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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 321 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 321

  To require the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of 
  State to accept passport cards at air ports of entry and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2009

 Mr. Voinovich (for himself, Mr. Tester, and Ms. Klobuchar) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of 
  State to accept passport cards at air ports of entry and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Passport Card Travel Enhancement Act 
of 2009''.

SEC. 2. PASSPORT CARD DEFINED.

    In this Act, the term ``passport card'' means the document--
            (1) known as a passport card that is issued to a national 
        of the United States on the same basis as a regular passport; 
        and
            (2) that the Secretary of State began issuing during 2008.

SEC. 3. PASSPORT CARDS FOR AIR TRAVEL.

    (a) Requirement To Accept Passport Cards for Air Travel.--
Notwithstanding any regulation issued by the Secretary of Homeland 
Security or the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
and the Secretary of State shall permit a passport card issued to a 
citizen of the United States to serve as proof of identity and 
citizenship of such citizen if such citizen is departing from or 
entering the United States through an air port of entry for travel that 
terminates or originates in--
            (1) Bermuda;
            (2) Canada;
            (3) a foreign country located in the Caribbean; or
            (4) Mexico.
    (b) Fees for Passport Cards.--Neither the Secretary of State or the 
Secretary of Homeland Security may increase, or propose an increase to, 
the fee for issuance of a passport card as a result of the requirements 
of subsection (a).
    (c) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall issue final regulations to implement this Act.
                                 <all>
```
exhibit10






John E. Outen -S Digitally signed by John E. Outen -S  Date: 2022.06.29 13:59:55 -04'00' Exhibit 10.5
[940 NE2d 913, 915 NYS2d 208]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bruce Sweeper, Appellant.

Decided December 14, 2010

*926APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Center for Appellate Litigation,*New York City *(Susan H. Salomon*and *Robert S. Dean*of counsel), for appellant.

*Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney,*New York City *(Patricia Curran*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s application pursuant to *Batson v Kentucky*(476 US 79 [1986]). Defendant failed to establish a step one prima facie case of racial discrimination *(id.*at 94-97; *People v Decker,*15 NY3d 625 [2010]). Defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of his adjudication as a persistent violent felony offender is barred by *Almendarez-Torres v United States*(523 US 224 [1998]; *see People v Bell,*15 NY3d 935 [2010] [decided today]). Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CREDENCE SYSTEMS CORPORATION**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Credence Systems Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John R. Detwiler, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

(1)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

 

(2)    the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

Date:    December 31, 2004
**EXHIBIT 32.1**Certifications Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, inconnection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Atlantic American Corporation (the“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Companycertifies, that, to such officer’s 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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companyas of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.     Date: March 31, 2008      /s/ Hilton H. Howell, Jr.       Hilton H. Howell, Jr.         President and Chief Executive Officer       Date: March 31, 2008      /s/ John G. Sample, Jr.      John G. Sample, Jr.         Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT J.R., Respondent

v. L.J.M. A/K/A L.J.M., Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 641 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 30th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. 52-039-COL; ASLBP No. 09-890-10-COL-BD01] 

                    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the                     **Federal Register,**37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations,                     *see*10 CFR 2.104, 2.300, 2.313, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) is being established to preside over the following proceeding: PPL Bell Bend, LLC, (Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant).                 

This proceeding concerns requests for hearing from petitioners Gene Stilp in his individual capacity; Gene Stilp for Taxpayers and Ratepayers United; and Eric Epstein in his individual capacity. The hearing requests were submitted in response to a March 18, 2009 Notice of Hearing, Opportunity to Petition for Leave to Intervene, and Associated Order (74 FR 11,606). Petitioners challenge the application filed by PPL Bell Bend, LLC pursuant to Subpart C of 10 CFR part 52 for a combined license for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant, to be located in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. 

The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: 

William J. Froehlich, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; 

Michael F. Kennedy, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; 

Randall J. Charbeneau, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. 

All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 2007 (72 FR 49,139). 

Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of May 2009. 

E. Roy Hawkens, 

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.

