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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4846 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4846

 To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to provide priority for the 
              senior community service employment program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 23, 2019

 Ms. Scanlon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to provide priority for the 
              senior community service employment program.

    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 ``Fair Opportunities for Seniors 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PRIORITY FOR THE SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM.

    The Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) is 
amended--
            (1) in section 503(a)(4)(C)--
                    (A) in clause (iii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
                    (B) in clause (iv) by adding ``and'' at the end; 
                and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(v) eligible individuals who have been 
                        incarcerated or are under supervision following 
                        the release from prison or jail within the last 
                        5 years;'';
            (2) in section 514(e)(1) by inserting ``older individuals 
        who have been incarcerated or are under supervision following 
        the release from prison or jail,'' after ``need,''; and
            (3) in section 518--
                    (A) in subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii)--
                            (i) in subclause (IV) by striking ``or'' at 
                        the end;
                            (ii) in subclause (V) by striking the 
                        period at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
                            (iii) by adding at the end the following:
                                    ``(VI) have been incarcerated or 
                                are under supervision following the 
                                release from prison or jail within the 
                                last 5 years.''; and
                    (B) in subsection (b)(2)--
                            (i) in subparagraph (F) by striking ``or'' 
                        at the end;
                            (ii) in subparagraph (G) by striking the 
                        period at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
                            (iii) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(H) has been incarcerated or is under supervision 
        following the release from prison or jail within the last 5 
        years.''.
                                 <all>
```
### §607a. Cutting and use of timber in Alaska by settlers, residents, miners, etc.

The Secretary of the Interior may permit under regulations to be prescribed by him the use of timber found upon the public land in Alaska by actual settlers, residents, individual miners, and prospectors for minerals, for firewood, fencing, buildings, mining, prospecting, and for domestic purposes, as may actually be needed by such persons for such purposes and may permit such use by churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions in Alaska for firewood, fencing, buildings, and for domestic purposes.

(May 14, 1898, ch. 299, §11, 30 Stat. 414; June 15, 1938, ch. 437, 52 Stat. 699.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of the last sentence of section 11 of act May 14, 1898. The remainder of section 11 of act May 14, 1898, is classified to section 615a of this title.

Section was formerly classified to section 423 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

#### Amendments

1938—Act June 15, 1938, inserted last clause relating to use of timber by churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions.
United States Department of Agriculture USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Dig In! • Grades 5-6 • http://teamnutrition.usda.gov

LESSON 2 HANDOUT 1 The Farm to Plate Game! Playing Cards 

66
#### § 342.6 Depositions.

Upon good cause shown, the testimony of any witness may be taken by depositions, either orally or upon written interrogatories before a person having authority to administer oaths (affirmations), as may be designated by the naturalization examiner.

[37 FR 2767, Feb. 5, 1972]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jayson Rivera, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 147]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered February 23, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree (two counts), sodomy in the first degree (two counts), attempted rape in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 40 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defense counsel, who negotiated a plea that was as lenient as possible given the large number of victims, rendered effective assistance in connection with the plea *(see People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]), and continued to do so *241at sentencing. The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to adjourn the sentence so that defendant could retain new counsel, since no purpose would be served by such a substitution, given the patently meritless nature of defendant’s plea withdrawal application. The record establishes that the court rejected defendant’s claim on the basis of its own recollection of the plea, rather than any comments by defense counsel; indeed, counsel’s statements were made after the motion had been decided *(see e.g. People v Johnson,*279 AD2d 330 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 801 [2001]; *People v Nawabi,*265 AD2d 156 [1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 865 [1999]). Accordingly, there was no violation of defendant’s right to conflict-free representation *(see Hines v Miller,*318 F3d 157, 162-164 [2d Cir 2003], *cert denied*538 US 1040 [2003]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe and McGuire, JJ.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0001316

15-NOV-2016

09:37 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              11,534
<SECURITIES>                                           612
<RECEIVABLES>                                      194,671
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (29,859)
<INVENTORY>                                        138,547
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   337,969
<PP&E>                                             261,095
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (144,648)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,006,442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              185,930
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            14,781
<OTHER-SE>                                         255,512
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,006,442
<SALES>                                            717,863
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   717,863
<CGS>                                              329,686
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      630,481
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  40,875
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     73,953
<INCOME-TAX>                                        30,331
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 43,622
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        43,622
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         3.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         3.13
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

In re SIAMAK LOGHMANI : Chapter 13

: Case No. 18-10781

Debtors :

____________________________________:

:

Deutsche Bank National Trust :

Plaintiff : 

: Relief From Stay

v. : Contested Matter

: No.

Siamak Loghmani :

Respondents :

DEBTORS ANSWER TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY OF

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

Debtor, through undersigned counsel, responds to the Motion for

Relief from the Automatic Stay filed herein by Deutsche Bank National Trust:

1. The allegations of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 are 

admitted.

