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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 469

To provide an enhanced penalty for threatening to kill, injure, or intimidate 

an individual, or to cause property damage, by means of fire or an 

explosive on school property. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2003

Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. ENGEL, and Mrs. KELLY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To provide an enhanced penalty for threatening to kill, injure, or intimidate an individual, or to cause property 

damage, by means of fire or an explosive on school 

property.

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 ‘‘Zero Tolerance School 

5 Terror Act’’. 
2

•HR 469 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ENHANCED PENALTY FOR THREATENING TO KILL, 

2 INJURE, OR INTIMIDATE AN INDIVIDUAL, OR 

3 TO CAUSE PROPERTY DAMAGE, BY MEANS OF 

4 FIRE OR AN EXPLOSIVE ON SCHOOL PROP5 ERTY. 

6 Section 844(e) of title 18, United States Code, is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘If the threat 

8 or conveying of false information referred to in the pre9 ceding sentence concerns conduct on the grounds of a 

10 school which provides elementary or secondary education 

11 (as determined under State law), the maximum term of 

12 imprisonment under this subsection shall be 20 years.’’.

Æ
10847.

#### Wellons *v.*McCartha.

Decided January 6, 1920.

Action for damages; from Crisp superior court—Judge Gower. June 17, 1919.

*Pearson Ellis,*for plaintiff in error.

*Max E. Land,*contra.

Luke, J.

The evidence in this case authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and this court cannot interfere with it. It was not error to overrule the demurrer to the suit, nor did the court err in admitting the evidence objected to by the defendant. The admission of such evidence was not harmful to the defendant. Eor no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

Certification of Principal Accounting and Financial Officer

I, Rose Frawert, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Mid-State Raceway, Inc.
and Subsidiary;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

                                                                              48
<PAGE>

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: January 10, 2004
/s/ Rose Frawert
Rose Frawert
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer

                                                                              49
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of MentorCorporation (the "Company") on Form 10‐K for the year endingMarch 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the "Report"), I, Joshua H. Levine, President and Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofmy knowledge:

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

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

 

/s/JOSHUA H. LEVINEJoshua H. LevinePresident and Chief Executive OfficerJune 11, 2004
#### C. S. Greer *v.*H. G. Gardner.

Bills and Notes — Failure of Consideration.

Where a note was given for a promised loan of money which was never realized, there is a failure of consideration.

APPEAL PROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

October 9, 1873.

*Bate, Wright, for appellant.*

*Underwood, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

This court said, in the opinion delivered when this case was here on a former appeal, that if the note sued on was not given in consideration of a sale of the note on the Thomases, but only for a promised loan of the money expected to be paid by Thomas, which was never realized, then there was a failure of consideration. This was certainly a correct exposition of the legal proposition involved, and although the two instructions given for appellee, and not complained of, are not in as concise language as they might have been, and may be somewhat obscured by the multiplicity of words. Still we incline to the opinion that said iústructions embody the proposition of law as enunciated in the opinion referred to, and therefore *afñrm*the judgment.
EX-10.91






EXHIBIT 10.91





December 1, 2005



Mr. James R. Mellor


Chairman of the Board


USEC Inc.


6903 Rockledge Drive


Bethesda, MD 20817



Dear Jim:



As you are aware, on December 3, 2005, the two-month transition period under your existing
employment arrangement will end and you will return to your prior role as non-executive Chairman of
the Board. The purpose of this letter is to detail your compensation arrangements as Chairman.
Before turning to compensation, however, we want to express our sincere appreciation for your
leadership of USEC as Chief Executive Officer this year and for your valuable assistance in the
transition.



It is anticipated that as Chairman of the Board you will spend an average of approximately twenty
(20) hours per week on USEC matters, providing leadership to the Board of Directors, counsel to the
CEO and other assistance with USEC’s policies, commercial practices, external affairs, and
strategic planning. In recognition of the substantial amount of time and effort that you are
expected to spend fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of Chairman of the Board, the
following sets forth the details of your compensation arrangement, effective December 3, 2005:




	 	•	 	Chairman’s Fee: You will receive an annual fee of $400,000, payable in 12 equal
monthly installments.






	 	•	 	Board of Directors Compensation: You will also be entitled to the annual
compensation and meeting fees payable to all USEC non-employee directors. You will receive
a pro-rated portion of the annual retainer, annual restricted stock grant, annual option
grant and incentive stock award paid to directors in April 2005 for the current Board term
ending in April 2006.






