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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 266 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 266

To name the Air Force Utah Test and Training Range as the ``Bishop Utah 
           Test and Training Range'', and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 2021

Mr. Stewart (for himself, Mr. Owens, Mr. Curtis, and Mr. Moore of Utah) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To name the Air Force Utah Test and Training Range as the ``Bishop Utah 
           Test and Training Range'', 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. NAME OF AIR FORCE UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE.

     The Air Force Utah Test and Training Range shall after the date of 
the enactment of this Act be known and designated as the ``Bishop Utah 
Test and Training Range''. Any reference to such test and training 
range in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of 
the United States shall be considered to be a reference to the Bishop 
Utah Test and Training Range.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      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; andd)
    
    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
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially effect, the
Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  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; andb)
    
    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.
  By:
    /s/ James C. MastandreaJames C. MastandreaChairman of the Board, Chief Executive
Officer and President
(Chief Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 21
                  SUBSIDIARIES OF APS HOLDING CORPORATION, INC.

                                            JURISDICTION OF PERCENTAGE OF ISSUED
                                              INCORPORATION    AND OUTSTANDING
NAME OF COMPANY                              OR ORGANIZATION CAPITAL STOCK OWNED
---------------                              --------------- -------------------

I.   SUBSIDIARIES OF APS HOLDING CORPORATION
     ---------------------------------------
     A.P.S., Inc.                                 Delaware          100%

II.  SUBSIDIARIES OF A.P.S., INC.
     ----------------------------
     American Parts System, Inc.                  Delaware          100%
     APS Supply, Inc.                             Texas             100%
     A.P.S. Management Services, Inc.             Delaware          100%
     Autoparts Finance Company, Inc.              Delaware          100%
     Big A Auto Parts, Inc.                       Delaware          100%
     Parts, Inc.                                  Tennessee         100%
     Presatt, Inc.                                Delaware          100%

III. SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN PARTS SYSTEM, INC.
     -------------------------------------------
     Installers' Service Warehouse, Inc.          Delaware          100%
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro Alfonso SANCHEZ-PAZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-11287

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 10, 2010.

Michelle Thresher Taylor, Esq., A. Brian Albritton, U.S. Attorney, James A. Muench, David Paul Rhodes, United States Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

A. Fitzgerald Hall, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Pedro Sanehez-Paz appeals his conviction of knowingly and intentionally manufacturing and possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute it. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D); 18 U.S.C. § 2. Sanchez-Pedro entered a conditional plea of guilt and challenges the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

We review a “district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence as a mixed question of law and fact, with rulings of law reviewed *de novo*and findings of fact *499reviewed for clear error.” *United States v. Lindsey,*482 F.3d 1285, 1290 (11th Cir.2007). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. *Id.*

Sanchez-Paz contends that detectives Alejandro Angulo and Theresa Edmiston of the Polk County Sheriffs Office violated the Fourth Amendment when they recruited Tim Farrans, an employee of Progress Energy, to inspect an electrical installation on property where Sanchez-Paz later was found. Sanchez-Paz maintains that Far-rans acted as a state agent during the inspection; that Polk County Sheriffs Office detective Theresa Edmiston’s affidavit in support of the search warrant did not contain sufficient information about a confidential source’s veracity or reliability; and that Edmiston deliberately and recklessly included inaccurate and misleading information in the affidavit. These arguments fail.

The district court did not err when it denied Sanehez-Paz’s motion to suppress. The record supports the finding by the district court that Farrans acted as a private individual when he entered the property. Although Edmiston and Angulo knew of and acquiesced in Farrans’s inspection of the installation, Farrans entered the property for the private and legitimate purpose of investigating whether electricity was being stolen. Farrans did not act as a state agent. The record also supports the finding that Edmiston’s affidavit did not contain any material misrepresentations and was more than sufficient to establish probable cause for the search of the property. The affidavit established that a confidential and reliable source provided information that someone at the property was cultivating marijuana and stealing electricity, and that information was independently corroborated by the detectives.

We affirm Sanchez-Paz’s conviction.

AFFIRMED.
STRATS TRUST FOR PROCTER & GAMBLE SECURITIES, SERIES 2006-1 10-K

Exhibit
31.1



CERTIFICATION



I,
Barbara Garafalo, certify that:



1.       I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
report on Form 10-K of STRATS Trust For Procter & Gamble Securities, Series 2006-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);



2.       Based
on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;



4.       Based
on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all
material respects; and



5.       All
of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports
on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance
with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except
as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
this report on Form 10-K.



In
giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The
Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee.



|Dated: March 29, 2024 |  | By:                                                           | /s/
    Barbara Garafalo
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------
|                      |  |                                                               | Barbara
    Garafalo    
|                      |  |                                                               | President               
|                      |  | (senior officer of depositor in
    charge of securitization)
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
				**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A **lock**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        Search Home
 About
 FMC Privacy Impact Assessments
 On this page
System of Record Notices



Titles II and III of the E-Government Act of 2002 require that agencies evaluate systems that collect personally identifiable information (PII) to determine that the privacy of this information is adequately protected. The mechanism by which agencies perform this assessment is a privacy impact assessment (PIA).



