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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 110 

For the relief of Robert Liang and Alice Liang. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Robert Liang and Alice Liang. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law or any order, for the purposes of the Immigra6 tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Robert 

7 Liang and Alice Liang shall be deemed to have been law8 fully admitted to, and remained in, the United States, and 

9 shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for 

10 adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigra11 tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255). 
2 

•S 110 IS

1 (b) APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Sub2 section (a) shall apply only if the applications for issuance 

3 of immigrant visas or the applications for adjustment of 

4 status are filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after 

5 the date of enactment of this Act. 

6 (c) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

7 Upon the granting of immigrant visas to Robert Liang 

8 and Alice Liang, the Secretary of State shall instruct the 

9 proper officer to reduce by 2, during the current or subse10 quent fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that 

11 are made available to natives of the country of the aliens’ 

12 birth under section 202(e) or 203(a) of the Immigration 

13 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e), 1153(a)), as appli14 cable. 

Æ
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

370 

KA 10-01055 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

RONNIE A. KOONCE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (MARY-JEAN BOWMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S.

Sperrazza, J.), rendered March 22, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a

controlled substance in the fifth degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

(see People v Griffin, 239 AD2d 936).

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 8377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3595]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]


Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an 
amendment to the notice of a meeting of the Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs 
Advisory Committee. This meeting was announced in the Federal Register 
of February 2, 2010 (75 FR 5334). The amendment is being made to 
reflect a change in the Name of Committee portion of the document. 
There are no other changes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Kristine T. Khuc, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 
Fishers Lane (for express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093), 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7001, FAX: 301-827-6776, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d79ca5bea4a3beb9b2f99cbfa2b497b1b3b6f9bfbfa4f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="48033a213b3c21262d6603203d2b082e2c296620203b662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 
1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington DC area), code 
3014512545. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information 
on this meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of February 2, 2010, 
FDA announced that a meeting of the Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory 
Committee would be held on March 10 and 11, 2010. On page 5334, in the 
second column, the Name of Committee portion of the document is changed 
to read as follows:
    Name of Committees: Joint Meeting of the Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs 
Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory 
Committee.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.

    Dated: February 18, 2010.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-3595 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
(logo)WELLS FARGO BANK



                  ANNUAL CERTIFICATION FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1995



Dear Investor:

This is to certify the  following  items with  respect to real  estate  loans we
service on your behalf.

* We   have  complied  with  all applicable provisions of the executed servicing
  agreement and/or servicing guidelines.

* Servicing is in compliance with  applicable  state and federal laws, HUD or VA
  regulations, and        all    the   terms   of    the    loan      documents.

* Taxes,  mortgage  insurance,  flood  and/or  hazard  insurance and assessments
  have been  paid,  if  applicable,  by Wells  Fargo Bank as required  by escrow
  agreements and regulations.  Payment of taxes and insurance by  borrowers,  if
  applicable,   is  tracked  and  verified  using  normal  industry  methods and
  standards.

* Insurance   policies   are   in   possession   of  Wells  Fargo  Bank,  or its
  authorized  insurance  vendor, as required   by  the  terms  of  our  mortgage
  impairment coverage.

* ARM   rate  and   payment  changes  are  made  according  to  contractual  and
  regulatory requirements,  and payment change notices sent  as required by law.
  An  ongoing  audit  process  ensures the integrity of our on-line information.

* Interest  is paid on escrow  funds in  compliance  with all  federal and state
  laws, regulations, and contracts.

* Loan  documents are held in our vault,  at 401 West 24th Street,  National
  City, California, 91950,  or by a document  custodian  pursuant to  applicable
  servicing contracts.

* All  IRS  information   returns,  including  IRS Forms, 1098 Mortgage Interest
  Statement,  and 1099-A  Acquisition or Abandonment  are filed  pursuant to IRS
  regulations.

