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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 81 

To adjust the eastern boundary of the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls 

Wilderness Study Area in the State of Oregon, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2019 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. MERKLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To adjust the eastern boundary of the Deschutes CanyonSteelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area in the State of 

Oregon, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Crooked River Ranch 

5 Fire Protection Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 81 IS

1 SEC. 2. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, DESCHUTES CANYON2 STEELHEAD FALLS WILDERNESS STUDY 

3 AREA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, OREGON. 

4 (a) BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.—The boundary of the 

5 Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area 

6 is modified to exclude approximately 688 acres of public 

7 land, as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Deschutes Canyon8 Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Proposed 

9 Boundary Adjustment’’ and dated September 26, 2018. 

10 (b) EFFECT OF EXCLUSION.— 

11 (1) IN GENERAL.—The public land excluded 

12 from the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilder13 ness Study Area under subsection (a)— 

14 (A) is no longer subject to section 603(c) 

15 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

16 Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)); and 

17 (B) shall be managed in accordance with— 

18 (i) this section; 

19 (ii) the Federal Land Policy and Man20 agement Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 

21 seq.); and 

22 (iii) any applicable resource manage23 ment plan. 

24 (2) MANAGEMENT.—The Secretary of the Inte25 rior shall manage the land excluded from the 

26 Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 81 IS

1 Area under subsection (a) to improve fire resiliency 

2 and forest health, including the conduct of wildfire 

3 prevention and response activities, as appropriate. 

4 (3) OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL MOTORIZED

5 USE.—The Secretary of the Interior shall not permit 

6 off-road recreational motorized use on the public 

7 land excluded from the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead 

8 Falls Wilderness Study Area under subsection (a). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
-  Home 

# In This Section

                      -  The GLS Today                          -  What does the GLS do? 
                        -  The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation 
                        -  The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System 
                        -  Meet the Administrator 
                        -  Meet Our Team 
                        -  Careers at the GLS 
                        -  Contact the GLS 
                      -  Historic Photos and Other Artifacts 

## Contact the GLS

Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS)Policy HeadquartersU.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Ave, SE W62-300Washington, DC20590United States

**Email:**GLS@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-0091****Alt Phone:**800-785-2779****Fax:**202-366-7147****Business Hours:**8:00am-5:00 pm ET, M-F

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

                            - GLS on Facebook
                            - GLS on Twitter
                            - GLS on Instagram
                            - Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway

# Historic Photos and Other Artifacts

For use at home, at the office, or in the classroom, some amazing photographs of the St. Lawrence Seaway!
# C_2010195EN.01002102.xml

| 17.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/21

---

Action brought on 3 May 2010 — Strålfors Aktiebolag v OHMI (IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS)

(Case T-212/10)

2010/C 195/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Strålfors AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M. Nielsen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2010 in case R 1112/2009-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2010 in case R 1112/2009-2;

| — | Approve for registration the Community trade mark application No 8235186 ‘IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS’ for ‘labels and boxes made from paper and cardboard (not for identification of individuals); bookbinding material; adhesives for stationery or household purposes, artists’ materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in class 16; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Approve for registration the Community trade mark application No 8235186 ‘IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS’ for ‘labels and boxes made from paper and cardboard (not for identification of individuals); bookbinding material; adhesives for stationery or household purposes, artists’ materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in class 16; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS’ for goods in class 16 — Community trade mark application No 8235186

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Partially refused registration of the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and confirmed the contested decision

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the Community trade mark application No 8235186 ‘IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS’ should be allowed for registration for goods in class 16 because ‘IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS’ is distinctive for these goods and thus meets with the requirements according to Article 4 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About SBA 
-  SBA Office Locations 
-  Loan and Guaranty Centers 
-  Disaster Loan Servicing Center (El Paso, TX) 

# Disaster Loan Servicing Center (El Paso, TX)

The center assists customers from the time the proceeds of a disaster loan are disbursed until the loan is paid off.

