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

House Calendar No. 12 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 42 

[Report No. 118–33] 

Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving 

the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2023 

Mr. CLYDE (for himself, Mrs. LUNA, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. 

CARTER of Georgia, Mr. JACKSON of Texas, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. ISSA, Mr. 

HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. HERN, Mr. 

WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. YAKYM, Mr. STAUBER, Mr. LATURNER, Mr. 

D’ESPOSITO, Mr. COMER, and Mrs. BOEBERT) submitted the following 

joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Accountability 

APRIL 6, 2023 

Additional sponsors: Mr. GARBARINO and Mr. EDWARDS

APRIL 6, 2023 

Reported from the Committee on Oversight and Accountability; referred to the 

House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council 

in approving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice 

Reform Amendment Act of 2022. 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 42 RH 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the Congress disapproves of the action of the District 

4 of Columbia Council described as follows: The Comprehen5 sive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 

6 (D.C. Act 24–781), enacted by the Council of the District 

7 of Columbia on January 19, 2023, and transmitted to 

8 Congress pursuant to section 602(c)(1) of the District of 

9 Columbia Home Rule Act on January 26, 2023. 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with BILLS

TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 12 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 42 

[Report No. 118–33] 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia 

and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. Council in approving the Comprehensive Policing 

APRIL 6, 2023 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with BILLS
SERVED FEBRUARY 23, 2012 

:;;fARTM£NT OF 

•1>^AN5P0RTAT!0N 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION >:X;;'[l OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC mi FEB 2 3 P 2- 30 

IN THE MATTER OF 

BRENDAN AIRWAYS, LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

FDMSNO. FAA-20I2-0020 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 20! 1EA170024) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Ser\'ice List. 

Ron ^ A. Yoder . 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FDMSNO. FAA-2012-0020 

(Civil l*enalty Action) 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Jason Dickstcin, RespondenI 's Counsel 

Washington Aviation Group 

2233 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., #503 

Washington, DC 20007 

TEL: 202 628-6776 

FAX: 202-628-8948 

Zachary M. Berman, Comp/ainani 's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administralive Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. -, 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: I'ederal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2WI000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

~2~
#### Julia Delgado, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. Stefan Pasternak, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury allegedly sustained by the plaintiff Julia Delgado, said plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme 'Court, Kings County, entered December 21, 1962 after trial, upon a jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant. The action by the plaintiff’s husband, Felix Delgado, was discontinued, with prejudice, during trial, Judgment reversed on the law, and a new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event, Ho questions of fact have been considered. It is plaintiff’s claim that about 9:3Q or 10 o’clock on the night of September 12, 1958, she was caused to trip and fall on a stairway in a rooming house owned and maintained by the defendant, At the trial defendant sought to establish that plaintiff’s injuries, which included a broken arm, did not result from a fall on the stairs but were sustained when she was assaulted by her husband, from whom she later separated. Defendant produced a witness who said that between 5 :Q0 and 6:00 p.m,, he heard considerable noise and screaming coming from the furnished room occupied by plaintiff and her husband. The witness did not specify the day or date of such occurrence, except to say that it was a couple of evenings before he saw plaintiff on the street wearing a cast; and that the latter occasion was about two days after September 12, 1958, However, he did not know whether it was possible that what he had heard could have occurred toward the end of September, 1958, In our opinion, such testimony is purely speculative, and the trial -court erred in receiving it and in denying plaintiff’s request to charge the jury that there was no testimony that plaintiff had been assaulted. It is also our opinion that the trial court erroneously excluded photographs of the scene of the accident which plaintiff attempted to show were accurate representations of the stairway as of the time of the accident, except for a portion of a rubber tread which had broken off when plaintiff fell. In view of these errors, a new trial is required. Beldock, P, J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
32.502-2 Contract finance office clearance. The contracting officer shall obtain the approval of the contract finance office or other offices designated under agency procedures before taking any of the following actions: ( a ) Providing a progress payment rate higher than the customary rate (see 32.501-1).
( b ) Deviating from the progress payments terms prescribed in this part.
( c ) Providing progress payments to a contractor— ( 1 ) Whose financial condition is in doubt;
( 2 ) Who has had an advance payment request or loan guarantee denied for financial reasons (or approved but withdrawn or lapsed) within the previous 12 months; or
( 3 ) Who is named in the consolidated list of contractors indebted to the United States (known commonly as the *Hold-up List*).
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MARLETTE D. WELLS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-382 ) WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY ) F.S.B. D/B/A CHRISTIANA TRUST AS ) OWNER TRUSTEE OF THE ) RESIDENTIAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES ) TRUST III, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 28, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; James H. Seals, Judge. Marlette D. Wells, pro se. Arnold M. Straus, Jr. of Straus & Eisler, P.A., Pembroke Pines, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
# CCAMPIS
**EXHIBIT      32**

