alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rudolph Meter, Respondent-Appellant, v. Edward A. Kimmel et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the Name of K. F. J. Realty Co., Appellants-Respondents.

Order, entered June 24, 1963, and judgment entered thereon, unanimously reversed and vacated on the law, with costs to defendants, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied, defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment granted, and plaintiff’s complaint dismissed, with costs. It is conceded that the plaintiff, as a statutory tenant of premises subject to the Emergency Business Space Rent Control Law (L. 1945, ch. 314, as amd.), and the landlord entered into a decontrol lease of the premises, dated June 7, 1957, for the .term of one year beginning July 1, 1957, and ending June 30, 1958. Said lease was offered and entered into pursuant to and fully in conformity with the provisions of subdivision (gg) of section 8 of said law (as amd. by L. 1956, eh. 735) and thereby the premises became decontrolled subject, however, to the terms of the lease. Upon compliance with the statutory provisions and the tenant having been afforded the full measure of protection contemplated thereby, namely, a tenancy for a year at the emergency rent, the parties, relieved from statutory restrictions, were entitled to negotiate and contract freely for a lease for an extended term and with respect to the terms and conditions thereof. There is nothing in the letter or the spirit of the statute to prevent the tenant from voluntarily contracting -for a new lease for an extended term to commence prior to the expiration of the tenancy fixed by the decontrol lease. Here, the new lease voluntarily entered into on May 1, 1958, at an increased rental to commence on said date, was valid and fully effective, at least insofar as it established a rent for the period subsequent to the expiration of the tenancy under the decontrol lease. Therefore, this action by the tenant is not maintainable to recover the portion of such rent which exceeded the alleged emergency rent. (See *Batman*v. *Kalmor Builders,*285 App. Div. 956.) And, if a cause of action did exist to recover excess rental paid for the months of May and June, 1958, the same is barred hy the one-year Statute of Limitations. (See Emergency Business Space Rent Control Law, § 11.) Concur - — ■ Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John W. Thomas, Appellant.

Motion by the respondent to dismiss appeal from a judgment of conviction rendered January 25, 1963 upon appellant’s plea of guilty. Motion granted; appeal dismissed on the ground that no timely notice of appeal was filed. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.12.1

        AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT DATED AS OF JULY 19, 1994
         BETWEEN NAZARETH NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. AND ARTHUR WILLIAMS

     Reference is made to a Severance Agreement dated as of July 19, 1994 by and
between Nazareth National Bank and Trust Co. and Arthur Williams (the "Severance
Agreement").  Section 1 of the Severance  Agreement  provides that the Severance
Agreement  will continue  until the earliest of certain dates set forth therein,
and clause (e) of Section 1 states as follows:

     "(e) three years from the date hereof."

     Clause (e) of Section 1 of the  Severance  Agreement  is hereby  amended to
read in full as follows:

     "(e) December 31, 2000."

     In all other respects the Severance  Agreement shall continue in full force
and effect. The parties intend to be legally bound hereby.


                                          NAZARETH NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO.

         (Corporate Seal)
                                          BY:        /s/ S. Eric Beattie

                                          ATTEST:   /s/ Judith S. Files

Witness:


/s/ Judith S. Files                       /s/ Arthur Williams          (Seal)
                                          ARTHUR WILLIAMS
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50640

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Ignacio Trevizo-Cortez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CR-517-1

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Ignacio Trevizo-Cortez appeals his conviction and sentence for 

reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). 

Trevizo-Cortez argues that treating a prior conviction that increases the 

statutory maximum under § 1326(b)(2) as a sentencing factor, rather than as 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 11, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50640 Document: 00516199796 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2022
No. 21-50640

2

an element of the offense, violates the Constitution and rendered his guilty 

plea unknowing and involuntary. He correctly concedes that his argument is 

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he 

wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has moved without 

opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time 

to file its brief.

As the Government asserts and as Trevizo-Cortez concedes, the sole 

issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States 

v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v. Wallace, 759 

F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014). Because the Government’s position “is clearly 

right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the 

outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 

(5th Cir. 1969), summary affirmance is proper.

Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and 

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s 

alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED.

