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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9544 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.9544

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``United States 
        Representative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS POST OFFICE 
BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, shall be 
known and designated as the ``United States Representative Elijah E. 
Cummings Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``United 
States Representative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.819 Specification for surface safety valves (SSVs).

All wellhead SSVs and their actuators must conform to the requirements specified in §§ 250.801 through 250.803.
NO. SCWC-30082
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
RICK RALSTON, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ERROL Y. W. YIM, D.D.S., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 30082; CIV. NO. 08-1-0934)
ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C
. J
. , N a k a y a m a , A c o b a , M c K e n n a , J J
. , a n d C i r c u i t J u d g e A h n , i n p l a c e o f P o l l a c k , J
. , r e c u s e d ) Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee Errol Y. W. Yim, D.D.S.’s application for writ of certiorari filed on September 21, 2012, is hereby accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no oral argument will be heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, October 30, 2012. John Reyes-Burke for petitioner Sue V. Hansen for respondent /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Karen S. S. Ahn Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-30082 30-OCT-2012 08:41 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE JUDGE GROUP, INC. QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM
10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                                              118,578
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    22,232,169
<ALLOWANCES>                                        354,000
<INVENTORY>                                       1,430,205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 25,797,210
<PP&E>                                            7,743,592
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2,851,481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   46,557,255
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            12,613,076
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                            135,312
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     46,557,255
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 83,225,523
<CGS>                                            57,268,382
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    25,857,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     80,942
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    120,761
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   80,942
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      18,671
<INCOME-TAX>                                          7,468
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  11,203
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         11,203
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.00
            


</TABLE>
### §6311. Research and development grants

The Secretary may make grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with, public and nonprofit private entities (including State transportation departments, metropolitan planning organizations, and institutions of higher education) for—

(1) investigation of the subjects described in section 6302(b)(3)(B)(vi);

(2) research and development of new methods of data collection, standardization, management, integration, dissemination, interpretation, and analysis;

(3) demonstration programs by States, local governments, and metropolitan planning organizations to coordinate data collection, reporting, management, storage, and archiving to simplify data comparisons across jurisdictions;

(4) development of electronic clearinghouses of transportation data and related information, as part of the Library; and

(5) development and improvement of methods for sharing geographic data, in support of the database under section 6310 1 and the National Spatial Data Infrastructure developed under Executive Order 12906 (59 Fed. Reg. 17671) (or a successor Executive Order).

(Added Pub. L. 112–141, div. E, title II, §52011(a), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 894.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Executive Order 12906, referred to in par. (5), is Ex. Ord. No. 12906, Apr. 11, 1994, 59 F.R. 17671, which is set out as a note under section 1457 of Title 43, Public Lands.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 2012, see section 3(a) of Pub. L. 112–141, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 2012 Amendment note under section 101 of Title 23, Highways.

1 So in original. Probably should be "section 6309".
----

| (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. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May 3, 2012 |   /s/ G. Wilson Hughes |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                    | G. Wilson Hughes            |
|                    | President and Director      |
|                    | GCI, Inc.                   |

----
----

| Entity                                   | Jurisdiction of Organization | Name Under Which Subsidiary Does Business                                               |
|------------------------------------------|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Alaska United Fiber System Partnership   | Alaska                       | Alaska United Fiber System Partnership, Alaska United Fiber System, Alaska United  |
| GCI Communication Corp.                  | Alaska                       | GCI, GCC, GCICC, GCI Communication Corp.                                           |
| GCI, Inc.                                | Alaska                       | GCI, GCI, Inc.                                                                     |
| GCI Cable, Inc.                          | Alaska                       | GCI Cable, GCI Cable, Inc.                                                         |
| GCI Holdings, Inc.                       | Alaska                       | GCI Holdings, Inc.                                                                 |
| Potter View Development Co., Inc.        | Alaska                       | Potter View Development Co., Inc.                                                  |
| GCI Fiber Communication, Co., Inc.  | Alaska                       | GCI Fiber Communication, Co., Inc., GFCC,  Kanas                         |
| Unicom, Inc.                             | Alaska                       | Unicom, Inc., Unicom                                                                    |
| United-KUC, Inc.                         | Alaska                       | United-KUC, Inc., United-KUC, KUC                                                       |
| United Utilities, Inc.                   | Alaska                       | United Utilities, Inc. United Utilities, UUI                                            |

