alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 79

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United

States.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission

9 for ratification:
2

•HJ 79 EH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘The Congress and the States shall have power to

3 prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United

4 States.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives June 28, 1995.

Attest:

Clerk.

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 79

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the

flag of the United States.States to prohibit the physical desecration of theUnited States authorizing the Congress and the
#### Maureen Kolmel-Hayes et al., Respondents, v South Shore Cruise Lines, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[804 NYS2d 256]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Mike’s Party Boat Corp. and Captain Mike’s, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated December 19, 2003, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint to substitute as defendants Mike’s Party Boat, Inc., and Captain Mike’s, Inc., for Captain Lou’s Fleet and the defendants South Shore Cruise Lines, Inc., Michael Danon, Nautical Cruise Lines, Inc., Nautical Belle Cruises, Inc., and Nautical Queen Cruises, Inc., separately appeal from the same order.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendants South Shore Cruise Lines, Inc., Michael Danon, Nautical Cruise Lines, Inc., Nautical Belle Cruises, Inc., and Nautical Queen Cruises, Inc., is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as abandoned *(see*22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]) and on the additional ground that they are not aggrieved by one portion of the order appealed from *(see*CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal by the defendants Mike’s Party Boat, Inc., and Captain Mike’s, Inc., is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, in light of the fact that this Court is affirming an order of the Supreme Court dated November 15, 2004, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint *530insofar as asserted against those defendants *(see Kolmel-Hayes v South Shore Cruise Lines, Inc.,*— AD3d — [decided herewith]). Crane, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### Elaine ADAMSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-16372.

D.C. No. CV-00-00858-JWS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002 *.

Decided June 18, 2002.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, and denies Adamson's request for oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Elaine Adamson appeals the district court’s order remanding her action for disability benefits to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) for further proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to remand to the ALJ for further proceedings rather than for payment of benefits, *Harman v. Apfel,*203 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court remanded because, in light of this court’s intervening decision in *915*Reddick v. Chater,*157 F.8d 715, 728 (9th Cir.1998), the ALJ may have erred by discrediting Adamson’s testimony, failing to adequately consider persistent fatigue in evaluating residual functional capacity, and failing to accord proper weight to the testimony of Adamson’s physicians. Because the ALJ is in a better position than this court to evaluate the evidence and because additional proceedings can remedy the defects in the original administrative proceedings, the district court did not abuse its discretion by remanding for further proceedings. *See Marcia v. Sullivan,*900 F.2d 172, 176-77 (9th Cir.1990).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 140

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 1996

Mr. OBEY introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Appropriations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

1996, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 106(c) of Public Law 104–56 is amended by

4 striking ‘‘December 15, 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘January 31,

5 1996’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1035 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1035

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage multiple 
    employer arrangements to provide basic health benefits through 
eliminating commonality of interest or geographic location requirement 
                      for tax exempt trust status.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1995

