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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1435 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1435

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 18, 2023

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Clean Air Act to prevent the elimination of the sale of 
                      internal combustion engines.

    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 ``Preserving Choice in Vehicle 
Purchases Act''.

SEC. 2. STATE STANDARDS.

    (a) Amendments.--Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
7543(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the ``or'' at 
                the end;
                    (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``part.'' and 
                inserting ``part, or''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(D) such State standards directly or indirectly limit the 
        sale or use of new motor vehicles with internal combustion 
        engines, as such term is defined in section 63.9375 of title 
        40, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect January 1, 
        2023.''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(4) The Administrator may not determine that any State standards 
amended after the date of enactment of this paragraph are within the 
scope of a waiver granted under paragraph (1) before the date of 
enactment of this paragraph.''.
    (b) Effect on Certain Existing Waivers.--The Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency shall revoke a waiver granted under 
section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543(b)) during the 
period that begins on January 1, 2022, and ends on the date of 
enactment of this Act if the Administrator finds that such waiver does 
not comply with subparagraph (D) of section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air 
Act (42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1)), as added by this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 2023.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 23.3

CONSENT OF MINE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES INC.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of mineralization or resources and other analyses performed by us in our capacity
as an independent consultant to Mines Management, Inc. (the "Company"), which are set forth in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, in
the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-125701, 333-104724 and 333-152732) and Forms S-3 (File
Nos. 333-129784, 333-114258, 333-134992 and 333-148069)), as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with
the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectuses or amendments or
supplements thereto. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration Statements and any prospectuses.

Mine Development Associates, Inc./S/ STEVE RISTORCELLI Name:  Steve Ristorcelli
Title:    Authorized Person


March 13,
2009

---



QuickLinks
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 Annual Report of The InterGroup Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, 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: October 14, 2009                          /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 The InterGroup Corporation and will be retained by The InterGroup
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
EXHIBIT NO. 24

                         POWER OF ATTORNEY

     We, the undersigned directors of Mountain Fuel Supply Company,
hereby severally constitute D. N. Rose and S. E. Parks, and each of
them acting alone, our true and lawful attorneys, with full power to
them and each of them to sign for us, and in our names in the
capacities indicated below, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1997
and any and all amendments to be filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission by Mountain Fuel Supply Company, hereby ratifying
and confirming our signatures as they may be signed by the attorneys
appointed herein to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1997 and any
and all amendments to such Report.

     Witness our hands on the respective dates set forth below.

     Signature                      Title             Date



 /s/ R. D. Cash             Chairman of the Board    2-10-98
R. D. Cash



 /s/ D. N. Rose               President & Chief      2-10-98
D. N. Rose                    Executive Officer
                                  Director


 /s/ W. Whitley Hawins            Director           2-10-98
W. Whitley Hawkins



 /s/ Robert E. Kadlec             Director           2-10-98
Robert E. Kadlec



 /s/ Dixie L. Leavitt             Director           2-10-98
Dixie L. Leavitt



 /s/ Gary G. Michael              Director           2-10-98
Gary G. Michael



 /s/ Gary L. Nordloh              Director           2-10-98
Gary L. Nordloh



 /s/ Harris H. Simmons            Director           2-10-98
Harris H. Simmons
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Whitehall Limited, Inc. (the Company),
hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                 
|-----------------
|/s/ Kay Carter   
|Kay Carter       
|September 1, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAISE J. WOODS, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : 

 CIVIL ACTION 09-493-M

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, : 

Commissioner of

Social Security, : 

Defendant. : 

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be

entered in favor of Defendant Michael J. Astrue and against

Plaintiff Daise J. Woods.