FMC Data Base (FMCDB) Privacy Impact Assessment [PDF, 59 KB]



FMC General Support System (FMCGSS) Privacy Impact Assessment [PDF, 66.2 KB]



FMC SERVCON Privacy Impact Assessment [PDF, 60.9 KB]



Closed Circuit Cameras Privacy Impact Assessment [PDF, 151 KB]



Datawach Systems Privacy Impact Assessment [PDF, 80.1 KB]






System of Record Notices


The Privacy Act Issuances contain descriptions of Federal agency systems of records maintained on individuals and rules agencies follow to assist individuals who request information about their records. Documents related to Privacy Act issued by the Commission are available in electronic format and are listed in chronological order.



FMC Systems of Records (SORNs) Based on Privacy Act Issuances [PDF, 359 KB] Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

CAUSE NO. DA 23-0086

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee, 

 and

JAMES EDWARD MEURET II,

 Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good 

cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to 

and including April 24, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s 

opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 21 2024

03/21/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0086
Exhibit Number 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 Great Western Bancorporation, Inc. (Great Western) on Form 10-Q for the six month period ended December 31,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Deryl F. Hamann, Chief Executive Officer of Great Western, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of operations of Great Western.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                                     
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: January 31, 2006 |  | /s/ Deryl F. Hamann                 
|                       |  | Deryl F. Hamann                     
|                       |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



22
1 The Honorable Owen M. Panner, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3030

___________ Charles Gassoway, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern Metropolitan St. Louis * District of Missouri. Psychiatric Center, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 12, 2000 Filed: July 10, 2000

___________ Before BOWMAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and PANNER, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Charles Gassoway sued the Metropolitan St. Louis Psychiatric Center (MPC), claiming, as relevant here, that he was terminated on the basis of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a), and of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, see 42 U.S.C.2 T he Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri. -2- § 2000e-2(a), § 2000e-5(f). The district court 2 dismissed the Title VII claim because Mr. Gassoway did not file his action within 90 days of receiving his right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, as § 2000e-5(f) requires, and the factual record completely supports the district court's action.
The district court dismissed Mr. Gassoway's § 1981 claim on the ground that the MPC was an arm of the state of Missouri, and thus entitled to eleventh amendment immunity, because its sole source of funding was from the state and because officers of the state managed its operations in every particular. See Sherman v. Curators of the University of Missouri , 16 F.3d 860, 863-64 (8th Cir. 1994). The factual record completely supports this conclusion as well.
Mr. Gassoway argues that the district court erred in dismissing his § 1981 claim with prejudice, evidently wishing to file it, if he can, in state court at some point. Since a dismissal on the basis of subject-matter jurisdiction, however, with or without prejudice, cannot act as a bar to a later suit in the Missouri courts, see Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc. , 112 F.3d 368, 373, 373 n.3 (8th Cir. 1997), see also 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 4436, at 339 (1981), we detect no error here. We therefore affirm the district court in every respect. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
* 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. 00-41035 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARLOS OLVERA-RICO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-00-CR-223-1

-------------------- June 15, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carlos Olvera-Rico appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found in the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of the offense that should have been charged in the indictment. Olvera-Rico acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issueNo. 00-41035 -2- for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 120 S. Ct. at 2362; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). OlveraRico's argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
----

| **CERTIFICATION OF**                   |
|----------------------------------------|
| **CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**            |
| **AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**        |
| **PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350** |

In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form  10-Q of EWRX Internet Systems for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, I, Jessica  Q. Wang, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of EWRX  Internet Systems hereby 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 and belief, that:

| 1.     | Such quarterly report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ending      March 31, 2009, 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 such quarterly report of      Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, fairly represents in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      EWRX Internet Systems. |

Date: May 20, 2009

**EWRX Internet Systems**

| By: */s/ Jessica Q. Wang*                                                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        Jessica Q. Wang                                               |
|        Chief Executive Officer and      Principal Accounting Officer |

----
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: RSL Funding, LLC v. Gregory S. Everett, The Prudential Insurance 

Company of America and PRUCO Assignment Corporation

Appellate case number: 01-11-01070-CV

Trial court case number: 0941386A

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris County

The above-referenced appeal is stayed due to bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2011) 

(automatic stay in bankruptcy). Accordingly, the appeal is suspended. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.1, 

8.2 (state rule independently suspending appeal affected by bankruptcy stay). The Court will 

take no further action in the appeal other than to receive and hold with the other papers in the 

appeal any documents tendered during the period of suspension. A document filed by a party 

while the appeal is suspended will be deemed filed on the same day, but after, the Court 

reinstates or severs the appeal and will not be considered ineffective because it was filed while 

the appeal was suspended. TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2.

Unless a party successfully moves for reinstatement or severance, the Court will show the 

appeal as an inactive case on the Court’s docket. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.3. The parties should 

notify the Court as soon as the bankruptcy stay is no longer in effect. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c). A 

request to lift the bankruptcy stay must be directed to the bankruptcy court. See 11 U.S.C. 

§.362(d)–(g).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 16, 2012