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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1547 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 6, 2023 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study 

on the costs and benefits of commuter rail passenger 

transportation involving transfers, and for other purposes. 

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

2 

HR 1547 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘One Seat Ride Act’’. 

3 SEC. 2. STUDY ON COMMUTER SERVICE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transportation 

5 shall conduct a study identifying the benefits of commuter 

6 rail passenger transportation and major obstacles to pro7 viding commuter rail passenger transportation that does 

8 not involve a transfer for passengers. 

9 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—In conducting the study under 

10 subsection (a), the Secretary shall— 

11 (1) consider economic, logistical, and quality of 

12 life factors in analyzing the major obstacles to im13 plementing single-seat trips on commuter rail pas14 senger transportation for as many passengers as 

15 possible; and 

16 (2) include in such study an analysis of the 

17 costs and benefits with respect to single-seat trips on 

18 commuter rail passenger transportation on the New 

19 Jersey Transit Raritan Valley line during peak 

20 hours and the impact such trips would have on other 

21 New Jersey Transit lines. 

22 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

23 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 

24 the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 

25 the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

3 

HR 1547 RFS

1 Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a re2 port on the study required under subsection (a). 

3 (d) COMMUTER RAIL PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

4 DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘commuter rail pas5 senger transportation’’ has the meaning given such term 

6 in section 24102 of title 49, United States Code. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 5, 

2023. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk.
**Exhibit 32.1 —    Section 1350 Certification**     I, Richard L. Wambold, certify that:      (1)     the    Form 10-K    of Pactiv Corporation for the period ended December 31,    2007, (the “Report”) fully complies with the    requirements of § 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 results of    operations of Pactiv Corporation for the period then ended. /s/  Richard    L. Wambold    Richard L. Wambold    Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer     February 29, 2008     Date      This certification accompanies this report pursuant to    Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall    not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of    2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of    Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as    amended. A signed original 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.
#### Metcalfe County Court *v.*J. G. Scott, et al.

Corporation — Bonds for Costs.

A county is not a corporation within the meaning of the statute requiring all corporations to give bonds for costs when instituting actions in court.

APPEAL PROM METCALFE CIRCUIT COURT.

March 8, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

A county is not a corporation within the meaning of Sec. 3, Chap. 26, Rev. Stat., requiring that when any corporation shall institute *629an action in any court, it shall, before the commencement thereof, give bond with surety to pay all costs that accrue either to the opposite party or to the officers of the court.

*J. W. Compton, Sandidge & Allen, for appellant.*

*A. J. Jamies, for appellees.*

Counties are corporations only in a restricted sense. They are public corporations created by the state as agencies in the administration of civil government, and are, therefore, parts of the state government; and it cannot be supposed that the legislature intended to impose upon them the burden of giving bond- with surety before they would be permitted to institute actions necessary to the proper exercise of their functions.

The statute was intended to protect the defendant in suits instituted by private corporations, and to secure to the officers of the state payment for services rendered in suits prosecuted by such corporations, but does not apply to public corporations. The court, therefore, erred in sustaining the motion of the appellees and in dismissing the action because no bond for costs had been given.

Judgment *reversed,*and cause remanded with directions to over'rule the motion, and for further proceedings.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of LIFE ENERGY & TECHNOLOGY  HOLDINGS
INC. (the  "Company") on Form 10QSB for the period ending  November 30, 2002, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Dr. Christopher McCormack, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/Dr. Christopher McCormack
---------------------------------------
Dr. Christopher McCormack
Chief Executive Officer
April 10, 2003
J-A10028-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

GERALD L. RODGERS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1821 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 6, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010255-2015

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.: FILED APRIL 22, 2019

Gerald L. Rodgers appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on 

June 6, 2017, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following 

his non-jury conviction of terroristic threats, recklessly endangering another 

person, carrying a firearm without a license, possession of a firearm 

prohibited, carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia, possessing an 

instrument of crime, and criminal conspiracy. We affirm the judgment of 

sentence.

On appeal, Rodgers raises a single issue for our review: “Did the court 

err as a matter of law where it admitted the altered video tape which purported 

to show the assault on the complaining witnesses.” Rodgers’ Brief, at 6. 

However, the video is not included in the certified record. It is impossible for 

this Court to address the merits of Rodgers’ claim and make a proper 
J-A10028-19

- 2 -

determination, without viewing the video to determine whether the trial court 

abused its discretion in denying Rodgers’ motion. It is an appellant’s 

responsibility to ensure that the certified record contains all the items 

necessary to review his claims. See Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 

362, 372 (Pa. Super. 2008). “When a claim is dependent on materials not 

provided in the certified record, that claim is considered waived.” 