Certified by: /s/William J. McClung
              William J. McClung, Senior Vice President
              Loan Servicing Manager, Mortgager, Mortgage Lending Servicing

(word\h:\word\certific)




                   P.O. Box 85071  San Diego, CA 92186-5071



LS35
**U.S. Department      of Justice**
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7199 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7199

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at S74w16860 Janesville Road, in Muskego, Wisconsin, as the ``Colonel 
                   Hans Christian Heg Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COLONEL HANS CHRISTIAN HEG POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located S74w16860 Janesville Road in Muskego, Wisconsin, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Colonel Hans Christian Heg Post Office''.
    (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 ``Colonel 
Hans Christian Heg Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 7199

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at S74w16860 Janesville Road, in Muskego, Wisconsin, as the ``Colonel 
                   Hans Christian Heg Post Office''.
```
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: July 2, 2015 519994

________________________________ In the Matter of the Claim of HENRY BELLO, Appellant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: May 5, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________ Law Offices of David Wims, New York City (David C. Wims of counsel), for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Linda D. Joseph of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 3, 2014, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Decision affirmed. No opinion. Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.-2- 519994

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
#### Haas v. Mench

*Morris Efron,*for plaintiff.

*Milton Lowy,*for defendant.

February 26, 1951.

Henninger, P. J.,

Plaintiff, an attorney at law, sued defendant for $3,500 for services rendered as counsel in a divorce proceeding a mensa et thoro, instituted against defendant. The complaint avers his being retained, diligent service for 20 months, protracted litigation involving hearings, depositions, petitions and arguments, preparation of briefs, review of cases, numerous lengthy telephone calls and conferences resulting in a final decree in divorce a vinculo matrimonii, ostensibly a totally lost cause, but a defeat cherished by defendant.

Defendant filed preliminary objections: (1) Complaint is indefinite, vague and lacking in particularity; (2) lump sum claim; (3) no book entries; (4) success of litigation due to other lawyer’s efforts.

The fourth objection as above summarized is an answer on the merits and not the subject of preliminary objection.

The first three types of preliminary objections can be considered together and their answer depends upon the nature of a lawyer’s claim for compensation. Is it for the total of individual items, each separately charged, or is it one charge for a service that involved many intermediate acts on the attorney’s part?

*432Attorneys’ fees are not determined by specific charges for particular acts done in the effort to produce a result desired by the client. The factors have been frequently pronounced by our courts, more recently in Robbins v. Weinstein, 143 Pa. Superior Ct. 307, 314, cited with approval in Huffman Estate (No. 3), 349 Pa. 59, 64:

> “In the absence of a special agreement, an attorney is entitled to be paid the reasonable value of his services. In addition to the labor and time involved, other factors must be taken into consideration, such as the character of services rendered, the importance of the litigation, the skill necessary, the standing of the attorney, the benefit to be derived from the services rendered, and the ability of the client to pay, as well as the amount of money involved.”

It is clear, therefore, that the sum claimed is plaintiff’s evaluation of the quantum meruit for his total service to defendant and not a lump sum at all, that there need be no such thing as book entries since there is no specific charge for the several services supporting only a few of the elements involved and that there is no vagueness or lack of particularity in failing to itemize those intermediary services.

Plaintiff’s claim will not be higher or lower for a few more or less telephone calls or hours spent on defendant’s case and, therefore, while the relative amount of such services is a factor in determining a fee, the exact amount is not.

Now, February 26, 1951, defendant’s preliminary objections to plaintiff’s complaint are dismissed and defendant ordered to answer upon the merits within 20 days after service of this order on him or his counsel, or suffer judgment to be taken against him.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ANTOINE MARC FRAZIER, a/k/a Hog, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:03-cr-00658-TLW)
Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antoine Marc Frazier, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Antoine Marc Frazier appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Frazier argues that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 706 of the Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual (“USSG”) § 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008); USSG App. C Amend. 706. As we recently observed, “Amendment 706 . . . amended § 2D1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines by reducing the offense levels associated with crack cocaine quantities by two
levels.” United States v. Hood , 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir. 2009). “Because [Frazier’s] 240-month Guidelines sentence was based on a statutory minimum and USSG § 5G1.1(b), it was not
based on a sentencing range lowered by Amendment 706 . . . .”
Id. at 233. The fact that the district court reduced Frazier’s sentence for substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 is irrelevant to the applicability of Amendment 706. Hood , 556 F.3d at 234. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 23**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the following RegistrationStatements:

 

(1)          Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-21489),pertaining to the 1995 Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors,

