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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1095 

Commemorating the one-year anniversary of the November 9, 2005, terrorist 

attacks in Amman, Jordan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2006 

Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. ISSA, Mr. BURTON of 

Indiana, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. MEEKS of New 

York, Mr. PENCE, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. MCHENRY, Ms. FOXX, Mr. 

TIAHRT, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. TERRY, Mr. CARTER, Mr. LINDER, Mr. 

PITTS, Mrs. KELLY, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. SNYDER, Mr. ROSS, Mr. 

WEXLER, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, 

Mr. BOREN, and Mr. CROWLEY) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on International Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the one-year anniversary of the November 

9, 2005, terrorist attacks in Amman, Jordan. 

Whereas on November 9, 2005, a series of terrorist bombs 

exploded at the Radisson, Hyatt, and Days Inn hotels in 

Amman, Jordan, resulting in the deaths of scores of civilians and the injuries of hundreds of others; 

Whereas Jordan has been targeted in several terrorist attacks 

over the past few years and likely remains a target for 

Islamic extremists; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1095 IH 

Whereas Jordan provided unequivocal support to the United 

States after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; 

Whereas Jordan has arrested suspected terrorists with possible ties to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda organization 

and has provided other critical support to the global war 

on terrorism; and 

Whereas Jordan remains a firm ally of the United 

States in the global war against terrorism and in helping 

to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) notes with sorrow the one-year anniversary 

3 of the November 9, 2005, terrorist attacks in 

4 Amman, Jordan; 

5 (2) condemns in the strongest possible terms 

6 the November 9, 2005, terrorist attacks; 

7 (3) expresses its ongoing condolences to the 

8 families and friends of those individuals who were 

9 killed in the attacks and its sympathies to those in10 dividuals who were injured; 

11 (4) reiterates its support of the Jordanian peo12 ple and its government; 

13 (5) values the strong and lasting friendship 

14 between Jordan and the United States and the 

15 continuing cooperation of the two nations in polit16 ical, economic, and humanitarian endeavors; and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1095 IH 

1 (6) expresses its readiness to support and assist 

2 the Jordanian authorities in their efforts to pursue, 

3 disrupt, undermine, and dismantle the networks that 

4 plan and carry out such terrorist attacks as the No5 vember 9, 2005, terrorist attacks in Amman, Jor6 dan. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         9
<LEGEND>
         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
         OUR SEPTEMBER 2000 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
         REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,680
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,376
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     43,979
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          15,411
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            15,335
<LOANS>                                        110,497
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,131
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 183,783
<DEPOSITS>                                     152,652
<SHORT-TERM>                                    11,585
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,060
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,998
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,916
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  18,486
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,321
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  887
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    33
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,241
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,393
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,577
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,664
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,097
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    808
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         808
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       620
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.40
<LOANS-NON>                                        160
<LOANS-PAST>                                       280
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   105
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,092
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       38
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,131
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,131
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Frank Slimack, Respondent, v. Vincent L. Tofany, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The denial by the Hearing Referee of the motion by petitioner’s attorney to dismiss the charge that petitioner refused to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood, by reason of a Deputy Sheriff’s failure to appear on the first hearing date, and the Referee’s adjournment of the matter to a later date, did not constitute an abuse of discretion and his rulings were not arbitrary and capricious. (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Special Term annulling determination of Commissioner which revoked operator’s license.) Present—'Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Gabrielli, Moule and Henry, JJ.
Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 2 of 8
Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 3 of 8
Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 4 of 8
Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 5 of 8
Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 6 of 8
Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 8 of 8
#### § 986.26 Inter-handler transfer.

*Inter-handler transfer* means the movement of inshell pecans from one handler to another inside the production area for the purposes of additional handling. Any assessments or requirements under this part with respect to inshell pecans so transferred may be assumed by the receiving handler.
§ 948.85 Proceedings after termination. ( a ) Upon the termination of the provisions of this subpart the then functioning members of each area committee shall continue as joint trustees for the purpose of liquidating the affairs of their respective area committee of all funds and property then in the possession of or under control of the committee, including claims for any funds unpaid or property not delivered at the time of such termination. Action by said trusteeship shall require the concurrence of a majority of the said trustees.
( b ) The said trustees shall continue in such capacity until discharged by the Secretary; shall from time to time account for all receipts and disbursements and deliver all property on hand, together with all books and records of said committees and of the trustees, to such person as the Secretary may direct; and shall upon the request of the Secretary, execute such assignments or other instruments necessary or appropriate to vest in such person full title and right to all of the funds, property, and claims vested in said committee or the trustees pursuant to this subpart.
( c ) Any person to whom funds, property, or claims have been transferred or delivered by an area committee or its members pursuant to this section shall be subject to the same obligations imposed upon the members of such committees and upon the said trustees.
1

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by

assignment.

NO. 07-02-0470-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

NOVEMBER 19, 2002

______________________________

INDYMAC MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC., F/K/A

INDEPENDENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION, APPELLANT

V.