              Login to E-TRAN                            Send This File              

## Resources

                - How To Make Payments
                - Requirements for Disaster Loan Servicing Actions
                - Borrower’s Consent to Verify Information and Third-Party Authorization

## Contact us

**Disaster Loan Servicing Center**1545 Hawkins Blvd., Suite 202El Paso, TX 79925-2652Phone: 800-487-6019Fax: 915-633-7110

Contact us by email.

Hours of operation:8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. MT, Monday through Friday

### Search documents, forms, and SOPs

Search

### Submit Your Forms

Submit loan guaranty packages through E-TRAN

### Submit Your Forms

Send This File
November 30, 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

THE CITY OF HOUSTON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00818

- CV V.

KELLEY STREET ASSOCI ATES, L LC , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Kelley Street Associates, LLC, signed October 3, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspect ed the record and find error

. W e therefore order the judgment of the court below REVERSED and RENDER judgment dismissing Kelley Street Associates, LLC ’s suit against the City of Houston for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be p aid by appellee, Kelley Street Associates, LLC.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 99.4

                  CERITFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                            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 Whitemark Homes, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mitchell R.
Gordon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.



/s/ MITCHELL R. GORDON
-----------------------
Mitchell R. Gordon
Chief Financial Officer

Date:  May 19, 2003
       ------------
### §1648. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–334, title VIII, §8201, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4839

Section, Pub. L. 95–307, §9, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XII, §1241(b), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3544, related to recycling research.

A prior section 9 of Pub. L. 95–307, June 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 357, provided the effective date for Pub. L. 95–307 and was set out as a note under section 1641 of this title, prior to general amendment by Pub. L. 101–624.
#### § 115.368 Post-allegation protective custody.

Any use of segregated housing to protect a resident who is alleged to have suffered sexual abuse shall be subject to the requirements of § 115.342.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed March 27, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0190

Lower Tribunal No. 21-5958

________________

Stok + Kon, P.A., etc.,

Appellant,

vs.

Miami Dade College,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto 

Diaz, Judge.

Stok Kon + Braverman, and Robert A. Stok, Joshua R. Kon and Yosef 

Kudan (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

Mark Migdal & Hayden, and Jose M. Ferrer and Darci E. Cohen, for 

appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES, and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Appellant Stok + Kon, P.A. appeals a December 6, 2022 final judgment 

awarding statutory attorney’s fees and costs to appellee Miami-Dade 

College. Notwithstanding appellee’s failure to plead entitlement to fees, we 

affirm the trial court’s determination that the exception to the pleading 

requirement established in Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991) 

is applicable. 

Affirmed.
#### § 18.8 Recommended decision.

Within a reasonable time after the close of the record of the hearings conducted under § 18.6, the hearing officer shall submit findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended order to the responsible agency official, in writing. The hearing officer shall promptly make copies of these documents available to the parties.
<PAGE>   1





                                                                      EXHIBIT 15




                    ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


Board of Directors
The MIIX Group, Incorporated

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8) of The MIIX Group, Incorporated, pertaining to the amended and
restated 1998 Long Term Incentive Equity Plan of The MIIX Group, Incorporated,
of our report dated May 1, 2001 relating to the unaudited consolidated interim
financial statements of The MIIX Group, Incorporated and subsidiaries included
in this Form 10-Q filed on May 15, 2001 for the quarter ended March 31, 2001.

                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP


New York, New York
May 1, 2001
#### Caverly *v.*Stovall.

June 24, 1910.

Holden, J.

1. In order for the owner of a tract of land to have the lines around the same surveyed and marked anew by proeessioners under Civil Code, § 3244 et seq., he must make application in- writing to the processioners of the district in which a portion or all of - the land is situated. *Ballard*v. *Haines,*115 *Ga.*847 (42 S. E. 218).

2. It is proper that one application be addressed to all three proeessioners; but the proceedings will not be unlawful if the applicant addresses a separate application to each of the proeessioners.

