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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 46 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2019 

Referred to the Commitee on Natural Resources 

AN ACT 

To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

S 46 RFH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Klamath Tribe Judg3 ment Fund Repeal Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

5 Public Law 89–224 (commonly known as the ‘‘Klam6 ath Tribe Judgment Fund Act’’) (79 Stat. 897) is re7 pealed. 

8 SEC. 3. DISBURSEMENT OF REMAINING FUNDS. 

9 Notwithstanding any provision of Public Law 89–224 

10 (79 Stat. 897) (as in effect on the day before the date 

11 of enactment of this Act) relating to the distribution or 

12 use of funds, as soon as practicable after the date of enact13 ment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall dis14 burse to the Klamath Tribe the balance of any funds that, 

15 on or before the date of enactment of this Act, were appro16 priated or deposited into the trust accounts for remaining 

17 legal fees and administration and per capita trust ac18 counts, as identified by the Secretary of the Interior, 

19 under that Act (as in effect on the day before the date 

20 of enactment of this Act). 

Passed the Senate June 27, 2019. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 17, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

129178 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan BLYTHE SNEIDERAITIS and Robert P. Young, Jr. CHRISTOPHER SNEIDERAITIS, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants/ Justices Appellees,

v SC: 129178 COA: 252059 Oakland CC: 2003-047947-CK RONALD BURROWS and JOSEPH KOZIARA, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs/ Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to app eal, we REVERSE the judgments of the Court of Appeals
and the Oakland Circuit Court and REMAND this case to th e Oakland Circuit Court for further proceedings. Defendants claim that plaintiffs purchased the property at a foreclosure sale after fraudulently misreprese nting to defendants that if defendants removed the property from the market, plainti ff would act as defendants’ attorney in dealing with the mortgage co mpany and wo uld purchase the property before foreclosure. Summary disposition was improper because genui ne issues of material fact exist on defendants’ claim that plain tiffs secured title to the prop erty by means of fraudulent misrepresentations. McKie v Oakland Mortgage Co , 277 Mich 292, 294-295 (1936);
Gates v Sutherland , 76 Mich 231, 233 (1889); and Cleland v Taylor , 3 Mich 201 (1854).

We do not retain jurisdiction.

p0510 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.

May 17, 2006

Clerk
#### *Shotwell *against*M’Kown.

on certiorari.

Agent not answerable in capacity, (a)

THIS action would seem, from a very indefinite state of demand, to be founded upon a note, in the following words, “ *Rahway, July*30, 1816. Dolls. 113.01. Three months after date, the Patent Cloth Manufacturing Company, promise to pay *William Frazee,*or order, at their manufactory, one hundred and thirteen 1-100 dollars, with interest, value rec’d, without defalcation or discount. *William Shotwett,*agent.” On the back of the note, there is an assignment to *M’Kown,*dated *July*31, 1816, and an endorsement in these words : *“*Rec’d on account of the within note, at sundry times, in meal, flour, &c., from grist-mill, to the amount of thirty-two dollars, 1-100. *Rahway,*1 *Oct.*1817. *John M’Kown.”*

*W. Halsted,*for plaintiff. *Scudder,*for defendant.

(a)

*Tuttle vs. Ayres, Pen. *682. Stephens vs. Bacon, 2 Hal. 1. The Baptist Church vs. Mulford, 3 Hal. 186. Kean vs. Davis, 1 Zab. 683. Stewart vs. Johnson, Coxe 27. Bay vs. Cook, 2 Zab. 343. Perth Amboy Co. vs. Condit, 1 Zab. 659. Burley*vs. *Kitchell, Spen. 305.*

Kirkpatrick, C. J.

This action is brought upon a promissory note, purporting to be given by the Patent Cloth Manufacturing Company to *William Frazee,*for $113.01, dated *July*30,1816, and payable, in three months, at their manufactory, signed, “ *William Shotwett,*agent,” *956and assigned by *William Frazee*to *John M’Kown,*the plaintiff.

*Shotwell*is not answerable, in his individual capacity, for this money; the agent is not answerable for the principal. The assignee must look to the company.

Judgment reversed.
#### § 295.26 Refunds.