(2)          Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-21491),pertaining to the 1995 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan, and

(3)          Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-111618),pertaining to the 1999 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan;

 

ofour reports dated March 18, 2010, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of Systemax Inc., and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting of Systemax Inc. included in thisAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009.

 

 

/s/Ernst & Young LLP

NewYork, New York

March 18,2010

 

----
Exhibit 31.1



FORM 10-KSB CERTIFICATION



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANE-OXLEY ACT.





|I, James R. Arabia, certify that:
|---------------------------------
|                                 
|1.                               
|                                 
|2.                               
|                                 
|3.                               
|                                 
|4.                               
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|5.                               
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|Date:  October 12, 2006          
|
Dismissed and Opinion Filed May 29, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-01428-CV CHAD BROZOVICH, Appellant V. GLEN A. BELLINGER, Appellee On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-12052 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION NUNC PRO TUNC Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Francis The clerk’s record in this case is over due. By letter dated December 3, 2014, we informed appellant that the Dalla s County District Clerk notified th e Court that the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide verifi cation of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or to provide written documenta tion that he had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellan t that if appellant did not file the required documentation within ten days, we might dismiss the appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not provided the required documentation or otherw ise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the clerk’s record.–2– Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b).

141428F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC
CHAD BROZOVICH, Appellant
No. 05-14-01428-CV V. GLEN A. BELLINGER, Appellee On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-12052. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. Justices Lang-Miers and Whitehill participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion nunc pro tunc of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee GLEN A. BELLINGER r ecover his costs of this appeal from appellant CHAD BROZOVICH.
Judgment entered May 29, 2015.
Editorial Note on Part 17
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 68 FR 24879, May 9, 2003, and at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 17.13 Notice of hearing. After an answer has been filed, the Center shall serve a notice of hearing on the respondent. Such notice shall include: ( a ) The date, time, and place of a prehearing conference, if any, or the date, time, and place of the hearing if there is not to be a prehearing conference;
( b ) The nature of the hearing and the legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held;
( c ) A description of the procedures for the conduct of the hearing;
( d ) The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the representatives of the government and of the respondent, if any; and
( e ) Such other matters as the Center or the presiding officer deems appropriate.
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF GEORGE WENGER, FORMERLY AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW OF THIS STATE, FOR REINSTATEMENT.

Argued May 2, 1939

Decided June 3, 1939.

Before Justices Case and Heher.

For the applicant, *Peter J. McGinnis.*

Per Curiam.

The applicant was disbarred January 20th, 1930. He applies for reinstatement or, in the alternative, to be permitted to take the examination for license as an attorney. There have previously been two similar applications, both of which were denied. The matter has been considered by the entire court with the result that the court is unanimously of the opinion that this application also should be denied. That will be the order.
Exhibit 31.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John C. Kleinert, Chief Executive Officer of Velocity Asset Management, Inc.
(the "Company") do hereby certify that:

         1.       I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A
of the Company;

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

         3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the period presented in this report.

         4.       The Company's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the Company and have:

                  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedure, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed, to ensure that material
information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
in which this report is being prepared;

                  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

                  (c) disclosed in this report any changes in the Company's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the company's
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting;
and

         5.       The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and the audit
committee of the Company's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

                  (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which hare reasonably likely to
adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and

                  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's
internal control over financial reporting.

                                                 /s/ JOHN C. KLEINERT
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                 John C. Kleinert
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

December 2, 2005

                                       26
§ 182.3640 Potassium sorbate. ( a ) *Product.* Potassium sorbate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing practice.