | 

---



QuickLinks
November 13, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROY MATA AND GILBERT E. GARCIA, Appellants

NO. 14-12-00400-CV V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WELLS FARGO BANK 

SOUTHWEST, NA F/K/A WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB F/K/A WORLD SAVINGS 

BANK, Appellee

________________________________

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

signed by the court below on April 12, 2012. 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, Roy Mata and Gilbert E. Garcia, jointly and severably.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Robideau v. Ewing and Another.

A judgment of a justice of the peace is set aside, by his granting a new trial in tho causo within tho timo allowed by law for the purpose.

A *scire facias*on a justice’s transcript, &c., by alleging that after the granting of a new trial, the former judgment, which was against the defendant for a certain sum, was confirmed, must be understood to moan that a judgment was rendered against the defendant, on the new trial, for the samo amount with the first judgment.

Friday, *May*28.

ERROR to the *Allen*Circuit Court.,

Blackford, J.

*Scire facias*against *Robideau*to show cause why execution should not issue, &c. The *scire facias*states that the plaintiffs, on the 8th of *January,*1831, recovered judgment in an action of assumpsit before a justice of the peace, against the defendant for 78 dollars and 70 cents; that an execution on the judgment issued on the same day; and that the plaintiffs also, on that day, obtained a transcript of the judgment. On the 11th of *January,*1831, the constable returned the execution, no property found, and, on the next day, the plaintiffs delivered the transcript of the judgment to the clerk of the Circuit Court, who filed the same; that, afterwards, the justice granted to the defendant a new trial, and set the cause for trial on the 29th of *January,*1831; that on the day last-named, the cause was continued until the 5th of *February*following, when the former judgment was confirmed by the justice; that the judgments are still in force, &c. General demurrer to the *scire facias*and judgment for the plaintiffs.

We think this demurrer should have been sustained. After the plaintiffs had filed the transcript in the clerk’s office, the justice granted a new trial. The *scire facias*does not state the day on which the new trial was granted, but we must presume, the contrary not appearing, that it was granted within the time allowed by law for the purpose. By the granting of the new trial, the original judgment was set aside. The *scire facias*states, that after the granting of the new trial, the cause was continued to a subsequent day, and on that day the former judgment was confirmed. We understand this to mean, that a judgment was rendered against the defendant, on the new trial, for the same amount with the first judgment.

*553*D. H. Colerich*and *W. LI.*Coombs, for the plaintiff.

*H.*Cooper, for the defendants.

It does not appear that any execution issued on the second judgment, or that a transcript of that judgment was taken from the justice, and recorded by the clerk of the Circuit Court, or filed in his office.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c. .
HSPD-12 Implementation Status Report 

Updated Date: 

Number of Employees requiring PIV credentials* 

Number of Employees requiring a NACI (or at least equivalent) that have not previously undergone a background check* 

Number of Employees requiring a NACI (or at least equivalent) with background investigation in process* 

Number of Employees with completed/ adjudicated NACI (or equivalent background investigation)* 

Total Number of PIV credentials Issued to Employees* 

Number of Contractors requiring PIV credentials 

Number of Contractors requiring NACI (or at least equivalent) that have not previously undergone a background check 

Number of Contractors requiring a NACI (or at least equivalent) with background investigation in process 

Number of Contractors with completed/ adjudicated NACI (or equivalent background investigation) 

Mar/2007 18,750 0 N/A N/A 0 70,996 52,885 N/A N/A 

Jun/2007 18,693 2,808 N/A N/A 17 56,487 35,159 N/A N/A 

Sept/2007 18,787 0 N/A N/A 14 54,005 15,363 N/A N/A 

Dec/2007 17,751 208 2,578 16,051 86 58,909 3,747 30,459 24,753 

Mar/2008 17,414 203 2,221 16,377 1,394 58,422 4,036 29,395 26,391 

Jun/2008 7,286 636 4,136 14,033 11,519 34,710 3,605 25,684 26,099 Sep/2008 1,696 253 3,806 14,376 16,739 24,147 3,094 21,053 36,499 

Dec/2008 480 232 3,749 14,538 17,990 6,947 1,599 18,708 39,969 

Implementation Plan Summary

[Planned Date of Full Implementation] 

10/27/2008

[Planned Total Number 

of NACIs to be 

verified/completed for 

current employees and 

contractors by Oct. 27, 

2007*] 

Next
NO. 07-03-0091-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	FEBRUARY 11, 2004

	______________________________

	JON P. LESTER, APPELLANT

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2000-434752; HON. JIM BOB DARNELL, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1

Memorandum Opinion

	In two issues, appellant Jon P. Lester challenges his conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and the resulting penal sentence of 25 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  In those issues, he contends the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support  the verdict of the jury that he used a telephone as a deadly weapon.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

	On October 11, 2000, appellant was indicted in two counts for the offense of aggravated assault.  In the first count, he was charged with using a knife in a manner capable of causing death and serious bodily injury.  In the second count, he was charged with using a telephone in a manner capable of causing death and serious bodily injury.  After trial, the jury found him guilty of both counts. 