Commonwealth v. Petroll, 696 A.2d 817, 836 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citation 

omitted), affirmed, 738 A.2d 993 (Pa. 1999). Accordingly, we affirm the 

judgment of sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/22/19
NIST Disaster Resilience Workshop

February 19th, 2015

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PILOT PROGRAM

Emily E. Steinhilber 

Assistant Director of Coastal Resilience 

Research

Office of Research

1
 17 Localities at the Mouth 

of the Chesapeake Bay

 Includes: 

 Virginia Beach

 Norfolk

 Williamsburg

Hampton Roads, Virginia

2
Pillars of the Economy:

 Federal Installations

 e.g. Naval Station 

Norfolk

 Tourism

 History & Beaches

 Port of Virginia

 Congressional Auth. For 

55ft depth

Hampton Roads, Virginia

3
Sea Level Rise & 

Subsidence

Coastal Threats: 

Courtesy of HRPDC

 Coastal Flooding

 Storm Surge

 Tidal Flooding

 Inundation

4
 MISSION

 Develop a regional “WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT” and 

“WHOLE OF COMMUNITY” approach to SLR Preparedness 

and Resilience Planning by June 2016

 VISION

 An intergovernmental planning organization that can 

effectively coordinate the sea level rise preparedness 

and resilience planning of Federal, state and local 

government agencies and the private sector, taking into 

account the perspectives and concerns of the citizens of 

the region.

Intergovernmental Pilot Program

5
 White House: NSC, CEQ, OSTP

 Federal: DoD (Navy lead), DoE, DoI, NASA, NOAA, 

DHS/USCG, DoT, US Army Corps 

 State: Secretary of Natural Resources, Port Authority, 

VIMS, VA Coastal Policy Clinic

 Local: HRPDC, Norfolk, Virginia Beach 

 Private: Huntington Ingalls

6

Key Partners
7

Structure & Stakeholders
 June 3, 2014: Kick Off at ODU

 June 30, 2014: “Rising to the 

Challenge,” bipartisan forum for 

Virginia members of Congress 

organized by Senator Kaine Big Blue 

Room

 July 1, 2014: Governor’s Climate 

Commission announced

 Oct 10, 2014: Pilot Charter signed

 Dec 2, 2014: FEMA NEP Tabletop to 

galvanize the pilot and help transition 

to Whole of Community

 Ongoing: Work Plan Development & 

Stakeholder Engagement

8

Where are we now?
 Ongoing: 

 Work Plan Development by Work Groups

 Stakeholder Engagement

 Advisory & Steering Committee Feedback

 Upcoming: 

 March 17, 2014: ULI & ODU 3RC Community Engagement Event

 Coming Soon: 

 Legal Primer

 Data Integration

 June, 2015: Regional Template Presented

 June 2016: MOU & Planning Organization Established

9

What’s Next?
10

Contact

Emily E. Steinhilber

esteinhi@odu.edu

(757) 692-4412

Ray Toll

Ray Toll

rtoll@odu.edu

(757) 683-6650

Online

Online

www.centerforsealevelrise.org

www.facebook.com/centerforsealevelrise
##### 



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 WQN, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10KSB for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, B. Michael Adler, President and 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 result of operations of the Company. By:
    
    /s/ B. Michael AdlerName: B. Michael AdlerTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer
 March 31, 2005
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0138. JUSTIN SCOTT LASTER v. THE STATE.

In 2014,Justin Scott Laster pled guilty to child molestation and enticing a child

for indecent purposes. In May 2017, Laster filed a “Motion to Correct Void

Sentence/Withdrawal of Guilty Plea.” The trial court granted Laster’s motion to

correct hissentence and amended the sentence, but denied his motion to withdraw his

guilty plea. Laster seeks discretionary review of the denial of his motion to withdraw

his guilty plea. 

An order denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea may be appealed directly.

See Smith v. State, 283 Ga. 376 (659 SE2d 380) (2008). We will grant a timely filed

application for discretionary appeal if the lower court’s order is subject to direct

appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). Accordingly, this application is hereby GRANTED,

and Laster shall have ten days from the date of this order to file a notice of appeal in

the trial court. If he has already filed a timely notice of appeal in the trial court, he

need not file a second notice.1 The clerk of the trial court is DIRECTED to include 

1 Laster hasincluded with his application materials a copy of a notice of appeal,

but the notice does not bear a file-stamp. Thus, it is not clear whether or when the

notice was filed.