	 	•	 	Other: You will be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary travel and living
expenses incurred by you in the performance of your duties as Chairman of the Board.





Please note that as Chairman, you will no longer be an employee of USEC. Accordingly, all taxes
applicable to the chairman’s fee as well as any other amounts paid by USEC to you will be your
liability and USEC will not withhold or pay any amounts for federal, state or municipal income tax,
social security, unemployment or worker’s compensation.



Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter. If you are in agreement with
the terms of this arrangement set forth above, please so indicate by signing below.



Yours sincerely,



/s/ John R. Hall


John R. Hall


Chairman, Compensation Committee


USEC Inc. Board of Directors



I am in agreement with the terms set forth above.



/s/ James R. Mellor


James R. Mellor


Chairman of the Board


USEC Inc.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4471

AN ACT

To clarify the loan guarantee authority under title

and Self-Determination Act of 1996.VI of the Native American Housing Assistance

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4471

AN ACT

To clarify the loan guarantee authority under title VI of

the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4471 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeownership Op3 portunities for Native Americans Act of 2004’’.

4 SEC. 2. FEDERAL GUARANTEES FOR FINANCING FOR TRIB5 AL HOUSING ACTIVITIES.

6 Section 601 of the Native American Housing Assist7 ance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C.

8 4191) is amended by adding at the end the following new

9 subsection:

10 ‘‘(d) LIMITATION ON PERCENTAGE.—A guarantee

11 made under this title shall guarantee repayment of 95 per12 cent of the unpaid principal and interest due on the notes

13 or other obligations guaranteed.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives June 21, 2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
6/10/20

1

Ale Strachan - CAES INL C3 workshop

Setting up a nanoHUB account and 

generating API key for citrination

Alejandro Strachan

strachan@purdue.edu

School of Materials Engineering & Birck Nanotechnology Center

Purdue University

West Lafayette, Indiana USA

1

STEP 1: Signing up for a nanoHUB account

Ale Strachan - CAES INL C3 workshop 2
6/10/20

2

STEP 2: Launch the matdatarepo tool in nanoHUB

Ale Strachan - CAES INL C3 workshop 3

From your browser go to link: https://nanohub.org/tools/matdatarepo/

Click on Launch Tool to begin

Ale Strachan - CAES INL C3 workshop 4

STEP 3: Navigating the landing 

page

• Read through overview

• Navigate to “Introduction to 

materials databases and their 

accessibility” first

• This will provide you 

information on how to get 

access to each of these 

repositories

1.

2.

3.

4.
6/10/20

3

Ale Strachan - CAES INL C3 workshop 5

STEP 4: get API keys for Citrination

Follow the links included in 

steps 3.2 to get your API key

Keep your API key private! They are linked 

to your personal accounts and should not be 

distributed freely. Account access may be 

revoked by client if terms of use are broken.

Ale Strachan - CAES INL C3 workshop 6

Citrination

• Create Citrination Account

• Under Account settings you will find your key
1The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3679

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Ferris T. Valentine, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 1, 2000

 Filed: December 6, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ferris T. Valentine appeals the district court’s1 denial of his Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b)(6) motion to set aside the judgment so that he could timely file a notice

of appeal. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Dr. William Jeffrey, Director

National Institute of Standards and Technology

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1000

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610

Dear Dr. Jeffrey:

I hope you will convey to the entire staff of the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) my congratulations on the announcement ofNIST's third Nobel Prize.

While the Nobel recognizes first and foremost the genius (and hard work) of the

individual scientist - in this case, Dr. John Hall- the awarding of this Nobel also reflects well on

NIST as a whole, which hired, nurtured, assisted and gave play to Dr. Hall's enormous talents

(and to the talents of Dr. Cornell and Dr. Phillips, NIST's two other Nobel laureates).

I am sure that the entire team at NIST rightly feels honored by the success of their

And you can be sure that those of us in Congress who fight for NIST funding

ding our own colleagues frequently about the international recognition NIST has once

again received.

colleague.

remm

Again, my thanks to everyone at NIST for working to keep the United States at the

forefront of science.