	In this appeal, however, he limits his challenges to the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction under the second count, i.e., the use of the telephone.  He does not contest in any way the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction under count one of the indictment.  Additionally, he does not contest the finding that he had been previously convicted of two felony offenses as alleged in the indictment.

	Because of his two prior felony convictions, on the first count alone, appellant faced a possible sentence of 25 to 99 years or life imprisonment.  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2004); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (Vernon 2004).  The 25- year punishment assessed by the jury was the minimum punishment that could be assessed.

	Under this record, because of the unchallenged validity of appellant’s conviction under the first count, further discussion of appellant’s suggested issues is not necessary to the disposition of this appeal.  Suffice it to say, those issues are overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

							John T. Boyd

							Senior Justice

Do not publish.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 5, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN

INSURANCE COMPANY; UNITED

FINANCIAL CASUALTY

COMPANY,

Plaintiffs - Appellees, 

v. 

TONY ORBA MCMULLEN;

CYNTHIA MCMULLEN; FIC

MINISTRIES, INC.; FIC

MINISTRIES FOUNDATION, a

Domestic Not For Profit Corporation, 

Defendants - Appellants.

No. 10-5040

(D.C. No. 4:08-CV-00430-GKF-FHM)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the “Defendants-Appellants’ Motion for

Voluntary Dismissal of Appeal.” The motion is granted as provided herein. 

This appeal (10-5040 - the appeal from the district court’s cost decision) is

dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). 

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court. 

Appellate Case: 10-5040 Document: 01018396553 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 1 
2

This order applies to 10-5040 only. Appellants’ related appeal (10-5021)

remains pending with this court. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH SHUMAKER, Clerk of Court 

by:

Christine Van Coney

Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-5040 Document: 01018396553 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 2
EEO DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS

An employee, former employee, or applicant for employment who feels he/she has been discriminated against because of race, color, religion, sex (including 

gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), genetic information, physical or mental disability, or reprisal for prior EEO 

involvement may file a complaint by contacting an EEO counselor within 45 days following the alleged discriminatory act. Once an informal/formal complaint 

has been initiated, the complaint can be resolved at any stage of the process. 

Start Precomplaint Process

INDIVIDUAL HAS 45 DAYS 

FROM INCIDENT TO 

CONTACT EEO 

COUNSELOR

TRADITIONAL EEO 

COUNSELING 

30 DAYS or 90 DAYS OR

ALTERNATIVE 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

(ADR) 

90 DAYS 

IF 

RESOLVED, 

COUNSELING 

CLOSED

IF NOT RESOLVED, EEO 

COUNSELOR ISSUES 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO 

FILE FORMAL WITHIN 

30 DAYS OR 90 DAYS 

Precomplaint: 

• Counseling is extended for 60 days (total 90 days) with 

Complainant’s agreement in writing. 

• Counseling can also be closed with a withdrawal. 

Formal: 

• EEOC – Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

• OFO – Office of Federal Regulations 

 Formal Process 

INDIVIDUAL HAS 15 DAYS 

FROM RECEIPT OF 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO 

FILE FORMAL

NASA ACKNOWLEDGES 

RECEIPT OF FORMAL 

COMPLAINT

NASA ISSUES DECISION 

WHETHER TO ACCEPT 

OR DISMISS COMPLAINT

IF ENTIRE COMPLAINT IS 

DISMISSED, COMPLAINANT HAS 

30 DAYS TO APPEAL NASA’S 

DISMISSAL TO EEOC OFO. 

PARTIAL DISMISSAL IS NOT 

APPEALABLE UNTIL ENTIRE 

COMPLAINT IS ADJUDICATED 

OR

IF COMPLAINT IS ACCEPTED, 

NASA COMPLETES 

INVESTIGATION WITHIN 180 

DAYS, 270 DAYS IF EXTENSION 

IS GRANTED, OR 360 DAYS IF 

COMPLAINT IS AMENDED FROM 

FORMAL FILEING

COMPLAINANT HAS 30 DAYS

FROM RECEIPT OF REPORT OF 

INVESTIGATION TO REQUEST 

AN EEOC HEARING, UNLESS 

CASE IS A MIXED CASE

OR

COMPLAINANT HAS 30 DAYS 

FROM RECEIPT OF REPORT OF 

INVESTIGATION TO REQUEST 

FINAL AGENCY DECISION

AFTER EEOC ADMINISTRATIVE 

JUDGE DECISION, NASA HAS 40 

DAYS TO ISSUE A FINAL 

DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO 

IMPLEMENT THE DECISION

NASA ISSUES FINAL AGENCY 

DECISION WITHIN 60 DAYS OR 

45 DAYS FOR MIXED CASES
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,262
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          10,958
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     11,963
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,180
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        174,431
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,886
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,148
<DEPOSITS>                                     201,104
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,730
<LONG-TERM>                                      2,251
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,942
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 232,148
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,121
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  305
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    46
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,472
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,601
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,627
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,845
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       60
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,738
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    577
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         413
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       413
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.98
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,089
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,383
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,420
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       68
<RECOVERIES>                                         5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,886
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,886
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>