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6200** 

ERVIN L. STREATER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. PAT S. ROBINSON; J. R. ROWELL; EDDIE CATHEY; SCOTT STERMEN , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 3:11

- cv - 00600

- RJC )

Submitted : April 19, 2012 Decided: April 26, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion

. Ervin L. Streater, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ervin L. Streater seeks to appeal both the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and the district court’s subsequent denial of his two motions to amend his complaint. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Streater’s appeal of the dismissal of his action because th e notice of appeal was not timely filed as to the district court’s dismissal order. Parties in civil cases such as this one are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) (A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Rus sell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order dismissing Streater’s suit was entered on the docket on December 20, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed, at earliest, on January 27, 2012. * Neither of Streater’s mid

- January motions to amend his complaint can be

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).3 construed as a motion tolling the applicable thirty

- day period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider Streater’s claims with respect to the district court’s dismissal order. As for Streater’s appea l of the distr ict court’s denial of his two motions to amend his complaint, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions, as amendment of the complaint would have been futile. See Laber v. Harvey , 438 F.3d 404, 4 26

- 28 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc). Accordingly, we dismiss Streater’s appeal as to the district court’s dismissal order and affirm the district court’s judgment with respect to Streater’s motions to amend his complaint. We dispense with oral argument beca use the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________
No. 95-30589

_______________________
HENRY JAMES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TERRY TERRELL, Warden; MILLER, Sergeant; B. THOMPSON, Sergeant,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(CA-94-0410)

_________________________________________________________________

May 07, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Henry James (“James”), an inmate of the Allen

Correctional Center, has appealed the dismissal of his civil rights

action for failure to state a claim against Warden Terry Terrell

and two correctional officers.

As his appellate brief, James off ers no additional

argument whatsoever on any of the asserted legal issues, but rather

merely files a Xerox copy of his supplemental civil rights2

com plaint, his motion for leave to file it, his opposition to a

memorandum filed by the defendants, and the prayer for relief of

his original complaint.

Nowhere in this purported appellate brief does James

either state or argue any issue on appeal before this court. As a

result, this court AFFIRMS the judg ment of the district court

without consideri ng it on its merits. S ee Al-Ra’id v. Ingle, 69

F.3d 28 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that “[a]n appellant’s brief must

contain an argument on th e issues that are raised, in order that

we, as a reviewing court, may know what actio n of the district

court is being complained of. There is no exemption for pro se

litigants, though we construe their briefs liberally.”) (citations

omitted); Weaver v. Puckett, 896 F.2d 126 (5th Cir. 1990) (prisoner

abandons obje ction if he does not provide an argument containing

the reasons justifying the requested relief “with citation to the

authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on.”)

(citations omitted); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6) (requiring that the

brief of the appellant contain a developed argument).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district

court dismissing James’ complaint for failure to state a cognizable

claim is AFFIRMED

.
Exhibit 32.2

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 CB Richard Ellis Realty Trust (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Laurie E. Romanak, 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 result of operations of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|/S/    LAURIE E.
ROMANAK                 
|Laurie E. Romanak Chief Financial
Officer

March 31, 2010
#### Isaac M. Haswell et al., Administrators, etc., Respondents, *v.*John Lincks et al., Appellants.