Mrs. Meyers of Kansas introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage multiple 
    employer arrangements to provide basic health benefits through 
eliminating commonality of interest or geographic location requirement 
                      for tax exempt trust status.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATING COMMONALITY OF INTEREST OR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION 
              REQUIREMENT FOR TAX EXEMPT TRUST STATUS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (9) of section 501(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exempt organizations) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(9)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(B) Any determination of whether--
                    ``(i) an exempted multiple employer health plan (as 
                defined in section 701(9) of the Employee Retirement 
                Income Security Act of 1974, as added by the ERISA 
                Targeted Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995), or
                    ``(ii) a multiple employer welfare arrangement 
                (within the meaning of section 3(40) of the Employee 
                Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) under which 
                coverage is fully insured (within the meaning of 
                section 701(8) of such Act, as added by the ERISA 
                Targeted Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995) and 
                consists of medical care (as defined in section 
                213(d)),
        is a voluntary employees' beneficiary association meeting the 
        requirements of this paragraph shall be made without regard to 
        any determination of commonality of interest or geographic 
        location.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to determinations made on or after January 1, 1997.
                                 <all>
```
ex10-4.htm


Exhibit 10.4


 


CONTINGENT ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT



 


ADDENDUM TO LEASE DATED 16 OF DECEMBER, 2010, BETWEEN HENRY AMALGAMATED LLC, (LESSOR)  ANGIE’S LIST, INC., (LESSEE), And DATED MARCH 1, 2009 (LEASE AGREEMENT) IS MADE AND ENTERED INTO AS OF JULY 1, 2012.


 


WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee entered into the lease agreement dated March 1, 2009 for office space.


 


NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed that the Lease Agreement is hereby modified and amended in the following respects to be effective April 15, 2012. WIT:


 



	  	
1.

	
Paragraph (1) (Description of Premises) Lessor hereby leases additional space known as the following to the lessee:  930, 932 & 934 Suite A. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN













	  	
2.

	
Paragraph (4) (Rent) The amount for the additional office space with 5,872 square feet will be $5,383.00.







 


Except as specifically mentioned herein, all other terms and conditions of the original Lease Agreement shall remain the same and unchanged


 


Henry Amalgamated LLC


Lessor



	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
/s/ Karl Northern

	  	  	  	
Date:

	  	
7/1/2012







 


Angie’s List, Inc


Lessee



	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
/s/ Robert R. Millard

	  	  	  	
Date:

	  	
6/21/2012
Exhibit 33.13

 

|  |
|--|

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND

EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

For the calendar year ending December 31, 2019, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for Wells Fargo Bank (the “Servicer”).

National Tax Search, LLC (“NTS”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2019 and for the period from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the “CFR”).  NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.  Only servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”) are applicable to the activities NTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report.  NTS has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report.  The transactions covered by this report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTS’s TaxQ system (the “Platform Transactions”).

NTS, as a vendor, has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that NTS has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2019 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2019 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

National Tax Search, LLC, as Vendor to Servicer

 

/s/ Lori D. Eshoo

Lori D. Eshoo

Executive,Operations

January 30, 2020
39727.

#### KREUTZ et al. v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN. JACKSON v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN.

39728.

Decided February 7, 1963.

*H. Dale Thompson,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Wm. Malcolm Towson,*contra.

Frankum, Judge.

These cases -are controlled by the decision in the case of *Kreutz v. Housing Authority of the City of Dublin,*ante.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
# L_2019196EN.01000501.xml

| 24.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 196/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 196/5

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2019/1257

of 23 July 2019

correcting the Bulgarian language version of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (1), and in particular Article 31(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Bulgarian language version of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 contains an error in entry 12, the table, column (i), the first sentence of Annex III of that Regulation, which was introduced by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1197/2013 (2) as regards the conditions of use and warnings concerning the substances. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Bulgarian language version of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 contains an error in entry 12, the table, column (i), the first sentence of Annex III of that Regulation, which was introduced by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1197/2013 (2) as regards the conditions of use and warnings concerning the substances.

| (2) | The Bulgarian language version of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Bulgarian language version of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Cosmetic Products, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Cosmetic Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

(does not concern the English language)

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 July 2019.

For the Commission

The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 342, 22.12.2009, p. 59.

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1197/2013 of 25 November 2013 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products (OJ L 315, 26.11.2013, p. 34).

2

---
Exhibit
32
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 **(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly report of Itec Environmental Group, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Gary
M. De Laurentiis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Frederick Smith,
Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby
certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350),
that to his knowledge:
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
 
  ****May 13, 2005
    
    /s/Gary M. De Laurentiis
      Chairman & Chief Executive
Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
 
 ****May 13, 2005
    
    /s/Frederick
      Smith, Jr.
      Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
 
 [A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Itec Environmental Group, Inc. and will be retained by Itec Environmental Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [Report No. 2895]

# SUMMARY:

Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of these documents is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by September 2, 2009. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.

Subject: In The Matter of Digital Television Distributed Transmission System Technologies (MB Docket No. 05-312) 

NUMBER OF PETITIONS FILED: 2

Federal Communications Commission

Marlene H. Dortch,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-19669 Filed 8-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-S
J

- A11017

- 15

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

D.H. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

B.M.

Appellant No. 2015 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Order of July 3

, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Civil Division Docket No: 11

- 07785

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.E., OLSON and WECHT, JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER PER CURIAM: FILED MAY 01, 2015

Appellant, B.M

., 1 appeals pro se from the July 3, 2014 order finding

her in contempt of court. We dismiss the appeal.

On July 3, 2014, the trial court found Appellant to be in contempt of

court for failing to attend court

- ordered reunification counseling. The trial

c ourt ordered Appellant to pay $560.00 in costs associated with her missed

counseling sessions. She appealed that contempt finding to this Court.

Instead of filing a brief on appeal, Appellant filed a 12

- page document that

fails to address the merits of t his appeal and, instead, discusses a myriad of

unrelated issues. This document fails to comply with several Pennsylvania

1 As this case involves child custody issues, we are identifying the parties by their initials so as to protect the identity of the minor child.J

- A11017

- 15

- 2

-

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See, e.g. , Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2114, 2116, 2117,

2118, and 2119.

“[W]e decline to become the appellant’s counsel. When . . . briefs are

wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a Court will not

consider the merits thereof.” Branch Banking & Trust v. Gesiorski , 904

A.2d 939, 942

– 943 (Pa. Super. 2006) (internal alteration and citation

omitted) . Although we could discuss the deficiencies with respect to each

rule of court listed above, we focus on Pennsylvania Rule 2116, which

provides that “No question will be considered unless it is stated in the

statement of questions involved or is fairly s uggested thereby.” Pa.R.A.P.

2116(a). Appellant’s document lacks a statement of questions involved.

The lack of a statement of questions involved, along with the other

deficiencies, renders Appellant’s document “wholly inadequate to present

specific is sues for review.” Gesiorski , 904 A.2d at 942. Therefore,J

- A11017

- 15

- 3

-

pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101, 2 we dismiss the

appeal. 3

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 5/1/2015

2 Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101 prov ides that:

Briefs . . . shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of these rules . . . . [I]f the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismisse d.

Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

3 Even if we were to consider the merits of this appeal, we would affirm as Appellant has waived all issues on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Finally, even if we found that she had preserved any issues for appeal, we conclude

her c hallenge to the trial court’s contempt order is without merit.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51017

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAUL RONQUILLO-BARRAZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-601-DB

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Raul Ronquillo-Barraza appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Ronquillo-Barraza contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Ronquillo-Barraza maintains that
No. 03-51017

-2-

he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence

exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be

imposed for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Ronquillo-Barraza acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### § 1.30 Application to system of records maintained by Government contractors.

When a component contracts for the operation of a system of records, to accomplish a Treasury function, the provisions of the Privacy Act and this subpart must be applied to such system. The relevant component is responsible for ensuring that the contractor complies with the contract requirements relating to privacy.