2. The allegations of paragraphs 6 and 11 are denied.

_______________________

Nathan Fisher, VSB #37161

Counsel for Debtor

3977 Chain Bridge Rd., #2

Fairfax, VA 22030

(703) 691-1642

Case 18-10781-KHK Doc 30 Filed 06/17/18 Entered 06/17/18 09:05:59 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
3. The subject property is necessary for an effective reorganization 

as it constitutes a primary motivation for the filing of the petition herein;

4. There is marginal equity in the subject property.

5. To the extent that a post-petition mortgage arrearage exists, same 

can be cured by adding the arrearage into the remaining term of the chapter 13 

plan or by the debtor making her regular mortgage payment, along with a 

partial mortgage payment, over a period of six months time.

 

WHEREFORE, because 11 U.S.C. 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code

provides that the Court shall grant a party in interest relief from the stay:

(1) "for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in

property of such party in interest," (11 U.S.C. 362(d) (1) ), or, alternatively,

(2) if "the debtor does not have an equity in such property and such property

is not necessary to an effective reorganization," (11 U.S.C. 362(d) (2) (A) &

(B) ), and because in this case the movant's interest in the subject property is 

adequately protected and the subject property is necessary to an effective 

reorganization, Debtor requests that this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for 

Relief from Stay, and for such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

Case 18-10781-KHK Doc 30 Filed 06/17/18 Entered 06/17/18 09:05:59 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
Dated: June 16, 2018 Respectfully Submitted

Siamak Loghmani

By Counsel:

/s/ Nathan Fisher

Fisher-Sandler, LLC

Nathan Fisher

3977 Chain Bridge Rd., #2

Fairfax, VA 22030

(703) 691-1642

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 16th day of June, 2018, I served 

the foregoing, via first-class mail, on the following, who are all necessary parties 

under Local Rule 4001(a)-1(E)(1):

Thomas Gorman Siamak Loghmani

300 North Washington St., Ste. 400 4801 Christie Jane Lane

Alexandria, VA 22314 Fairfax, VA 22030

Mary F. Bakthasar Lake, Esq.

Shapiro & Brown LLP

501 Independence Parkway, Ste. 203

Chesapeake, VA 23320

/s/ Nathan Fisher

Nathan Fisher

Case 18-10781-KHK Doc 30 Filed 06/17/18 Entered 06/17/18 09:05:59 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3
### §6853. Digitization and publication of easements

#### (a) In general

Not later than 4 years after April 29, 2022, each of the Secretaries, to the maximum extent practicable, shall digitize and publish on the applicable agency website geographic information system mapping data that specifies, with respect to the relevant Secretary, all Federal interests in private land, including easements (other than flowage easements), reservations, and rights-of-way—

(1) to which the Federal Government does not have a fee title interest; and

(2) that may be used to provide public recreational access to the Federal land.

#### (b) Public comment

The Secretaries shall develop a process to allow members of the public to submit questions or comments regarding the information described in subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 117–114, §4, Apr. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 1176.)
|  |                     |
|--|---------------------|
|  | Home| Previous Page |
EX-32.1

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


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
of Atlantic Security, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the
"Report"), I, Terence Sullivan, Principal Executive Officer of Atlantic
Security, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge, 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 Atlantic Security, Inc.


August 12, 2004

                                        /s/ Terence Sullivan
                                        --------------------------
                                        Terence Sullivan
                                        Principal Executive Officer







<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.1





Section 906 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer




Stephen J. Schoepfer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Carbonics Capital Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge:




(1) The Company’s periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 (“Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.




/s/ Stephen J. Schoepfer

/s/ Stephen J. SchoepferName: Stephen J. Schoepfer

Name: Stephen J. SchoepferTitle:  Chief Executive Officer

Title: Chief Financial OfficerDate: November 3, 2011
### §5933. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 105–391, title II, §203, Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3500, related to cooperative agreements with colleges and universities. Subsec. (a) was repealed and restated in section 100703 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs. Subsec. (b), requiring a report within one year of Nov. 13, 1998, was repealed as obsolete.
#### § 772.3 Noise standards.

The highway traffic noise prediction requirements, noise analyses, noise abatement criteria, and requirements for informing local officials in this regulation constitute the noise standards mandated by 23 U.S.C. 109(1). All highway projects which are developed in conformance with this regulation shall be deemed to be in accordance with the FHWA noise standards.
### §5914. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 105–391, title I, §104, Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3499, related to park budgets and accountability. See section 100503 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
EXHIBIT (21)





SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT





As of February 1, 2001





|Subsidiaries                     |  | Jurisdiction

in Which Incorporated
|-------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|Heller Capital Management, Inc.  |  | Delaware                           
|Heller Financial Leasing, Inc.   |  | Delaware                           
|Heller International Group, Inc. |  | Delaware                           
|Heller Holding France, S.A.      |  | France                             
|Factofrance Heller, S.A.         |  | France                             




The names of all other subsidiaries of the Company are omitted because such unnamed subsidiaries,
considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a Significant Subsidiary as defined by the SEC.