3. It is sufficient if such applications are sent to the proeessioners and received by them through the U. S. mails.

4. Where the proeessioners in their return, which, with the plat of the surveyor, was filed with the ordinary, recited that they were “applied to by S. C. Stovall [the applicant] to trace and mark anew the linos around a certain tract of land,” etc., the presumption is that a proper application in writing was made to them by the applicant before they acted in the premises; and in the absence of proof that no such application was thus made, a motion by the protestant to dismiss the proceedings should be denied.

5. It is proper that the proeessioners file the application to them, together with their report and the plat of the surveyor, with the ordinary; but a failure to thus file such application will not afford a good ground upon which to dismiss the proceedings.

6. The plat was not inadmissible in evidence on the ground that the survey of the tract of land, containing less than 200 acres, was laid down by a scale of 200 feet to the inch, instead of a scale of 10 chains to the inch as required by rule 56 of the superior court; as such rules do not apply to surveys made by the county surveyor acting with proeessioners under an application of the owner of land to the .proeessioners to have the lines around the same surveyed and marked anew.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices conciwr.*

*678Processioning. Before Judge Roan. DeKalb superior court.

September 12, 1908.

*C. W. Smith*and *Hines &*Jordan, for plaintiff in error.

*Kontz &*Austin, contra.
## <!tnurl nfJ\pp:euls lJiiftq ilhifritt nf W:exus ut ilullus
HAIDAR S. ALSALEH. Appellant No. 05-98-00023-CV V. HIYAM H. NAJIM, Appellee 

### JUDGMENT Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. CV96-00630-S). Opinion delivered per curiam before a panel ofJustices Kinkeade, Bridges, and Roach. Based on the Court's opinion ofthis date, the appeal is DISMISSED. Appellant shall bear all costs ofappeal. Judgment entered February 26, 1999.
JOHN R. ROACH JUSTICE

### DISMISSED and Opinion Filed February 26, 1999

In The 

## <rrnurl of 1\pp£als 111iff4 :Sisfrirf nf W£xas at ilallas No. 05-98-00023-CV HAIDAR S. ALSALEH, Appellant 

# v. HIYAM H. NAJIM, Appellee OnAppeal from the 282"d Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court CauseNo. CV96-00630-S 

### OPINION PER CURIAM BeforeJustices Kinkeade, Bridges, and Roach On appellee's January 28, 1999 motion, this appeal is 

### DISMISSED as moot. See TEX. R..APP. P. 43.2(£).

Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 PERCURIAM
#### Josephine C. Wilson et al., Appellants and Respondents, v. Jaybro Realty & Development Co., Inc., Appellant, and Manhattan Food Stores Inc., Defendant-Respondent.

*669Present— Close, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 991 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 991

    To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for the 
  reissuance of Social Security account numbers to young children in 
           cases where confidentiality has been compromised.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 2, 2019

  Mr. Cornyn (for himself and Ms. Stabenow) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for the 
  reissuance of Social Security account numbers to young children in 
           cases where confidentiality has been compromised.

    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 ``Social Security Child Protection Act 
of 2019''.

SEC. 2. REISSUANCE OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBERS TO YOUNG CHILDREN 
              IN CASES WHERE CONFIDENTIALITY HAS BEEN COMPROMISED.

    (a) In General.--Section 205(c)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(B)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
            (2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new 
        clause:
    ``(iii) In any case in which a Social Security account number has 
been issued to a child who has not attained the age of 14 pursuant to 
subclause (IV) or (V) of clause (i) and it is demonstrated by evidence, 
as determined by the Commissioner of Social Security, and submitted 
under penalty of perjury to the Commissioner by a parent or guardian of 
the child that in the course of transmission of the social security 
card to the child, the confidentiality of such number has been 
compromised by reason of theft of such social security card, the 
Commissioner shall issue a new Social Security account number to such 
child and make note in the records maintained with respect to such 
child of the pertinent information received by the Commissioner 
regarding the theft of the social security card.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.3


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF

                                  PROXIM, INC.