October 26, 2017
a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/26/2017
EXHIBIT 13.2


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 Internet Gold-Golden Lines Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ehud Yahalom, Principal Financial 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:


(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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/Ehud Yahalom*


Ehud Yahalom


Principal Financial Officer


April 30, 2012




*           The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the Company’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 8973]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Kuba Textiles: Geometry in Form, Space, and Time,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Neuberger Museum of Art, Purchase College, Purchase, New York, from on or about February 26, 2015, until on or about June 16, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including lists of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: December 5, 2014.

Kelly Keiderling,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2014-29273 Filed 12-12-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY HUNT, *

#Z-521 *

*

 Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO.12-00752-WS-B

*

WALTER MYERS, *

*

 Defendants. *

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this 

file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 

to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED 

as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that this action be 

and is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 56(a).

DONE this 5th day of November, 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00752-WS-B Document 77 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARIO ANDJUAN PEEPLES, :

Petitioner :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00624-WS-B

UNITED STATES JUSTICE :

DEPARTMENT,

 :

Respondent.

:

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

DONE this 4th of January, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00624-WS-B Document 7 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Fernanza L. BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michelle B. MITCHELL; James Womack; Charles Wilkins; Dianne Minneti; K.S. Johnson, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-6379.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 29, 2001.

Fernanza L. Brooks, pro se.

*183Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Fernanza L. Brooks, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Brooks v. Mitchell,*No. CA-00-1959-AM (E.D.Va. Feb. 6, 2001). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_________________

Nos. 17-1107, 17-1109, 17-1110, 17-1111

_________________

PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT

*National Association of Broadcasters

**Cox Media Group LLC, 

Intervenors

v.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Prometheus Radio Project and Media Mobilizing Project,

Petitioners in No. 17-1107

Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Counsel and 

National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, Inc.,

Petitioners in 17-1109

The Scranton Times, L.P.,

Petitioners in 17-1110

Bonneville International Corporation,

Petitioners in 17-111

* Prometheus Radio Project, Media Mobilizing Project,

Benton Foundation, Common Cause, Media Alliance,

Media Council Hawaii, National Association of Broadcasters 

Employees and Technicians Communications Workers of 

America, National Organization for Woman Foundation, 

Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ Inc., 

Intervenors 

*(Pursuant to the Clerk’s Order date 1/18/17)

** (Pursuant to the Clerk’s Order dated 2/7/17)

_________________
2

Nos. 18-1092, 18-1669, 18-1670, 18-1671, 18-2943 & 18-3335

_________________

PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT;

MEDIA MOBILIZING PROJECT,

Petitioners (No. 18-1092, 18-2943)

INDEPENDENT TELEVISION GROUP,

Petitioners (No. 18-1669)

MULTICULTURAL MEDIA, TELECOM AND INTERNET COUNCIL, INC.;

NATIONAL SSOCIATION OF BLACK-OWNED BROADCASTERS,

Petitioners (No. 18-1670, 18-3335)

FREE PRESS;

OFFICE OF COMMUNICATION, INC. OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST;

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST EMPLOYEES AND

TECHNICIANS-COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA;

COMMON CAUSE,

Petitioners (No. 18-1671)

v.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

_________________

On Petition for Review of An Order of

the Federal Communications Commission

(FCC Nos. FCC-1: FCC-16-107; FCC-17-156; FCC-18-114)

_________________

Before: AMBRO, SCIRICA and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
3

JUDGMENT ORDER

By opinion entered on September 23, 2019 and amended judgment entered 

on September 27, 2019, this Court vacated and remanded the Reconsideration Order and 

the Incubator Order in their entirety, and vacated and remanded the 2016 Report and 

Order as to its definition of eligible entities. The Federal Communications Commission 

and interested industry parties filed petitions for writs of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme 

Court, which were granted. On April 1, 2021, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment 

of this Court and remanded for further proceedings. 

On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 

all petitions for review and requests for relief are denied. This Court’s prior opinion and 

amended judgment are hereby VACATED. This Court and panel do not retain 

jurisdiction. The parties to bear their own costs. The Clerk is directed to issue the 

mandate.

By the Court,

s/ Thomas L. Ambro

Circuit Judge

Dated:May 7, 2021