Air charter brokers must make prompt refunds of all monies paid for charter air transportation when such transportation cannot be performed or when such refunds are otherwise due, as required by 14 CFR 374.3 and 12 CFR part 226 for credit card purchases, and within 20 days after receiving a complete refund request for cash and check purchases.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                     256,206
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               47,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                 84,063
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           534,441
<PP&E>                                     114,410
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,606
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             843,951
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       86,167
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    73,697
<OTHER-SE>                                 401,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               843,951
<SALES>                                     31,815
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           173,823
<CGS>                                       18,169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              487,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (306,126)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (306,126)
<DISCONTINUED>                              12,289
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (293,837)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 14.1
 FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
CODE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS
(January 24, 2011)
 Introduction
 Code Company
    Exhibit A




---



##### 



1. Compliance with Laws, Rules and Regulations
   2. Conflicts of Interest
  Employment/Outside Employment
  Outside Directorships
 CEO




---



##### 



Board
 Business Interests
 Audit Committee
 Related Parties
  SEC
  Other Situations




---



##### 



3. Insider Trading
  4. Public Disclosure
   5. Corporate Opportunities




---



##### 



6. Competition and Fair Dealing
   
    
    is not a cash gift,
    
    is consistent with customary business practices,
    
    is not excessive in value,
    
    cannot be construed as a bribe or payoff and does not create an appearance
of impropriety, and
    
    is in compliance with the Companys policy on gifts and gratuities and does
not violate any laws or rules or regulations.
  7. Discrimination and Harassment




---



##### 



8. Health and Safety
   9. Record-Keeping




---



##### 



10. Confidentiality
   11. Protection and Proper Use of Company Assets
    12. Payments to Government Personnel




---



##### 



13. Waivers of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
  14. Reporting any Illegal or Unethical Behavior; No Retaliation
  15. Accounting Complaints
  16. Compliance Procedures




---



##### 



(f) You may also report any violations of this Code on an anonymous and confidential basis
through the EthicsPoint Hotline link set forth on the intranet and on our website or by
calling the EthicsPoint Hotline at 866.294.9318. Your report will be sent to the Audit Committee
Chairperson and the General Counsel on a no-name basis unless you grant permission for your
identity to be revealed.




---



##### 



17. Compliance Required
   18. Administration




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CODE
OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS
   
 
 
 Please sign and return this form to:
    
    Human Resources/StaffingFairPoint Communications, Inc.770 Elm StreetManchester, NH 03101Fax No. (603) 641-1799
180629 ORDER RE PRIME CLERK WEBSITE VERSION JUNE 29, 2018 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

In re: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

 as representative of 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et 

al., 

Debtors.1

PROMESA 

Title III 

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

(Jointly Administered) 

ORDER REGARDING THE PROOF OF CLAIM FILING SYSTEM AVAILABLE ON PRIME CLERK 

The Court has received and reviewed the Motion Informing Collapse of the 

PROMESA Proof of Claim Filing System and Requesting Permission to File Claims in the 

Docket to Interrupt the Statute of Limitation (the “Motion,” Docket Entry No. 3385). The 

Motion informed the Court that Prime Clerk’s website is currently unavailable and, as such, the 

Movants have not been able to file their claims electronically through the Prime Clerk website. 

The parties are advised that they may file proofs of claim electronically on the 

Claims Registry, which is available on CM/ECF. Additionally, Movants’ counsel is directed to 

 

1

 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

 number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

 applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-

 LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing 

 Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

 Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) 

 (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) 

 Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

 (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 

 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747). (Title III case numbers are 

 listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software limitations). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3387 Filed:06/29/18 Entered:06/29/18 16:17:55 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
180629 ORDER RE PRIME CLERK WEBSITE VERSION JUNE 29, 2018 2 

refer to the Order establishing procedures for filing proofs of claims for additional information 

regarding alternative methods of filing such claims. (See Docket Entry No. 2521.) 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 29, 2018 

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

 LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

 United States District Judge 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3387 Filed:06/29/18 Entered:06/29/18 16:17:55 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
§ 48.200 General. ( a ) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft registered in accordance with this part unless the aircraft displays a unique identifier in accordance with the requirements of § 48.205 of this subpart.
( b ) A unique identifier is one of the following: ( 1 ) The registration number issued to an individual or the registration number issued to the aircraft by the Registry upon completion of the registration process provided by this part; or
( 2 ) If authorized by the Administrator, the small unmanned aircraft serial number provided with the application for Certificate of Aircraft Registration under § 48.110(a).
[Doc. No. FAA-2015-7396; Amdt. No. 48-1; 80 FR 78645, Dec. 16, 2015. Redesignated and amended by Doc. No. FAA-2019-1100; Amdt. No. 48-3, 86 FR 4504, Jan. 15, 2021]
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tower Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald
F. Schenkel, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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
Company.


/s/ Donald F. Schenkel
--------------------------------
Donald F. Schenkel
Chairman of the Board, President
and Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Tower Financial Corporation and will be retained by Tower Financial
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.








                                       22
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1580

FRANCIS AKINRO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BALTIMORE U.S. POST OFFICE POLICEMEN, et al.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. 

(1:10-cv-01151-JFM)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: July 30, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francis Akinro, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Francis Akinro appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Akinro v. Baltimore U.S. 