DONE this 2nd day of March, 2010.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00493-M Document 24 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 1
| For the Year Ended December      31                 | 2007    | 2006    | 2005    | 2004    | 2003   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|--------|
| Millions Except      Ratios                         |    |    |    |    |   |
|                                                |    |    |    |    |   |
| Income      from Continuing Operations              |    |    |    |    |   |
| Before      Minority Interest and Income Taxes      | $137.2  | $128.2  | $19.8   | $57.0   | $49.5  |
| Less:  Minority      Interest (a)         | – | – | – | 2.1     | 2.6    |
| Undistributed      Income from Less than 50 percent |    |    |    |    |   |
| Owned      Equity Investment                        | 3.3     | 2.3     | – | – | 2.9    |
|                                                | 133.9   | 125.9   | 19.8    | 54.9    | 44.0   |
| Fixed      Charges                                  |    |    |    |    |   |
| Interest      on Long-Term Debt                     | 21.2    | 22.2    | 23.1    | 60.3    | 70.0   |
| Capitalized      Interest                           | 2.0     | 0.6     | 0.3     | 0.7     | 1.2    |
| Other      Interest Charges (b)                | 3.5     | 5.3     | 3.5     | 8.7     | 4.3    |
| Interest      Component of All Rentals (c)     | 1.9     | 2.0     | 2.8     | 3.5     | 8.0    |
| Total      Fixed Charges                            | 28.6    | 30.1    | 29.7    | 73.2    | 83.5   |
| Earnings      Before Income Taxes and Fixed Charges |    |    |    |    |   |
| (Excluding      Capitalized Interest)               | $160.5  | $155.4  | $49.2   | $127.4  | $126.3 |
| Ratio      of Earnings to Fixed Charges             | 5.61    | 5.16    | 1.66    | 1.74    | 1.51   |

| (a)   | Pre-tax income of subsidiaries      that have not incurred fixedcharges. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b)   | Includes interest expense      relating to the adoption of FIN 48 – “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income      Taxes.” |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (c)   | Represents interest portion of      rents estimated at 33 1/3percent. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRY ANN FREDRIKSEN, :

 :

Petitioner. :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO.: 09-0342-KD-C

 :

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : CRIMINAL ACTION NO.: 07-0391-KD-C

 :

Respondent. :

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Fredriksen’s petition is DISMISSED as time-barred

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Petitioner is also DENIED a certificate of appealability. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 3rd day of March 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cr-00391-KD-N Document 55 Filed 03/03/10 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit32.1**

***URANIUM RESOURCES, INC.***

650 S. EdmondsLane, Suite 108, Lewisville, TX 75067

972.219.3330 Phone   972.219.3311 Fax

August9, 2007

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 5th Street, N.W.

Washington,D.C. 20549

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

I, DavidN. Clark, President and Chief Executive Officer of Uranium Resources, Inc. (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to my knowledge:

(1)  TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2007which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| */s/* David N. Clark                   | * * | * * |
|----------------------------------------|----------|----------|
| David N. Clark                         |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |
| August 9, 2007                         |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  636,959
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,679
<INVENTORY>                                  1,179,711
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,789,991
<PP&E>                                       1,004,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                 720,138
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,165,436
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          795,466
<BONDS>                                        564,001
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       409,980
<OTHER-SE>                                     395,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,165,436
<SALES>                                        407,192
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               407,192
<CGS>                                          126,849
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   88,209
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               152,651
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,745
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,588
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,588
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .001
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .001
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELIGIO MONTIEL

- PEREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72119

Agency No. A200

- 280

- 866

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 2, 2020 * *

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges

.
Elig i o Montiel

- Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration App eals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.

We dismiss the petition for review.

Montiel

- Perez’s contentions that the agency erred or violated due process

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

JUN 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 72119

because it did not properly weigh or consider evidence, or did not adequately

explain its decision, are not supported, colorable questions of law or constitutional

claims

. See Vilch iz

- Soto v. Holder

, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (“traditional

abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not

present sufficiently colorable constitutional questions as to give this court

jurisdiction ”); Najmabadi v. Ho l der , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) ( “What is

required is merely that [the agency ] consider the issues raised, and announce its

decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard

and thought and not merely reacted.” ( internal quotation marks and citation

omitted) ). Thus , w e lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary

determination that Montiel

- Perez did not show exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship to his U.S. citizen stepchild. See 8 U.S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D);

Vilchiz

- Soto

, 688 F.3d at 644.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
#### Mitchel *v.*Bernheimer et al.

APPEAL from the Marion Common Pleas.

*U. y. Hammond*and *y. M. yudah,*for appellant.

*A. G. Porter, B. Harrison,*and *C. C. Hines,*for appellees.

Pettit, J.

This case is the same, in all legal respects, and so admitted to be by the counsel on both sides, as the case of *Mitchel*v. *Noell, ante,*p. 399, and must abide its fate.

The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant, with two per cent, damages.
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1505 

AN ACT 

To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States 

courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade 

names, or commercial names. 

