alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE SAC AND FOX INDIANS OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA v. THE UNITED STATES. THE SAC AND FOX INDIANS OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN OKLAHOMA v. THE UNITED STATES.

[45 C. Cls. R., 287; 220 U. S. R., 481.]

The principal question in tWs case is whether Indians who individually remove from the agency of the tribe and acquire a residence in another part of the country remote from the agency have a right to participate in annuities assured to the tribe by treaties.

*681The court below decides:

I.Though, all the parties to a suit unite in a stipulation that certain ex parte affidavits may be read as evidence the court ‘will not be bound thereby.

II.Where individual Indians voluntarily and without the consent of the United States withdrew from the reservation which had been provided for the tribe they ceased to be a legal entity or part of the entity and becajne simply individual Indians.

III.A jurisdictional act of Congress can give individual Indians a forum in which to assert such rights as they may possess.

IY. The United States as guardian of Indians deal with a nation,, tribe, or band, and have never entered into contracts, compacts, or treaties with individual Indians.

Y. Where a treaty provides that each of the principal chiefs shall receive $500 annually out of annuities payable to the tribe with the approbation of their agent it is simply an agreement between the United States on the one part and the tribe on the other that that amount of money shall be paid to each chief with the approbation of their agent. This does not mean that a tribe may divide and subdivide.

YI. There is no vested interest in unallotted tribal lands and undistributed tribal funds. The lands and moneys of an Indian tribe are public lands and public moneys. ' The treaties with the Sacs and Foxes and the evidence offered in the case reviewed.

The opinion of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 24, 1911.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered a dissenting opinion.
r7n^-,^:•; .^K 

# Unitcd 5^tjtcs .^c^^^tc ,U+'v([Cvua"s:,

vVASI-ilNC.3 rUN, DC 20-510 October 29, 2013 The Honorable Gina McCarthy Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania nvenue, NW Washington, District of Colurnbia 20460 llear Administrator McCarthy, Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to announce each November the amount of biofuel, most notably corn ethanol, that our nation will be forced to consume in the following year. Current law also allows the EPA to protect Americans by ensuring that biofuel mandates are not excessive and do not threaten economic growth. I sincerely hope the EPA will not miss this deadline again. Last year's delay not only violated federal law, but also increased Renewable Identification Number (RIN) credit prices, whieh threatened the viability of numerous oil refineries, including several in Southeastern Pennsylvania. F'urther, with regard to deciding total biofuel mandates, I hope you will consider the serious harm that burning food crops for fuel causes our nation. In 2012, the United States used more corn to produce ethanol than it did to produce food products. This unwise use of our nation's agricultural resources increases food prices for millions of American families who are already struggling to make ends meet. I urge you to release a final biofuel mandate for 2014 that lowers harmful consumption requirements by the November 31 st deadline. Thank you for your prornpt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Iat Toomey iJnited States Senator
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Harold Fahy

Decided January 21, 1964

The Supreme Court of the United States having by its judgment dated December 2, 1963, reversed the judgment of this court dated June 26,1962, finding no error in the judgment of the Superior Court in Fairfield County dated June 30, 1960, and having remanded the cause to this court for further proceedings, it is ordered that the judgment of the Superior Court dated June 30, 1960, be, and the same hereby is, set aside and the case be, and the same hereby is, remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States announced December 2, 1963, in the case of *Harold Fahy*v. *Connecticut.*
June 24 , 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KIM

- HUONG T. HUNYHG , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00418

- CV V.
HOUTEX CITY ALLSTAR REALTY, LLC D/B/A R E/MAX MEMORIAL REALTY AND PETER B. MERRITT, LLC , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant’ s motion to dismiss the appeal from the order signed by the court below on March 3, 2014. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal. We further order that mandate be issued immediately. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 113 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 113

Expressing the sense of the Congress that it would be inappropriate for 
the President, the Vice President, and Members of Congress to continue 
       to receive pay during the period of a Government shutdown.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 15, 1995