(No. 81-CC-2769

#### Francisco R. Rivera, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed July 28, 1981.*

Francisco R. Rivera, *pro se,*for Claimant.

*376Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (Kathleen O’Brien, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

Poch, J.

This matter coming on to be heard upon the motion of Respondent to dismiss the claim herein, and it appearing to the Court that Claimant has received due notice of said motion, and the Court being fully advised in the premises;

Finds that this Court has no jurisdiction to review this administrative decision of the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Labor.

It is hereby ordered that the motion of Respondent be, and the same is, hereby granted and the claim herein is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
§ 774.9 Timing. ( a ) The potential use of land from a Section 4(f) property shall be evaluated as early as practicable in the development of the action when alternatives to the proposed action are under study.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, for actions processed with EISs the Administration will make the Section 4(f) approval either in the final EIS or in the ROD. Where the Section 4(f) approval is documented in the final EIS, the Administration will summarize the basis for its Section 4(f) approval in the ROD. Actions requiring the use of Section 4(f) property, and proposed to be processed with a FONSI or classified as a CE, shall not proceed until notification by the Administration of Section 4(f) approval.
( c ) After the CE, FONSI, or ROD has been processed, a separate Section 4(f) approval will be required, except as provided in § 774.13, if: ( 1 ) A proposed modification of the alignment or design would require the use of Section 4(f) property; or
( 2 ) The Administration determines that Section 4(f) applies to the use of a property; or
( 3 ) A proposed modification of the alignment, design, or measures to minimize harm (after the original Section 4(f) approval) would result in a substantial increase in the amount of Section 4(f) property used, a substantial increase in the adverse impacts to Section 4(f) property, or a substantial reduction in the measures to minimize harm.
( d ) A separate Section 4(f) approval required under paragraph (c) of this section will not necessarily require the preparation of a new or supplemental NEPA document. If a new or supplemental NEPA document is also required under § 771.130 of this chapter, then it should include the documentation supporting the separate Section 4(f) approval. Where a separate Section 4(f) approval is required, any activity not directly affected by the separate Section 4(f) approval can proceed during the analysis, consistent with § 771.130(f) of this chapter.
( e ) Section 4(f) may apply to archeological sites discovered during construction, as set forth in § 774.11(f). In such cases, the Section 4(f) process will be expedited and any required evaluation of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives will take account of the level of investment already made. The review process, including the consultation with other agencies, will be shortened as appropriate.
**SECURITIESAND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington,D.C. 20549**
**FORM 10-KANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d)OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**
For the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2001                                                                                       Commission file No. 1-10294

**HIBERNIACORPORATION**
#### Harry Harris, Respondent, *v.*Great Eastern Casualty Company, Appellant.

First Department,

December 31, 1913.

Pleading — suit for reformation of insurance policy — bill of particulars — right of corporation to names of employees claimed by plaintiff to have made agreement.

Where, in a suit for the reformation of a policy of burglar insurance, so as to show a prior loss and damages by plaintiff’s assignors, and a prior rejection of insurance by another company, it is claimed that the policy was returned to the defendant, and that it agreed to so amend the same, a bill of particulars should be granted to the defendant, showing the names of the persons in its employ with whom the plaintiff’s assignors claim they made the agreement to amend the policy.

Appeal by the defendant, Great Eastern Casualty Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 16th day of July, 1913, denying defendant’s motion for a further and additional bill of particulars.

*Joseph L. Prager,*for the appellant.

*Herman M. Schaap,*for the respondent.

Dowling, J.:

The action is brought for a reformation of a policy of burglar insurance by the inclusion therein of a statement in amendment of the warranties, statements and agreements contained *876in the policy, so as to show a prior loss by William Morris & Co., plaintiff’s assignors, and a prior rejection of burglary insurance by another insurance company, and for the damages claimed to have been sustained by plaintiff’s assignors by reason of burglary or theft covered by the policy in question as amended. It is claimed that this policy was returned to the defendant for correction so as to show the amendments now sought to be made, and that the defendant agreed so to amend the same. By the particulars now sought, the defendant, among other things, seeks to obtain the name of the person whom the plaintiff’s assignors claimed to have informed that they had sustained a prior loss by theft; also the representative of the defendant to whom the policy is claimed to have been, returned for correction, and the person who agreed to change the policy in the manner set forth in the complaint. The other particulars asked for are along the same general line.

The defendant, being a corporation which acts only through its representatives, is entitled to know the names of the persons in its employ or representing it, with whom the plaintiff’s assignors claim they made the special agreement in question. *(Sittig*v. *Cohen,*130 App. Div. 689.)

It appears from the defective bill of particulars heretofore served that one Harry A. Wilkus and one Bernard Frank are in a position to furnish the plaintiff with information concerning many of the matters upon which particulars are sought.

The order appealed from will, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion for a further bill of particulars granted, with ten dollars costs.

Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Soott and Hotchkiss, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.