Post Office Policemen, No. 1:10-cv-01151-JFM (D. Md. May 14, 

2010). 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
§ 77.41 Discretionary review results. ( a ) If discretionary review is granted, the FAA will inform the petitioner and the sponsor (if other than the petitioner) of the issues to be studied and reviewed. The review may include a request for comments and a review of all records from the initial aeronautical study.
( b ) If discretionary review is denied, the FAA will notify the petitioner and the sponsor (if other than the petitioner), and the FCC, whenever a FCC-related proposal is involved, of the basis for the denial along with a statement that the determination is final.
( c ) After concluding the discretionary review process, the FAA will revise, affirm, or reverse the determination.
Editorial Note on Part 47
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 75 FR 41979, July 20, 2010.

§ 47.37 Aircraft last previously registered in a foreign country. ( a ) A person who is the owner of an aircraft last previously registered under the law of a foreign country may register it under this part if the owner— ( 1 ) Complies with §§ 47.3, 47.7, 47.8, 47.9, 47.11, 47.13, 47.15, and 47.17, as applicable;
( 2 ) Submits with his Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1 a bill of sale from the foreign seller or other evidence satisfactory to the FAA that he owns the aircraft; and
( 3 ) Submits evidence satisfactory to the FAA that— ( i ) If the country in which the aircraft was registered has not ratified the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft (4 U.S.T. 1830), (the Geneva Convention), or the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment, as modified by the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment (the Cape Town Treaty), the foreign registration has ended or is invalid; or
( ii ) If that country has ratified the Geneva Convention, but has not ratified the Cape Town Treaty, the foreign registration has ended or is invalid, and each holder of a recorded right against the aircraft has been satisfied or has consented to the transfer, or ownership in the country of export has been ended by a sale in execution under the terms of the Geneva Convention; or
( iii ) If that country has ratified the Cape Town Treaty and the aircraft is subject to the Treaty, that the foreign registration has ended or is invalid, and that all interests ranking in priority have been discharged or that the holders of such interests have consented to the deregistration and export of the aircraft.
( iv ) Nothing under (a)(3)(iii) affects rights established prior to the Treaty entering into force with respect to the country in which the aircraft was registered.
( b ) For the purposes of paragraph (a)(3) of this section, satisfactory evidence of termination of the foreign registration may be— ( 1 ) A statement, by the official having jurisdiction over the national aircraft registry of the foreign country, that the registration has ended or is invalid, and showing the official's name and title and describing the aircraft by make, model, and serial number; or
( 2 ) A final judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction of the foreign country, determining that, under the laws of that country, the registration has become invalid.
[Doc. No. 7190, 31 FR 4495, Mar. 17, 1966, as amended by Amdt. 47-20, 44 FR 61940, Oct. 29, 1979; Amdt. 47-26, 68 FR 10317, Mar. 4, 2003; Amdt. 47-27, 70 FR 245, Jan. 3, 2005]
ACCIDENT REPORT

Page | 1 / 4

Date: __________________ Time: __________________ Location: ____________________ 

Weather Conditions (reported by local airport if available):

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Equipment: ___________________________________________________________________

Personnel on site and the appropriate duties:

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Description of accident:
 ACCIDENT REPORT

Page | 2 / 4

Proposed cause of accident:

Remedial actions to prevent future accidents:
 ACCIDENT REPORT

Page | 3 / 4

Describe damages to aircraft if applicable:

Describe any injuries or damages to property if applicable:

Name and role of person filling out report: __________________________________________
 ACCIDENT REPORT

Page | 4 / 4

Date: _____________________________ Signature__________________________________
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-2029

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United v. * States District Court for * the District of Nebraska. Vladimir Polyansky, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 7, 2003 Filed: February 19, 2003

___________ Before LOKEN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Vladimir Polyansky pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court 1 sentenced him to 60 months imprisonment and 4 years supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 368 U.S. 738 (1967).-2- Having carefully reviewed counsel’s Anders brief, and having conducted our own independent review of the record, see Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we agree with counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues in this direct criminal appeal. Among other things, we note that at the plea hearing, Polyansky affirmed he understood the plea agreement, agreed with the factual basis for the conspiracy charge, and admitted the charged conduct; that there were no sentencing objections other than Polyansky’s motion for a downward departure based on an overrepresented criminal history; and that the district court granted Polyansky’s departure motion, and also imposed the lowest sentence possible, given the statutory minimum. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32.2





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, David O. Cole, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the periodic report, to which this Statement is attached, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report to which this Statement is attached, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC upon request.







Date:  April 14, 2010



By: /s/ David O. Cole





David O. Cole





Chief Financial Officer