  Mr. Ensign (for himself, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Brownback, Mrs. Smith of 
 Washington, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Graham, Mr. Souder, Mr. 
  Christensen, Mr. Foley, and Ms. Dunn of Washington) introduced the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
    Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the Committee on House 
 Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress that it would be inappropriate for 
the President, the Vice President, and Members of Congress to continue 
       to receive pay during the period of a Government shutdown.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the President, the Vice 
President, and Members of Congress should not be paid during any period 
during which Federal employees are not paid due to a Government 
shutdown.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1375 Histidine test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A histidine test system is a device intended to measure free histidine (an amino acid) in plasma and urine. Histidine measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of hereditary histidinemia characterized by excess histidine in the blood and urine often resulting in mental retardation and disordered speech development.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 862.9.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 2306, Jan. 14, 2000]
Telik, Inc. Executive Officer Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.8 
 Terms of Executive Officer Bonus Plan 
 On February 17, 2006, Telik, Inc. (the “Company”), based on
the action of the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) approved the terms of an Executive Officer Bonus Plan (the “Plan”). The bonuses paid under the Plan are
designed to attract, motivate, and retain the Company’s executive officers and are based on the performance of the Company and the individual executive officer, as determined by the Board or the Committee. 
 The Plan provides for the payment to each executive officer of a bonus ranging from 0% to 150% of such executive officer’s base salary. The amount of each bonus (if
any) will be determined by the Board or the Committee based upon the achievement of the Company’s corporate objectives and the executive officer’s achievement of individual goals (if any). The amount will also depend upon the extent to
which actual performance meets, exceeds, or falls short of the corporate objectives and any individual goals, and upon the level of the Company’s then current or anticipated cash reserves. The Committee may assign an importance weight to each
goal and objective considered, and a performance rating to each such goal and objective. The Board or the Committee may modify the corporate or individual performance goals at any time based upon business changes. 
 The Plan continues in effect for each fiscal year following its adoption until such time as the Board or the Committee amends, repeals, or replaces the Plan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GENZYME DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, L.P. FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              74
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   135
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              192
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        (57)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       135
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    61
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    18
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     43
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 43
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        43<F1>
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>GENZYME DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, L.P. IS A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.  NET
EARNINGS OR LOSS ARE REPORTED PER PARTNERSHIP UNIT INSTEAD OF PER SHARE.  THE
PARTNERSHIP RECORDED NET INCOME OF $43,000 IN THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
2000 WHICH WAS ALLOCATED 1% TO THE GENERAL PARTNER AND 99% TO THE LIMITED
PARTNERS.
</FN>


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, William J.Schmidt, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Ibis Technology Corporation;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

b)            evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)             disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

a)             allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)            anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: May 15, 2007 |   | /s/William J. Schmidt    |
|--------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|               |   | William J.  Schmidt      |
|               |   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, James M. Seneff, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the  corporate  general  partner of CNL Income Fund VII, Ltd. (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  of the  Partnership's  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 (the "Report"). The
undersigned hereby certifies 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 results of operations of the Partnership.

Date: November 12, 2003                   /s/ James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          Name:  James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                          Title: Chief Executive Officer


                                          A  signed  original  of  this  written
                                          statement  required by Section 906 has
                                          been  provided to CNL Income Fund VII,
                                          Ltd.  and  will  be  retained  by  CNL
                                          Income Fund VII, Ltd. and furnished to
                                          the Securities and Exchange Commission
                                          or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 244 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 244

Honoring the three Federal firefighters who died in a helicopter crash 
    while on their way to fight a fire in the Gila National Forest.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 25 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

  Mr. Bingaman (for himself and Mr. Domenici) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Honoring the three Federal firefighters who died in a helicopter crash 
    while on their way to fight a fire in the Gila National Forest.

Whereas on July 12, 1994, three Federal firefighters from the United States 
        Forest Service perished in a helicopter crash near Silver City, New 
        Mexico while on their way to fight a fire in the Gila National Forest;
Whereas the three firefighters who gave their lives were Bob Boomer, pilot, from 
        Spokane, Washington, Sean Gutierrez, Gila/Mimbres Helitack, from Silver 
        City, New Mexico, and Sam Smith, Gila/Mimbres Helitack, from Las Cruces, 
        New Mexico; and
Whereas these brave men gave their lives in an attempt to protect lives, 
        property, and natural resources: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate honors, and will always remember, Bob 
Boomer, Sean Gutierrez, and Sam Smith, the three Federal firefighters 
who died on July 12, 1994, for their heroic efforts in attempting to 
fight a fire in the Gila National Forest, in order to protect lives, 
property, and natural resources.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. DA 21-0083, DA 21-0084, DA 21-0085 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

M.L.W., J.R.W. AND E.R.W. 

 Youths In Need Of Care. 

ORDER 

 Upon consideration of Mother and Appellant’s Motion To Consolidate 

Cases, and with good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the abovecaptioned cases will be consolidated for purposes of appeal under Cause No. DA 

21-0083. 

 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 26 2021

05/26/2021
#### § 1.912-2 Exclusion of certain allowances of Foreign Service personnel.

Gross income does not include amounts received by personnel of the Foreign Service of the United States as allowances or otherwise under the provisions of chapter 9 of title I of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 or the provisions of section 28 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (formerly section 914 of title IX of the Foreign Service Act of 1946).

[T.D. 8256, 54 FR 28620, July 6, 1989]
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 29, 2010

s0125 

# Order

January 29, 2010

139898

JAMES VELTING and KV INVESTMENTS LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 139898 COA: 283638 Kent CC: 99-008930-CZ CASCADE CHARTER TOWNSHIP, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 22, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (a) | A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 has been made under my supervision. |

|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period. |

|                                                                                                                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                           |
| /s/ Ryan M. Hershberger                                                                                                   |
| Ryan M. HershbergerAssistant Treasurer ofFord Motor Credit Company LLC,as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2015-C |