[FR Doc. E9-13022 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION

CHAIR’S NOTICE – Chairman E. Sequoyah Simermeyer

Visit www.NIGC.gov to learn more about the NIGC 3 For 35 Project— a 

year-long project emphasizing the importance of conversations among 

the tribal gaming regulatory community about workforce preparedness.

Date: June 5, 2023

Re: Visit to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

Today I met with representatives from the Federal Reserve Bank 

of Minneapolis at the Bank’s office in Minneapolis. 

In 2022, I signed an agreement with the Bank to assist in 

cultivating insights relevant to the Indian gaming industry’s 

access to financing. The Bank’s objectives to promote maximum 

employment and price stability complements the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act’s statutory basis for gaming by Indian tribes as 

a means of promoting economic development, self-sufficiency, and 

strong tribal governments. 

As a regulatory body, NIGC plays a unique national regulatory 

role in supporting strong tribal economies tied to gaming. 

Support for analysis that maintains confidentiality and 

anonymity can provide beneficial insights related to lending 

practices for tribal governments and their operations 

Indian gaming’s rapid growth, pandemic recovery, and new 

partnership opportunities with operators and vendors new to 

Indian gaming has become more relevant in recent years. This 

makes coordination — where appropriate — a potential opportunity 

and positive investment for Indian gaming.

###
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50961

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES EDWARD PRICE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(98-CR-54)

- - - - - - - - - -

May 7, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant James Edward Price appeals from his

conviction of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drugtrafficking offense. Price contends that the evidence was

insufficient to prove a nexus between his carrying of firearms and

his drug-trafficking offense; that the district court erred by

failing t o instruct the jury properly regarding the “in relation

to” element of his offense; and that the district court should have

required the jury to deliberate anew after it returned a verdict

form that was altered.2

The evidence presented at Price’s trial was sufficient for the

jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the han dgun in the

center console of Price’s pickup had some purpose or effect with

respe ct to his drug-trafficking offense. U nited States v.

Schmalzri ed , 152 F.3d 354, 357 (5th Cir. 1998). The handgun was

located close to Price in the pickup. Investigator Powell’s

testimony indicated that drug traffickers commonly used firearms to

protect themselves and that the handgun taken from the pickup was

of a type commonly used by drug traffickers.

The instructions given by the jury regarding the “in relation

to” element of the offense, to which Price did not object at trial,

do not rise to the leve l of plain error. The instruction

essentially restates the elements of the offense as set forth in 18

U.S.C. § 924( c). Given the instruction that the carrying of the

firearm must be “in relation to” the drug offense, it is unlikely

that the jury would have convicted Price had it believed his

testimony regarding his purposes for possessing the firearms.

Price therefore has failed to demonstrate that the court’s failure

to use the pattern instructions caused the likelihood of a grave

miscarriage of justice. U nited States v. Jones

, 673 F.2d 115, 119

(5th Cir. 1982).

Finally , the modified verdict form was correct, as was the

district court’s instruction regarding the form. U nited States v.

Garcia

, 135 F.3d 951, 956 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 118 S. Ct. 2386

(1998). The district court’s additional instruction was not an

abuse of discretion, Roberts v. Williams-McWilliams Co. , 648 F.2d3

255, 265 (5th Cir. 1981), and no further deliberation was required

simply because the verdict form was modified.

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Yung Brothers Real Estate Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, v Robert D. Limandri, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Buildings, et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 2, 2012;

decided May 8, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
Exhibit 12(d)Entergy Mississippi, Inc.Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges andRatios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends2002
2003
2004
2005
2006Fixed charges, as defined:Total Interest
$45,464
$47,464
$44,637
$43,707
$51,216Interest applicable to rentals
1,916
1,880
1,162
771
1,427Total fixed charges, as defined
$47,380
$49,344
$45,799
$44,478
$52,643Preferred dividends, as defined (a)
4,490
5,099
5,067
5,129
4,373Combined fixed charges and preferred dividends, as defined
$51,870
$54,443
$50,866
$49,607
$57,016Earnings as defined:Net Income
$52,408
$67,058
$73,497
$62,103
$52,285Add:Provision for income taxes:Total income taxes
17,846
34,431
37,040
33,952
28,567Fixed charges as above
47,380
49,344
45,799
44,478
52,643Total earnings, as defined
$117,634
$150,833
$156,336
$140,533
$133,495Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined
2.48
3.06
3.41
3.16
2.54Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges andpreferred dividends, as defined
2.27
2.77
3.07
2.83
2.34------------------------(a) "Preferred dividends," as defined by SEC regulation S-K, are computed by dividing the preferred dividend
      requirement by one hundred percent (100%) minus the income tax rate.
AL
Onl ie,

= Yy
. 5
y,

yy >

3
Me comn?

March 24, 2016

Clifton Molatore, Esq.

Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
U.S. Bancorp Tower

111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400
