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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 392 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 392

              Recognizing ``National Public Works Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2019

Mrs. Craig (for herself, Ms. Titus, and Mr. Fitzpatrick) submitted the 
     following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
              Recognizing ``National Public Works Week''.

Whereas public works professionals focus on infrastructure, facilities, and 
        services that are of vital importance to sustainable and resilient 
        communities and to the public health, high quality of life, and well-
        being of the United States of America;
Whereas such infrastructure, facilities, and services could not be provided 
        without the dedicated efforts of public works professionals, who are 
        engineers, managers, and employees of Federal, State, and local 
        government and the private sector, and who are responsible for 
        rebuilding, improving, and protecting our Nation's transportation, water 
        supply, water treatment and solid waste systems, public buildings, and 
        other structures and facilities essential for our citizens;
Whereas it is in the public interest for citizens, civic leaders, and children 
        of the United States to gain knowledge of, and to maintain a progressive 
        interest and understanding of, the importance of public works and public 
        works programs in their respective communities; and
Whereas the year the week of May 19 through 25, 2019, marks the 59th annual 
        ``National Public Works Week'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports ``National 
Public Works Week'' and encourages the people of the United States to 
pay tribute to our public works professionals, engineers, managers, and 
employees and to recognize the substantial contributions they make to 
protecting our national health, safety, and quality of life.
                                 <all>
```
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

NOV 10 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JIMMY GENE WELCH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

vs.

RON CHAMPION, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 99-7070

(D.C. No. 98-CV-480)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Welch, an inmate appearing pro se, seeks to appeal from the district

court’s dismissal of his habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Although Mr. Welch

did not exhaust his claims, the district court determined that requiring exhaustion

would be futile and that the petition should be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(b)(2) because it raised state law issues.
- 2 -

 Mr. Welch claims that his sentence, imposed prior to passage of the

Oklahoma Truth in Sentencing Act, should be adjusted downward. He claims

that the Act has disadvantaged him because he would receive a lighter sentence

under the sentencing matrix established by the Act. He claims an equal

protection violation because he is punished differently from those convicted after

passage of the Act. 

“In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding

whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

States.” Estelle v. McGuire , 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991). Whether the Act should be

applied retroactively is a question of state law, not one of Constitutional

dimension. “‘[T]here is absolutely no constitutional authority for the proposition

that the perpetrator of a crime can claim the benefit of a later enacted statute

which lessens the culpability level of that crime after it was committed.’” Nestell

v. Klinger , No. 98-6148, 1998 WL 544361 at *1 (10th Cir. Aug. 27, 1998)

(unpublished) (quoting United States v. Haines , 855 F.2d 199, 200 (5th Cir.

1988).

We DENY Mr. Welch’s application for a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.
- 3 -

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00407-CV

In re H.L. “Larry” Gardner, Jr.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator H.L. “Larry” Gardner, Jr. filed a petition for writ of mandamus on

July 3, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(c)(4) (establishing that document is deemed filed when

transmitted to the filing party’s electronic service provider). On that day, this Court notified Gardner

that his petition had been rejected for noncompliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure and

notified him that the petition should be resubmitted. As of July 13, 2015, Gardner had not

resubmitted his petition. Accordingly, we strike the petition and dismiss the proceeding without

prejudice to Gardner’s refiling of the petition. See id. R. 9.4(k).

In addition, on July 7, 2015, Gardner filed a motion for emergency stay of a contempt

hearing set for July 16, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b) (allowing court to grant relief pending

court’s action on petition for writ of mandamus). Without a conforming petition for mandamus, this

Court lacks jurisdiction to grant emergency relief. See In re Kelleher, 999 S.W.2d 51, 52 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo 1999, orig. proceeding). Until a petition is filed, there is no dispute before the

Court necessitating the preservation of the status quo and empowering the Court to act under the

authority of Rule 52.10(b). Id. In addition, we note that the motion lacked the certificate of
compliance required by Rule 52.10(a) to show that the relator has notified or made a diligent effort

to notify all parties by expedited means of the motion’s filing. See In re Wolfe, No. 2-03-097-CV,

2003 WL 2006582, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth, Apr. 30, 2003, orig. proceeding) (citing In re 

Ahmed, 42 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 487, No. 99-0315 (April 8, 1999 order) and striking motion for temporary

relief because it did not contain required certificate of compliance). We dismiss the motion for

emergency stay for want of jurisdiction and without prejudice to refiling if and when Gardner

commences a proceeding under Rule 52.1.