BESSIE BOCKMAN AND CARL RAY SCHRAM, APPELLEES

_________________________________

FROM THE 221ST DISTRICT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY;

NO. 00-05-03161-CV; HONORABLE SUZANNE STOVALL, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.1

Appellant Indymac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Independent National Mortgage

Corporation filed an unopposed Motion to Dismiss on November 13, 2002, averring that

it no longer wished to prosecute this appeal.
2

Without passing on the merits of the case, the appellant’s motion for dismissal is

granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. All costs having been

paid, no order pertaining to the costs is made. Having dismissed the appeal at the

appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue

forthwith. 

Phil Johnson

 Justice

Do not publish.
SUBCHAPTER B - COMPETITION AND

ACQUISITION PLANNING

PART 2405 - PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS

PART 2406 - COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS

PART 2407 - ACQUISITION PLANNING

PART 2408 - REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

PART 2409 - CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

PART 2411 [RESERVED]

PART 2405 - PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS

Subpart 2405.2 - Synopses of Proposed Contract Actions

2405.202 Exceptions.

Subpart 2405.5 - Paid Advertisements

2405.502 Authority.

PART 2406 - COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS

Subpart 2406.2 - Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources

2406.202 Establishing or maintaining alternative sources.

Subpart 2406.3 - Other Than Full and Open Competition

2406.302-2 Unusual and compelling urgency.

2406.303 Justifications.

2406.304 Approval of the justification.

Subpart 2406.5 - Competition Advocates

2406.501 Requirement.

PART 2407 - ACQUISITION PLANNING

Subpart 2407.1 - Acquisition Plans

2407.102 Policy.

PART 2408 - REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

Subpart 2408.4 - Federal Supply Schedules

2408.404 Pricing.

2408.405-6 Limiting sources.

Subpart 2408.8 - Acquisition of Printing and Related Supplies

2408.802-70 Contract clause.

PART 2409 - CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

Subpart 2409.1 - Responsible Prospective Contractors

2409.105 Procedures.

Subpart 2409.4 - Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility

2409.405 Effect of listing.

2409.407-1 General.

§ 2409.470 HUD regulations on debarment, suspension, and ineligibility.

Subpart 2409.5 - Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest

2409.503 Waiver.

2409.507 Solicitation provisions and contract clause.

2409.507-1 Solicitation provisions.

2409.507-2 Contract clauses.

PART 2411 [RESERVED]
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-13-00271-CV

Style: Gregory Tyrone Johnson

v. Howard Reiner, Successor Administrator, Dorothy Johnson, and Larry Johnson

Date motion filed*: July 22, 2013

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file reporter’s record

Party filing motion: Court reporter

Document to be filed: Reporter’s record

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: April 25, 2013

Number of previous extensions granted: 0 Current Due date: April 25, 2013

Date Requested: July 29, 2013

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: July 29, 2013

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge's signature: /s/ Jim Sharp

 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: August 1, 2013
#### § 14.37 Final denial of claim.

The NRC shall send notice of a final denial of a claim in writing to the claimant, his or her attorney or legal representative, by certified or registered mail. The notification of final denial may include a statement of the reasons for the denial. The NRC shall include a statement in the notification of final denial that, if the claimant is dissatisfied with NRC's action, he or she may file suit in an appropriate U.S. District Court not later than 6 months after the date of mailing of the notification.
PROB 22 DOCKET NUMBER (Tran. Court)

(Rev. 2/88) 2:06CR206-OO1-MHT

TRANSF3Fr.Jf.IL5)ICTION DOCKET NUMBER (Rec. Court)

NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROBATIONFjJPVISED RELEASEE DISTRICT DIVISION

LUWJ JUL (L P 2: 5q Middle Alabama Northern

NAME OF SENTENCNG JUDGE

Alethia Adrianne Scott The Honorable Myron H. Thompson

DATES OF PROBATION! FROM TO

SUPERVISED RELEASE

01/02/2008 01/01/2011

OFFENSE

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, 18 § U.S.C. 371

PART I- ORDER TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Middle DISTRICT OF Alabama

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3605, the jurisdiction of the probationer

or supervised releasee named above be transferred with the records of this Court to the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Alabama upon that Court's order

of acceptance ofjurisdiction. This Court hereby expressly consents that the period of probation or

supervised release may be changed by the District Court to which this transfer is made without further

inquiry of this court.*

s/ij 2 _________________

Date Un tied' States District Judj.—..

*This sentence may be deleted in the discretion of the transferring Court.

PART 2-ORDER ACCEPTING JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Southern DISTRICT OF Alabama

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that jurisdiction over the above-named probationer/supervised

releasee be accepted and assumed by this Court from and after the entry of this order.