Where an order for substituted service of a summons was granted under the . statute “ to facilitate the service of process in certain cases ” (Chap. 511, Laws of 1853, as amended by chap. 212, Laws of 1863), upon affidavits bringing the case within the statute, and service was made as authorized by the statute, and judgment perfected, which judgment was, in an action brought to set aside a fraudulent conveyance by the j udgment debtor, attacked for want of jurisdiction in the judge granting such order, *held,*that it was only requisite for the plaintiff to show residence of the defendant in this State; that it was sufficient that the other facts specified in the statute were shown to the satisfaction of the judge granting the order.

In an action by a judgment creditor to set aside as fraudulent a transfer by the debtor of an interest in land,"an outstanding execution is not necessary; if an execution has been issued and returned unsatisfied it is sufficient.

(Argued January 18, 1882;

decided January 31, 1882.)

This was an action by judgment creditors to set aside as fraudulent an assignment by the debtor of a leasehold interest for a term of years in certain premises situate in New York. The issuing of an execution upon the original judgment and return thereof unsatisfied was alleged and proved, as was also the fraud alleged.

Defendants relied mainly upon two points here: *First,*that the original judgment was void for want of jurisdiction. *Second,*that plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief asked as the execution had been returned before the commencement of the action, and none was then outstanding. The summons was not personally served, but the debtor was proceeded against as a resident of the State, who could not be found therein or evaded service, under the statute *“*to facilitate service of pro*638cess in certain cases.” (Chap. 511, Laws of 1853, as amended by chap. 212, Laws of 1863.) The court here held that the affidavits upon which the order for service was granted brought the case within the statute; also, that the evidence on the trial was sufficient to justify a finding that said debtor .was a resident of the State, and this being established it was enough that the other facts specified in the statute were shown to the satisfaction of the judge granting the order for substituted service..

As to the second point the court say:

*“*An execution had been issued and returned unsatisfied. It thus appeared that the plaintiff’s legal remedy was exhausted, and an outstanding execution was not necessary to entitle the plaintiff to the relief given. The obstruction to the lien of his judgment was removed, and the debtor’s interest in the property may now be reached by execution. *(Shaw*v. Dwight, 27 N. Y. 249; *Fox*v. *Moyer,*54 id. 125; *Grippen*v. *Hudson,*13 id. 161.)”

*George W. Yam, Slyek*for appellants.

*S. JB. Brownell*for respondents.

Danforth, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur except Rapallo, J., absent.

Judgment affirmed.
**~~\~tO** 57"-4)"1<- .**ft~~** ."tJ s**~"a** \**(('~"" ,\.p~**  c**PRO,~(j**

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901 April 20, 2009 Michael H. Scheible Deputy Executive Officer California Air Resources Board Post Office Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 Dear Mr. Scheible:On December 23,2008, CARB submitted revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We have reviewed materials submitted withthe following rules and found that they fulfill the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part51, Appendix V. APCD/AQMD Rule# Rule Title Mojave Desert 1165 Glass Melting Furnaces

Placer County 206 Incinerator Burning Placer County 515 Stationary Rail Yard Control Emission Reduction Credits San Joaquin Unified 4603 Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products San Joaquin Unified 4606 Wood Products and Flat Wood Paneling Products Coating Operations San Joaquin Unified 4901 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters South Coast 1158 Storage, Handling, and Transport of Coke, Coal and Sulfur South Coast 1186 PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations Yolo-Solano 2.41 Expandable Polystyrene Manufacturing Operations This addresses all revisions in this submittal. Inthe corning months we will review the complete revisions for action pursuant to Clean AirAct section 11O(k). Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Cynthia G. Allen at (415) 947-4120. Sincerely,.M(l,d <i-: \Deborall Jordan . Director, Air Division Printed on Recycled PaperCc: Mr. Eldon Heaston Executive Director

Antelope Valley AQMD

Mojave Desert AQMD Mr. Thomas J. Christofk, APCO Placer County APCDMr. Seyed Sadredin, APCO San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Dr. Barry Wallerstein Executive Officer South Coast AQMDMr. Matt Enrhardt, APCO Yolo-Solano AQMD Mr. Jorge L. Fernandez, Chief Program Evaluation Branch, CARB

2