__________________________________________

Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Filed: July 14, 2015

2
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14896]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Saybolt LP, as a Commercial Gauger 
and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Saybolt LP, as a 
commercial gauger and laboratory.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Saybolt LP, 3113 Red Bluff Road, Pasadena, TX 77503, has 
been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum 
products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in 
accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. 
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and 
gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the 
entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. 
Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service 
this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The 
inquiry may also be sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#741716045a1815161c0534101c075a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="315253411f5d50535940715559421f565e47">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web 
site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and 
accredited laboratories. http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/.

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Saybolt LP, as commercial 
gauger and laboratory became effective on February 4, 2009. The next 
triennial inspection date will be scheduled for February 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Malana, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.

    Dated: June 18, 2009.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. E9-14896 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 14

- 01018

- CV

Ricky D. Parker and James Myers

v

.

Schlumberger Technology Corporation

NO. 14

- DCV

- 218252 IN THE 268TH DISTRICT COURT OF FORT BEND C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

CLK RECORD

RPT RECORD

STATEWIDE EFILING

FILING

MT FEE $10.00
$10.00
$10.00
$10.00
$10.00
$314.00 $4,500.00

$20.00
$175.00
$10.00 09/03/2015

08/28/2015

06/23/2015

03/20/2015

03/09/2015

01/0 8/2015

01/02/2015

12/29/2014

12/29/2014

12/29/2014 E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT



### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $5,0 69 .00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgmentI, Christopher A. Prine
, Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my
hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this December 4 , 2015

.
Exhibit 31.1

Porter Bancorp, Inc.

Rule 13a-14(a) Certification

of Chief Executive Officer

I, Maria L. Bouvette,
Chief Executive Officer of Porter Bancorp, Inc. (the Company), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
the Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

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

(a) Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared; and

(b) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation.



|                         |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: November 13, 2007 |  | /s/ Maria L. Bouvette  
|                         |  | Maria L. Bouvette      
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer
HYEX10.3Q22013 AmendmentNo2TSA2013




Exhibit 10.3


AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO THE
TRANSITION SERVICES AGREEMENT
NACCO Industries, Inc. (“NACCO”) and Hyster-Yale Materials Handling, Inc. (“Hyster-Yale”) hereby adopt this Amendment No. 2 to the Transition Services Agreement effective as of September 28, 2012 (the “Agreement”).  The terms of this Amendment shall be effective as of July 1, 2013.  Words used herein with initial capital letters that are defined in the Agreement are used herein as so defined.
Section 1
Schedules A and B to the Agreement are each hereby amended in their entirety to read as follows:
“Schedule A - Transition Services To Be Performed by NACCO and Its Subsidiaries
	
			
	Description of Transition Service
	Monthly Fee(s)
	Contact Person / Successor Contact Person*

	IT operating system support services for Hyster-Yale
	$500 plus a proportionate share of any third party costs incurred to separate IT systems, including the Global Compliance Contract and the Concur Contract
	Zach Vinduska




*NACCO may designate a successor contact person upon written notice to Hyster-Yale.” 
“Schedule B - Transition Services To Be Performed by Hyster-Yale
	
			
	Description of Transition Service
	Monthly Fee(s)
	Contact Person / Successor Contact Person*

	IT operating system support services for NACCO
	$500 plus a proportionate share of any third party costs incurred to separate IT systems, including the Global Compliance Contract and Concur Contract
	John Bartho

	Employee Benefit and HR Legal and Consulting Support
	$10,000
	Mary Maloney

	Compensation Support
	$3,500
	JoAnn Morano




*Hyster-Yale may designate a successor contact person upon written notice to NACCO.” 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the signatories hereto has caused this Agreement to be signed by its duly authorized officer as of the date first above written.