SUITE 2320 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301

(202)225-6371

TTY: (202) 226-4410

http://www.house.gov/sciencelwelcome.hlm

October 17,2005

will be
United States Department of Com

National Institute of Standards and Technolo

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For: 

Nevada 

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully 

completed training and proficiency tests, documented calibration intervals, submitted a quality management system, anddemonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate. 

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope 

Mass Echelon II Volume Gravimetric, I 

10 kg to 1 mg 5 gal to 2 fl oz 50 lb to 0.001 lb Volume Transfer, II Mass Echelon III 600 gal to 5 gal 25 kg to 1 mg 1000 lb to 0.001 lb 8 oz to 0.03125 oz 

Volume Transfer, II LPG 100 gal to 20 gal 

___________Douglas A. ONIST Office Effective Date

(Rev.: February 2020)
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 18


March 6, 2002

Board of Directors
ANR Pipeline Company
1001 Louisiana
Houston, Texas 77002

Dear Directors:

We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form
10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

We have audited the consolidated financial statements included in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 and issued our
report thereon dated March 6, 2002. Note 9 to the financial statements describes
a change in the measurement date used to account for post-retirement benefits
other than pensions from December 31 to September 30. This change is considered
to be a change in accounting principle and is being made to conform the
Company's measurement date to the date used by its parent company, El Paso
Corporation, for its benefit plan. It should be understood that the
preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another, in this case
the use of a measurement date that is different from that previously used to
account for post-retirement benefits other than pensions, has not been addressed
in any authoritative accounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence
below we have relied on management's determination that this change in
accounting principle is preferable. Based on our reading of management's stated
reasons and justification for this change in accounting principle in the Form
10-K, and our discussions with management as to their judgment about the
relevant business planning factors relating to the change, we concur with
management that such change represents, in the Company's circumstances, the
adoption of a preferable accounting principle in conformity with Accounting
Principles Board Opinion No. 20.

Very truly yours,



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### Susan SEIDL; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHOE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-15351.

D.C. No. CV-00-576-HDM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*518Submitted May 14, 2001.1

Decided May 21, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Susan Seidl and Robert Sonderfan appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction and staying the action as to Sonderfan based on *Younger*abstention.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to review the denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction, which we affirm because we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. *See Does 1-5 v. Chandler,*83 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir.1996).

The order staying the action as to Sonderfan is not appealable because in the circumstances of this case failure to review the stay order would not have serious or irreparable consequences. *See Privitera v. California Bd. of Medical Quality*As*surance,*926 F.2d 890, 892-94 (9th Cir.1991) (allowing under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) appellate review of a stay order in connection with the denial of a preliminary injunction in the unique circumstances in which the order might have serious or irreparable consequences and can be effectually challenged only by immediate appeal).

The order denying the motion for a preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### L. M. Woodsmall et al. v. Isaac Keas et al.

Attachment — By Administrator — Bond—Liability on.

Where an attachment is obtained by an administrator, and an attachment bond executed by the administrator and another, they are both individually liable on the bond, and the abjection that the party is not declared against as administrator is not available.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

November 4, 1873.

*John C. Walker, for appellants.*

*Brown, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

S. M. Woodsmall and G. M. Wornack undertake that S. M. Woodsmall, administrator of John Kennedy, will pay to the defendant, Isaac Keas, the damages, etc., in the court, if the order of attachment is wrongfully obtained.

The execution of this bond made each of the obligees liable individually by reason of its breach, "and the objection that Woodsmall is not declared against as administrator is not available.

Woodsmall is as much bound as his surety, Wornack. The first objection that the record shows, that the original action was in the name of Woodsmall, administrator of Kennedy, is purely technical. The whole proceeding shows why this bond was executed, and this obligation must regulate the liability of the obligees. It is an individual undertaking, and the action was therefore properly brought. The assignment by Keas to Brown purports to be for value received, and there is nothing in the record bringing the case within the statutes against maintenance, etc.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0382
IN THE MATTER OF: R.Y. Respondent and Appellant.
**ORDER** Upon consideration of c ounsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent and Appellant in this matter shall file a response to this motion within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The response must be served upon all counsel of record, including the Attorney General, the County Attorney, and the Appellate Defender Division’s Office. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court give notice of this Order by mail to all counsel of record and to the Respondent and Appellant at h er last known address.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 14 2023

12/14/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0382