**Certification**

**Pursuant      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States      Code)**

| Dated:                 October 9, 2007 |   | /s/                Zan                Guerry                                        |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                        |   | Zan                Guerry, Chairman and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |   |
|                                        |   | Chief                Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |   |

| Dated:                   October 9, 2007 |   | /s/                  Robert B.                  Long                                                  |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                          |   | Robert                  B. Long,  Vice President, Finance                                                                                                                                                                                              |   |
|                                          |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |   |

----
Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 105 Filed: 10/23/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2357
See Hendee v. Dewhurst, No. 03-06-00501-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 4149, ___ S.W.3d 1

___ (Tex. App.—Austin May 25, 2007, pet. denied).

 Dewhurst v. Hendee, No. 03-07-00462-CV (Tex. App.—Austin, notice of appeal filed 2

Aug. 15, 2007).

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00490-CV

In re Edd Hendee, Individually and as Executive Director of C.L.O.U.T.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

Following our partial remand of the underlying proceedings to the district court,

1

Plaintiffs amended their petition. The State Defendants filed a second plea to the jurisdiction, which

the district court partially sustained and partially denied on August 14, 2007. The State Defendants

immediately filed an interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(a)(8), civil practice and remedies

code, and filed a “Notice of Automatic Stay” in the district court stating that they were entitled to 2

the automatic stay of trial court proceedings under section 51.014(b). Plaintiffs filed an “Emergency

Objection to State Defendants’ Notice of Automatic Stay and Request for Reinstatement of Hearing

Date on Plaintiffs’ Request for Temporary Injunctive Relief.” On August 21, the district court

denied this relief, finding that “the automatic stay provisions of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

§51.0[1]4 do apply under the facts of the instant case.” 
2

On August 23, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief from the

district court’s August 21 order. Specifically, Plaintiffs request that we (1) find that the automatic

stay provisions do not apply under the facts of the instant case, (2) “restore the original date of

hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for temporary injunctive relief,” and (3) award attorney’s fees to

Plaintiffs as sanctions. We requested a response from the State Defendants, which was filed today.

On this record, we conditionally grant Plaintiffs’ petition for writ of mandamus to the

extent of holding that the automatic stay provisions of section 51.014(b) do not apply during the

pendency of the State Defendants’ pending interlocutoryappeal. All other requested reliefis denied.

 

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: August 27, 2007
# C_2021062EN.01000101.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2021/C 62/01)