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

•HR 1505 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Stolen Trademarks 

3 Honored in America Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION. 

5 Section 211 of the Department of Commerce and Re6 lated Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in 

7 section 101(b) of division A of Public Law 105–277; 112 

8 Stat. 2681–88) is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (a)(2)— 

10 (A) by inserting ‘‘or entity of the executive 

11 branch’’ after ‘‘U.S. court’’; 

12 (B) by striking ‘‘by a designated national’’; 

13 and 

14 (C) by inserting before the period ‘‘that 

15 was used in connection with a business or as16 sets that were confiscated unless the original 

17 owner of the mark, trade name, or commercial 

18 name, or the bonafide successor-in-interest has 

19 expressly consented’’; 

20 (2) in subsection (b)— 

21 (A) by inserting ‘‘or entity of the executive 

22 branch’’ after ‘‘U.S. court’’; and 

23 (B) by striking ‘‘by a designated national 

24 or its successor-in-interest’’; 

25 (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub26 section (e); 
3 

•HR 1505 EH

1 (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(d) Subsections (a)(2) and (b) of this section shall 

4 apply only if the person or entity asserting the rights knew 

5 or had reason to know at the time when the person or 

6 entity acquired the rights asserted that the mark, trade 

7 name, or commercial name was the same as or substan8 tially similar to a mark, trade name, or commercial name 

9 that was used in connection with a business or assets that 

10 were confiscated.’’; and 

11 (5) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by 

12 striking ‘‘In this section:’’ and all that follows 

13 through ‘‘(2) The term’’ and inserting ‘‘In this sec14 tion, the term’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 

2023. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1505 

AN ACT 

To modify the prohibition on recognition by United 

marks, trade names, or commercial names. States courts of certain rights relating to certain
11246.

#### Chapman *v.*The State.

Bloodworth, J.

1. When considered in connection with’ all the facts of the case and the statement of the judge in his order overruling the motion for a new trial, and in the light of the entire charge, there is no reversible error in any of the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made.

2. This court has no authority to set aside a verdict approved by the *240judge, where the record shows no error of law and there is evidence to support the verdict.

Decided April 14, 1920.

Conviction of shooting at another; from Jones superior court —.Judge Park. December *27,*1919.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

*J. C. Barron, R. N. Hardeman, F. Holmes Johnson,*contra.

*Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke J., concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 04-0762-WS-M

 )

SEYMOUR A. IRBY III, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ motion to amend answer. (Doc. 28). The

deadline for filing motions to amend the pleadings passed on April 22, 2005, (Doc. 13, ¶ 5), and the

defendants have neither requested and obtained an extension of time from the Magistrate Judge nor

represented that the plaintiff has no objection to their untimely motion. Accordingly, the motion to

amend is denied. The defendants’ amended answer, (Doc. 29), which was filed without leave of

Court, is stricken.

 

DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of September, 2005.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00762-WS-M Document 30 Filed 09/19/05 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID ALAN COKER, :

AIS 244873,

:

Petitioner,

:

vs. CA 09-0766-CG-C

:

BILLY MITCHEM,

:

Respondent.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, be dismissed as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner is not

entitled to a certificate of appealability and, therefore, he is not entitled to appeal in forma

pauperis.

DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of April, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00766-CG-C Document 10 Filed 04/12/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Belle Isle *v.*Kindig.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Action for damages; from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. October 23, 1919.

This action was by the husband of the plaintiff in the case of *Belle Isle*v. *Kindig,*ante, 293. The material allegations were the same in both eases, and the cases were tried' together.

*Smith, Hammond & Smith,*for plaintiff in error.

*Arminius Wright,*contra.

Bloodwoeth, J.

1. The court properly overruled the motion to dismiss the case as to the defendant Belle Isle.

2. There is no merit in any of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial. See *Belle Isle*v. *Kindig,*ante, 293.

3. No harmful error of law was committed, there was evidence to support the verdict, and the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
Some suggestions for the new/updated CSF:

(1) Add an “alignment model” to the standard that maps elements between the NIST Cybersecurity 

Framework (CSF) to the CISA National Critical Functions (NCF) – specifically the supply chain 

related functions/sub-functions/secondary sub-functions. This isn’t easy to capture because 

NIST will have to figure out how to build attributes to these functions and bucket them. But this 

is something that might require setting up a working group to develop, or may have been done 

somewhere else. This is important because any future tracking and management system 

developed for the critical functions should be developed to align to the CRF.

(2) Add a component that helps address and strengthen cybersecurity supply chain-related systems 

and processes that focuses on validating/certifying “sourcing” similar to the work that the 

community did two decades ago regarding things like “trusted fabs” for microprocessors. I am 

not up to date on the state of these efforts (post Huawei etc) and this may have already been 

addresses in an annex.

Thanks for your consideration,

Jon Morris

Vice President Capture - Cyber & Intelligence - CISA