Case: 21-50640 Document: 00516199796 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2022
IA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 185 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange 

Commission relating to ‘‘Regulation S–P: Privacy of Consumer Financial 

Information and Safeguarding Customer Information’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 11, 2024 

Mr. PALMER submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Financial Services 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to 

‘‘Regulation S–P: Privacy of Consumer Financial Information and Safeguarding Customer Information’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Se4 curities and Exchange Commission relating to ‘‘Regula5 tion S–P: Privacy of Consumer Financial Information and 

6 Safeguarding Consumer Information’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 185 IH 

1 47688; published June 3, 2024), and such rule shall have 

2 no force or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
IA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 121 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection relating to ‘‘Credit Card Penalty Fees (Regulation Z)’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2024 

Mr. OGLES submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating 

to ‘‘Credit Card Penalty Fees (Regulation Z)’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bu4 reau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ‘‘Credit 

5 Card Penalty Fees (Regulation Z)’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 19128; 

6 published March 15, 2024), and such rule shall have no 

7 force or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 116 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 116

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
 relating to ``Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under 
                    the Fair Labor Standards Act''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2024

  Mr. Kiley (for himself, Ms. Foxx, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Davidson, Mrs. 
Steel, Mr. Moolenaar, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Issa, Mr. Cloud, Mrs. Hinson, Mr. 
  Allen, Mr. Gooden of Texas, Mr. Perry, Mr. Obernolte, Mr. Smith of 
 Nebraska, Mr. Hill, Mr. Ogles, Ms. Letlow, Mr. Donalds, Mr. Mann, Mr. 
  Ferguson, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Flood, Mrs. 
Miller of Illinois, Mr. Loudermilk, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Rouzer, 
 Mr. Estes, Mr. Cline, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mr. Grothman, Mrs. Kim of 
 California, Mr. Dunn of Florida, Mr. Owens, Mrs. Lesko, Mr. Self, Mr. 
    Guthrie, Mr. Kean of New Jersey, Mrs. McClain, Mr. Thompson of 
  Pennsylvania, Mr. Bean of Florida, Mr. Fulcher, Mr. Williams of New 
York, Mr. Babin, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Burlison, Mr. Moran, Mr. Norman, Ms. 
   Tenney, Mr. Womack, Mr. Timmons, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. 
  Williams of Texas, and Mr. Rosendale) submitted the following joint 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
 relating to ``Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under 
                    the Fair Labor Standards Act''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to ``Employee or 
Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards 
Act'' (89 Fed. Reg. 1638 (January 10, 2024)), and such rule shall have 
no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131449 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131449 

 COA: 269270 

Roscommon CC: 05-005058-FH;

05-005059-FH 

DONALD RAY SWANIGAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 4, 2006 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would remand this case to the trial court for a hearing. 

p1122 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 30, 2006 

 Clerk
# C_2020166EN.01000101.xml

| 14.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

13 May 2020

(2020/C 166/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0875 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 116,28 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4556 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88245 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5843 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0528 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 158,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,9380 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,408 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 353,58 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5636 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8353 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 7,5861 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6687 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5243 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4286 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7983 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5380 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 331,08 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 19,9190 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7102 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5705 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 092,26 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7040 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,545 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 79,5893 |
| THB | Thai baht | 34,844 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,3606 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 26,2304 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,8825 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0875

JPY

Japanese yen

116,28

DKK

Danish krone

7,4556

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88245

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5843

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0528

ISK

Iceland króna

158,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,9380

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,408

HUF

Hungarian forint

353,58

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5636

RON

Romanian leu

4,8353

TRY

Turkish lira

7,5861

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6687

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5243

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4286

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7983

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5380

KRW

South Korean won

1 331,08

ZAR

South African rand

19,9190

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7102

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5705

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 092,26

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7040

PHP

Philippine peso

54,545

RUB

Russian rouble

79,5893

THB

Thai baht

34,844

BRL

Brazilian real

6,3606

MXN

Mexican peso

26,2304

INR

Indian rupee

81,8825

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LARRY BANKS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 4999

)

CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Although multiple filer Larry Banks ("Banks") seeks in forma pauperis status in

connection with this putative 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") lawsuit, he has not complied

with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) that require him to provide a certified copy of his

trust fund account statements for the six-month period that preceded the filing of his Complaint. 