	
			
	 
	NACCO INDUSTRIES, INC.

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ J.C. Butler, Jr.

	 
	Name:
	J.C. Butler, Jr.

	 
	Title:
	Senior Vice President - Finance, Treasurer and Chief Administrative Officer






	
			
	 
	HYSTER-YALE MATERIALS HANDLING, INC.

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ Charles A. Bittenbender

	 
	Name:
	Charles A. Bittenbender

	 
	Title:
	Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary







1
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 Quarterly Report of LILM, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George I. Norman, III, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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/   George I. Norman, III





George I. Norman, III


Chief Executive Officer


Principal Accounting Officer


November 15, 2010











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.  The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
@misc{1210576,
  author = {Mohamed Hany and Rick Candell},
  title = {A Deep Learning Framework for Industrial Wireless Networks},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-25 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Technical Note (NIST TN), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956211},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2257},
  language = {en},
}
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION





I, David R. Emery, certify that:





1.           I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Black Hills Power, Inc.;





2.
Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;





4.
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:





(a)       Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;





(b)       Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;





(c)       Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





(d)       Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and








5.
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a)       All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





(b)       Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





Date:  February 14, 2011/S/ DAVID R. EMERYDavid R. EmeryChairman and Chief Executive Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00027-CR

Blair Beck McCall, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 274TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

NO. CR-15-0868, THE HONORABLE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

On March 10, 2021, the Court of Criminal Appeals issued Ortiz v. State, 

Nos. PD-1061-19, PD-1362-18, __ S.W.3d __, 2021 WL 900673 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 10, 2021)

(op., designated for publication). This Court requests supplemental briefing from the parties 

on what effect, if any, Ortiz’s analysis has on our disposition of appellant’s motion for rehearing 

and of this appeal. Appellant should file his brief no later than April 8, 2021. The State’s response 

will be due within 14 days of the filing of appellant’s brief.

It is so ordered March 25, 2021.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Do Not Publish
Order entered July 14, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00776-CV

KSADD, LLC, Appellant

V.

JOAN WILLIAMS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-03455-D

ORDER

We GRANT the motion of Coral Hough, Official Court Reporter for the County Court at 

Law No. 4, for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record TO THE EXTENT that the 

reporter’s record shall be filed by JULY 27, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c).

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 23.1Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-140668) pertaining to the ThermoGenesis Corp. 2006 Employee Equity Incentive Plan, (Form S-8 No.333-105191) pertaining to the ThermoGenesis Corp. Amended 1998 Employee Equity Incentive Plan,(Form S-8 Nos. 333-28653 and 333-08661) pertaining to the ThermoGenesis Corp. Amended 1994 StockOption Plan, (Form S-8 Nos. 333-46911 and 333-37228) pertaining to the ThermoGenesis Corp. 1998Employee Equity Incentive Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-82900) pertaining to the ThermoGenesis Corp.Amended 1998 Employee Equity Incentive Plan, 2002 Independent Directors Equity Incentive Plan, andNon-Qualified Independent Director Stock Option Agreement, (Form S-8 No. 333-122761) pertaining tothe ThermoGenesis Corp. Amended 2002 Independent Directors Equity Incentive Plan, and (Form S-3Nos. 333-61118, 333-23097, 333-01479, 333-44151, 333-72035, 333-95143, 333-86312, 333-104671,333-114130, and 333-129845) of ThermoGenesis Corp. and in the related Prospectuses of our reportsdated September 10, 2007, with respect to the financial statements and schedule of ThermoGenesisCorp., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofThermoGenesis Corp. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2007./s/ Ernst & Young LLPSacramento, California
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

OSCAR BROWN,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 56 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.