     Proxim, Inc. (the "Corporation"), a corporation organized and existing
under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify:

     1.   The original Certificate of Incorporation was filed with the Secretary
of State on October 4, 1993, under the name of Proxim, Inc.

     2.   The following Certificate of Amendment was duly proposed by the
Corporation's Board of Directors and duly adopted pursuant to the applicable
provisions of Sections 242 and 245 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware. The Certificate of Amendment and the amendments to be made thereby
were duly adopted by the holders of a majority of shares outstanding and
entitled to vote thereon pursuant to the applicable provisions of Sections 242
of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     RESOLVED: That the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation
is hereby amended by deleting the second sentence of the first paragraph of
ARTICLE IV of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation in its present form and
substituting therefor a new second sentence of the first paragraph of ARTICLE IV
in the following form:

     The total number of shares of Common that the Corporation shall have the
     authority to issue is 100,000,000.

<PAGE>   2

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be signed by its duly authorized officer this 13th day of July,
2000.



     PROXIM, INC.,
     a Delaware corporation


     By: /s/ DAVID KING
        --------------------------------
        David King
        President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       2
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.19.3




Adopted by Board of Directors
Effective as of December 1, 2015


AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLAN
OF
CORENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE TRUST, INC.


WHEREAS, the Director Compensation Plan (the “Director Plan”) of CorEnergy Infrastructure Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) was approved by the Company’s Board of Directors as of April 5, 2014, and was approved by stockholders at the Company’s 2014 Annual Meeting on May 28, 2014; and


WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 to the Director Plan was approved the Board of Directors of the Company, effective as of September 15, 2014, to: (i) correct a typographical error in the introductory paragraph of the Director Plan; (ii) allow the Company the flexibility of funding the stock retainer payments called for by the Director Plan either by issuing shares of the Company’s Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Common Stock”), or by funding the acquisition of shares in the open market for a designated account for each Compensated Director (as defined in the Director Plan); and (iii) provide that the Director Plan shall have a term of ten (10) years, ending on April 1, 2024; and


WHEREAS, at a meeting held on October 28, 2015, the Board of Directors of the Company approved this further amendment to the Director Plan in conjunction with the approval of a one for five (1-for-5) reverse split of the Company’s outstanding shares of Common Stock, which will become effective as of 5:01 p.m., Eastern Time, on December 1, 2015 (the “Reverse Stock Split”); and


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has received the advice of counsel that a further amendment of the Director Plan on the terms set forth herein should not be deemed a “material” amendment requiring the approval of the Company’s stockholders.


NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the action of the Board of Directors of the Company on October 28, 2015 approving this amendment in connection with the Reverse Stock Split, the Director Plan is hereby amended as follows:


Section 6 of the Director Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and restated to read as follows:


		
	6.
	Aggregate Number of Shares Subject to the Plan. The aggregate number of shares of the Company’s common stock that may be granted to Compensated Directors pursuant to this Plan shall be 20,000 shares, subject to appropriate adjustment, as determined by the Board, in the event of any changes in the outstanding shares of the Company’s stock or in the capital structure of the Company by reason of any stock dividends, stock splits, reverse stock splits, recapitalizations, reorganizations, mergers, consolidations, combinations, exchanges, or other relevant changes in the Company’s capitalization occurring after the Effective Date.




All other terms and provisions of the Director Plan shall remain as stated therein and this Amendment No. 2 shall be effective as of 5:02 p.m., Eastern Time, on December 1, 2015.
#### Ellsworth-Stewart, Inc., Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellee, *v.*M. Fuat Tigrak, Defendant-Counterplaintiff-Appellant.

(No. 11425;

Fourth District

November 23, 1971.

Winkehnan & Winkelman, of Urbana, for appellant.

Thomas J. Logue, of Mattoon, and Robert N. Corley, of Urbana, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.
### §135. Repealed. Dec. 16, 1930, ch. 14, §1, 46 Stat. 1028

Section, act June 12, 1917, ch. 27, §1, 40 Stat. 152, related to donations of patented lands or rights-of-way.