C- 3—o _______ V

Effective Date United tes District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 81 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian Andrews, Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 314]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Dickerson, J.), rendered January 28, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that his sentence was imposed in violation of CPL 400.21. However, because the defendant is not adversely affected by the illegality of the sentence, and the People have not cross-appealed, modification or vacatur of the judgment or sentence is not warranted on this ground *(see People v Alvarez,*166 AD2d 603 [1990]; *People v Pratt,*119 AD2d 839 [1986]; CPL 470.15 [1]; *see also People v Gray,*181 AD2d 831 [1992]; *People v Coffey,*124 AD2d 814 [1986]).

The defendant’s remaining contention concerns matter which is dehors the record and may not be reached on direct appeal *(see People v Reels,*17 AD3d 488 [2005]). Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Lunn and Dillon, JJ., concur.
Attachment 1
<PAGE>

Exhibit 3(e)


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION            [STAMP]
                                       OF
                          ENCORE COMPUTER CORPORATION

         ENCORE COMPUTER CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the General Corporation Laws of the State of Delaware,

         DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         FIRST:   That Article FOURTH of the Certificate of Incorporation be and
it hereby is amended to read as follows:

         FOURTH:  The total number of shares of stock which the corporation
                  shall have the authority to issue is 40,000,000, of which
                  30,000,000 shares shall be Common Stock, $.01 par value, and
                  10,000,000 shares shall be Preferred Stock, $.01 par value.
                  The Preferred Stock may be divided into, and may be issued
                  from time to time in, one or more series. The board of
                  directors is authorized from time to time to establish and
                  designate one or more series of Preferred Stock, to fix and
                  determine the variations in the relative rights and preference
                  as between the different series, and to fix and alter the
                  number of shares comprising any such series and the
                  designation thereof.

         SECOND:  That the amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said ENCORE COMPUTER CORPORATION has caused this
certificate to be signed by a Vice President, as of the 1 day of April, 1984,
and attested by its Assistant Secretary.


                                       ENCORE COMPUTER CORPORATION


                                       By  /s/ Henry Burkhardt
                                          -------------------------------
                                          Vice President, Henry Burkhardt


ATTESTED:


/s/ Cameron Read
----------------------------------
Assistant Secretary, Cameron Read
**ORDER**

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 3

- 0 327 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. STEVEN ERIC WALKS ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension

o f time to and including October 3 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve his opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 26 2024

08/26/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0327
#### Richard M. Tuthill et al., Respondents, v. City of Rochester et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: The complaint fails to allege facts to support any cause of action against defendants. Plaintiffs were residents of the Point Pleasant Fire District which had contracted with the City of Rochester for relaying calls for fire assistance, to the district’s fire department. Plaintiffs’ home was destroyed by fire and they charge negligence because of the failure of the city (and its agents) to have personnel present to handle the distress call and, further, because it failed to establish safety regulations for use of the relay system. The contract between the city and Fire District created no especial duty nor benefit running to plaintiffs individually and at best was for the benefit of the general public. Here, as in *Moch Co.*v. *Rensselaer Water Co.*(247 N. Y. 160) plaintiffs have not shown that their benefit under the contract is either primary or immediate. Under these circumstances there is no liability to plaintiffs. (See *Riss*v. *City of New York,*22 N Y 2d 579; *Motyka*v. *City of Amsterdam,*15 N Y 2d 134; *Steitz*v. *City of Beacon,*295 N. Y. 51.) Reliance on section 209-p of the General Municipal Law to establish a basis for tort responsibility is unavailing, since the section creates neither a new duty nor liability any greater than existed under common law. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying motion to dismiss complaint.) Present—Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Gabrielli, Moule and Henry, JJ. [57 Misc 2d 94.]
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 20-5212 September Term, 2020

1:20-cv-01477-UNA

Filed On: March 3, 2021

Leon Snipes,

Appellant

v.

Tanya S. Chutkan, District of Columbia

District Court Judge, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Tatel and Millett, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion for

reconsideration, it is

ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June

16, 2020, be affirmed. The district court properly concluded that the complaint was

frivolous, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989) (“[A] complaint . . . is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

fact.”); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“An in forma pauperis

complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous . . . if it is clear from the face of the

pleading that the named defendant is absolutely immune from suit on the claims

asserted.”), and that the court lacked authority to review decisions of other federal

courts, see 28 U.S.C. § 1294(1). Furthermore, appellant has not demonstrated that the

district court abused its discretion in denying his motions for appointment of counsel

and for a preliminary injunction. See In re Navy Chaplaincy, 697 F.3d 1171, 1178 (D.C.

Cir. 2012) (district court’s ultimate decision to deny preliminary injunctive relief is

reviewed for abuse of discretion); Gaviria v. Reynolds,
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 20-5212 September Term, 2020

476 F.3d 940, 943 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (district court’s decision denying appointment of

counsel is reviewed for abuse of discretion). 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
1631.205-82 Audits.       Carriers should ensure that the public accounting firms with which they contract for audits of FEHB accounts are registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1631.2—Contracts With Commercial Organizations