Portland, OR 97204

Re: — Review of Casino Development and Construction Agreement for the
Karuk Tribe

Dear Mr. Molatore:

This letter responds to your request of February 29, 2016, that requested on behalf
of the Karuk Tribe for the National Indian Gaming Commission’s Office of General
Counsel to review a consulting agreement between the Tribe and R.O.I. Gaming, Inc.
Specifically, you have asked for my opinion whether the agreements constitute a
management contract requiring the NIGC Chair’s approval under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act and whether the agreement violates IGRA’s requirement that a Tribe
have the sole proprietary interest in its gaming operation.

In my review, I considered the following submissions (collectively, “the
Agreements”), which were represented to be in substantially final form:

e Casino Development and Construction Consulting Agreement (“Consulting
Agreement”);

e Exhibit A — Scope of Services; and

e Exhibit B — Responsibility Matrix.

The Agreements contains terms similar to other agreements the Office of General
Counsel has already reviewed and analyzed that are available on the NIGC website.
Applying the same analysis here, it is my opinion that the Agreements are not
management contracts and do not require the approval of the Chair. It is also my opinion
that it does not violate IGRA’s sole proprietary interest requirement.

It is my understanding that the Agreements are represented to be in substantially
final form with respect to terms affecting this opinion. If the Agreements change in any
material way prior to closing, this opinion shall not apply. Further, this opinion is limited
to the Agreements listed above and does not include or extend to any other agreements or
documents not submitted for review.

NEW MAILING ADDRESS: NIGC/DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop # 1621 Washington, DC 20240 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa OK; Oklahoma City, OK
WWW.NIGC.Gov


Clifton Molatore, Esq.

Re: Review of Consulting Agreement for the Karuk Tribe
March 24, 2016

Page 2 of 2

I anticipate that this letter will be posted to the NIGC’s website. Prior to posting,
the NIGC will notify you and give you an opportunity to identify and request that
information subject to the exemptions under FOIA be redacted or withheld. A list of the
FOIA exemptions may be found at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).

If you have any questions, please contact NIGC Staff Attorney Esther Dittler at
(202) 420-9229.

Sincerely,

Mecha 2 Abe —

Michael Hoenig
General Counsel
The District Court of the 20th Judicial District. County of Lake.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. BRADY RUFF, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-09-109 DECISION

On December 10, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a period of ten (10) years, with five (5) years suspended, for the offense of Count I: Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs, a felony. This sentence shall run consecutively to the sentence *51imposed out of Gallatin County in DC-06-82B and DC-06-112B.

On May 6,2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard hy the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 6th day of May, 2010.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
No. 786.

#### Sabin et al. *v.*Home Owners’ Loan Corporation.

March 9, 1942.
Exhibit 12(b)Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges andRatios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends2003
2004
2005
2006
2007Fixed charges, as defined:Total Interest charges
$157,343
$133,598
$126,788
$149,780
$163,409Interest applicable to rentals
16,694
13,707
8,832
8,928
8,773Total fixed charges, as defined
174,037
147,305
135,620
158,708
172,182Preferred dividends, as defined (a)
6,485
6,991
6,444
5,969
6,514Combined fixed charges and preferred dividends, as defined
$180,522
$154,296
$142,064
$164,677
$178,696Earnings as defined:Net Income
$63,895
$192,264
$206,497
$211,988
$192,779Add:Income Taxes
24,249
108,288
110,270
107,067
123,701Fixed charges as above
174,037
147,305
135,620
158,708
172,182Total earnings, as defined
$262,181
$447,857
$452,387
$477,763
$488,662Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined
1.51
3.04
3.34
3.01
2.84Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges andpreferred dividends, as defined
1.45
2.90
3.18
2.90
2.73------------------------(a) "Preferred dividends," as defined by SEC regulation S-K, are computed by dividing the preferred dividendrequirement by one hundred percent (100%) minus the income tax rate.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 24, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00447-CV

COMPASS BANK, IMPROPERLY NAMED AS BBVA COMPASS BANCSHARES, INC. 

D/B/A COMPASS BANK, Appellant

V.

WALTER THORSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-02814-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Molberg, and Partida-Kipness

Opinion by Justice Molberg

Before the Court is the parties’ September 13, 2019, joint motion to vacate and remand. 

We grant the motion. We vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand the case to the trial court 

for further action consistent with the parties’ agreement. 

/Ken Molberg//

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

COMPASS BANK, IMPROPERLY 

NAMED AS BBVA COMPASS 

BANCSHARES, INC. D/B/A COMPASS 

BANK, Appellant

No. 05-19-00447-CV V.

WALTER THORSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 1, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-02814-A.

Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg. 

Justices Bridges and Partida-Kipness 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the trial court’s 

judgment and REMAND the case to the trial court consistent with the parties’ agreement. Each 

party shall bear its own costs, if any, and subject to any agreement of the parties.

Judgment entered this 24th day of September, 2019.