Last publication

OJ C 53, 15.2.2021

Past publications

OJ C 44, 8.2.2021

OJ C 35, 1.2.2021

OJ C 28, 25.1.2021

OJ C 19, 18.1.2021

OJ C 9, 11.1.2021

OJ C 443, 21.12.2020

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
41.205 Separate contracts. ( a ) In the absence of an areawide contract or interagency agreement (see 41.206), agencies shall acquire utility services by separate contract subject to this part, and subject to agency contracting authority.
( b ) If an agency enters into a separate contract, the contracting officer shall document the contract file with the following information: ( 1 ) The number of available suppliers.
( 2 ) Any special equipment, service reliability, or facility requirements and related costs.
( 3 ) The utility supplier's rates, connection charges, and termination liability.
( 4 ) Total estimated contract value (including costs in subparagraphs (b) (2) and (3) of this subsection).
( 5 ) Any technical or special contract terms required.
( 6 ) Any unusual characteristics of services required.
( 7 ) The utility's wheeling or transportation policy for utility service.
( c ) If requesting GSA assistance with a separate contract, the requesting agency shall furnish the technical and acquisition data specified in 41.205(b), 41.301, and such other data as GSA may deem necessary.
( d ) A contract exceeding a 1-year period, but not exceeding ten years (except pursuant to 41.103), may be justified, and is usually required, where any of the following circumstances exist: ( 1 ) The Government will obtain lower rates, larger discounts, or more favorable terms and conditions of service;
( 2 ) A proposed connection charge, termination liability, or any other facilities charge to be paid by the Federal Government will be reduced or eliminated; or
( 3 ) The utility service supplier refuses to render the desired service except under a contract exceeding a 1-year period.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

About EDOVERVIEW
|                                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Home |
|                                                   |

                - Letter to Governors Announcing Winners  [ PDF , 40K]
                - Summary Chart of Scores  [ MS Word ,  181K]
                - State Data Workbook  [ Ms Excel , 86Kl]
                - Biographies of Peer Reviewers  [ MS Word , 207K]
                - List of High-Need Communities & Subgrantees (updated 9/25/2015)  [ PDF , 201K]

 Amendments: 

### 

| **State** | **Amendments** | Arizona | Amendments 12/09/2015 PDF |
|-----------|----------------|---------|---------------------------|
**Exhibit31.1**

 

I, Scott A. Montgomery, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 10-KSB of National Mercantile Bancorp;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The small businessissuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

 

(a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

 (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the smallbusiness issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.  The smallbusiness issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thesmall business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date:  | March 31,  2005 |   | /s/  SCOTT A. MONTGOMERY |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | Scott A. Montgomery       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer   |

 

----
#### Stanley Kwasniak, administrator, appellee, v. Samuel Gratch et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 30,567.

Action for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Michael L. McKinley, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1925.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed June 14, 1926.

Rehearing denied June 29, 1926.

Lester L. Bauer and Busby, Weber, Miller & Donovan, for appellants; Walter I. Deffenbaugh, of counsel.

Gallagher, Shulman, Abrams & Henry, for appellee; Vincent G. Gallagher and Maurice H. Daniels, of counsel.

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
' F--6ffli-#( 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 24-0176 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: 

VIRGINIA E. UPCHURCH, 

 Petitioner and Appellee, 

 and 

JOHANNES C. UPCHURCH, 

 Respondent and Appellant. 

SECOND ORDER 

OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

 Quentin Rhoades the mediator previously appointed in this matter, has been replaced. 

Accordingly, Quentin Rhoades’s order of mediator appointment is hereby rescinded and 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT Cory R. Gangle whose name appears next on the list of 

attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Domestic Relations appeals which is 

maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediation 

process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) 

shall run from the date of this order of appointment. 

 A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to the 

parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. 

 DATED this 10th day of April 2024. 

 Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court 

 

 c: William Lower, Megan S. Winderl, Cory R. Gangle 

04/10/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0176
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert Livingston, Appellant.

—Judgment of conviction for the crime of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law, § 403) based upon a verdict after a jury trial unanimously affirmed. The sworn testimony does not establish that defendant was deprived of his right to counsel. The uneontradieted evidence is that his interrogation ceased when he asked for counsel. Consequently, the rule in *People*v. *Donovan*(13 N Y 2d 148) does not apply. Nor does that stated in *Escobedo*v. *Illinois*(378 TJ. S. 478). Nor may defendant, as he purports to do in his reply brief, raise the newly derived constitutional requirement with respect to the submission of the voluntariness of confessions to a separate tribunal from that which determines the merits of the ease *(Jackson*v. *Dewno,*378 U. S. 368). There was no claim of coercion with respect to the confessions in this case and on summation defendant expressly disavowed that as an issue. On the merits the court is satisfied that the proof establishes defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The insufficiently explained possession of the stolen camera, buttressed by the confessions, was adequate to establish guilt. Concur —- Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.