That makes it impossible for this Court to determine whether he is enabled to pay the $350 filing

fee in installments or is required instead to pay that fee up front.

Because Banks has failed to date the Complaint (which has been submitted on the form

made available by this District Court's Clerk Office for use by persons in custody), the precise

six-month period called for by the statute cannot be determined – Banks' In Forma Pauperis

Application ("Application") contains a certificate from the authorized officer at Pinckneyville

Correctional Center ("Pinckneyville," where Banks is in custody) that was dated on June 8, 2012,

but the Complaint and Application were not received in the Clerk's Office here until June 22.1

 That latter date is of course inapplicable because of the "mailbox rule." 1
Accordingly, this Court will accept a submission that covers either the six months ended June 8

or the six month period ended on a date shortly before June 22. 

It should be noted that the Pinckneyville certificate states that Banks has been at that

institution only since May 17, 2012, so that the major part of the six-month period should be

covered by a statement from the institution or institutions where Banks was previously in custody

(whether the Cook County Jail or elsewhere). If Banks fails to provide the requested information

on or before July 17, 2012, the Application will be denied and Banks will have until July 27,

2012 to pay the $350 filing fee, failing which the Complaint and this action will be dismissed.2

_________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 26, 2012.

 Incidentally, the "Chicago Police Department" is not a suable entity and should be 2

dropped if this lawsuit goes ahead. By the same token, nothing in the Complaint implicates

Police Superintendent Gary McCarthy personally, so that he too should be dropped if the lawsuit

proceeds.

- 2 -
IA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 198 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Treasury 

relating to ‘‘Gross Proceeds and Basis Reporting by Brokers and Determination of Amount Realized and Basis for Digital Asset Transactions’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 2, 2024 

Mr. PALMER submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Department of the Treasury relating to ‘‘Gross Proceeds and Basis Reporting by Brokers and Determination of Amount Realized and Basis for Digital Asset 

Transactions’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of the Treasury relating to ‘‘Gross Proceeds and 

5 Basis Reporting by Brokers and Determination of Amount 

6 Realized and Basis for Digital Asset Transactions’’ (89 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HJ 198 IH 

1 Fed. Reg. 56480 (July 9, 2024)), and such rule shall have 

2 no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2017302EN.01000101.xml

| 13.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 September 2017

(2017/C 302/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1933 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,93 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4400 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89878 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5355 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1444 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3593 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,105 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 307,11 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2549 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6018 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,0948 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4847 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4477 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3235 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6343 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6074 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 346,05 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,4800 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8024 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4513 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 751,56 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0120 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,765 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,3844 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,522 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,7117 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,1297 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 76,4385 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1933

JPY

Japanese yen

130,93

DKK

Danish krone

7,4400

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89878

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5355

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1444

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3593

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,105

HUF

Hungarian forint

307,11

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2549

RON

Romanian leu

4,6018

TRY

Turkish lira

4,0948

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4847

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4477

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3235

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6343

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6074

KRW

South Korean won

1 346,05

ZAR

South African rand

15,4800

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8024

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4513

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 751,56

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0120

PHP

Philippine peso

60,765

RUB

Russian rouble

68,3844

THB

Thai baht

39,522

BRL

Brazilian real

3,7117

MXN

Mexican peso

21,1297

INR

Indian rupee

76,4385

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Exhibit
      32.2








SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION


AMEREN
      ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY


(required
      by Section 906 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002)








In
      connection with the report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
      31, 2006 of Ameren Energy Generating Company (the “Registrant”) as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
      10-Q"), each undersigned officer of the Registrant does hereby certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that:





(1)
            The
                Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                15(d)
                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
                and





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








Dated:
      May 10, 2006














/s/
      R.
      Alan
      Kelley


R.
      Alan
      Kelley


President


(Principal
      Executive Officer)














/s/
      Warner L.
      Baxter


Warner
      L.
      Baxter


Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)