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

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, September 28, 1995 (122), Para 122.10 Order of Business--Consideration of H.R. 1170]
[Page 1462]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.122.10  order of business--consideration of h.r. 1170

  On motion of Mr. DREIER, by unanimous consent,
  Ordered, That during consideration of the bill (H.R. 1170) to provide 
that cases challenging the constitutionality of measures passed by State 
referendum be heard by a 3-judge court, pursuant to House Resolution 
227, the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a 
time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a 
request for a recorded vote on any amendment, and that the chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five minutes the 
time for voting by electronic device on any postponed question that 
immediately follows another vote by electronic device without 
intervening business, provided that the time for voting by electronic 
device on the first in any series of questions shall be not less than 
fifteen minutes.
```
§ 237.31 Adoption of bridge management programs. Each track owner shall adopt a bridge safety management program to prevent the deterioration of railroad bridges by preserving their capability to safely carry the traffic to be operated over them, and reduce the risk of human casualties, environmental damage, and disruption to the Nation's railroad transportation system that would result from a catastrophic bridge failure, not later than the dates in the following schedule: ( a ) March 14, 2011: Class I carriers;
( b ) March 14, 2011: Owners of track segments which are part of the general railroad system of transportation and which carry more than ten scheduled passenger trains per week;
( c ) September 13, 2011: Class II carriers to which paragraph (b) of this section does not apply; and
( d ) September 13, 2012: All other track owners subject to this part and not described paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
SUPREME COURT.

#### Brown agt. Curran.

*Landlord and*tenant—Pleading— *Oounter-elaim to action for rent.*

To an action for rent the defendant set up, by /Way of counter-claim, damages arising from the erection of buildings on an adjoining lot, the intention of the adjoining owner to build being, as alleged, fraudulently concealed at the time the relation of landlord and tenant was created. *Held,*on demurrer, that the counter-claim was insufficient. Building is not necessarily injurious to adjoining occupant.

*Special*Term, October, 1875.

Van Vorst, *J.*

The counter-claim does not distinctly aver that the plaintiff knew, at the time the lease was made, that the owner of the adj'oining premises intended to build. If he did not actually know such fact, it can with no propriety be said that he concealed it.

I do not regard the general statement that plaintiff fraudulently concealed the intention of the adjoining owner to build as a distinct and clear averment that he had the knowledge of such intention. It may imply knowledge. But an implication or inference should not be accepted in the place of facts, which should be distinctly averred.

But aside from this, I do not think that the matters set up constitute a counter-claim to the plaintiff’s demand for rent, which is admitted to be unpaid.

Building is not necessarily a nuisance or a cause of damage to an adjoining owner. And tenants. themselves should take notice and be prepared for such contingencies of constant occurrence, and make their arrangements accordingly.

*304Building may be attended with inconvenience to adjoining owners, but that in itself gives no cause of damage or ground of action. Even if the plaintiff knew that the adjoining owner intended to build, he had good reason to presume that he would do so in a proper manner, and not in a way to cause a nuisance.

There should be judgment for the plaintiff on the demurrer.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60408

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL R LADNER

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

HANCOCK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi 

USDC No. 1:07-CV-901

Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Ladner, a teacher and basketball coach, sued Hancock County

School District after it decided not to renew his employment contract. Ladner

claimed, among other things, that he did not receive proper notice of the School

District’s decision. The School District was granted summary judgment and

Ladner has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we AFFIRM for the

reasons stated in the district court’s opinion. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 11, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**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 Providential Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Henry D. Fahman, Acting Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (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.

 

/s/ Henry Fahman

Henry Fahman

Acting CFO

November 13, 2008
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 24, 1995 (133), Para 133.41 Additional Sponsors]
[Page 1588]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.133.41  additional sponsors

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII, sponsors were added to public bills and 
resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 43: Mr. Vento.
       H.R. 218: Mr. Kingston.
       H.R. 350: Mr. McHugh.
       H.R. 353: Mr. Boehlert.
       H.R. 359: Mr. Olver and Mr. Norwood.
       H.R. 394: Mr. Rose,  Mr. Bunning of Kentucky, and Mr. 
     Salmon.
       H.R. 528: Mr. Sawyer, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. 
     Olver, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Baker of 
     Louisiana, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Gunderson, Mr. Souder, and Mr. 
     Hancock.
       H.R. 580: Mr. Neal of Massachusetts and Mr. Hoyer.
       H.R. 713: Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
       H.R. 820: Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Torres, Mr. Davis, Mr. Ney, Mr. 
     Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Myers of Indiana, Mr. Hall of Ohio, 
     Mr. Blute, and Mrs. Lowey.
       H.R. 842: Mr. Paxon.
       H.R. 852: Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Conyers.
       H.R. 891: Mr. Mfume, Mr. Johnston of Florida, and Miss 
     Collins of Michigan.
       H.R. 941: Mrs. Meyers of Kansas.
       H.R. 1203: Mr. Dooley and Mr. Christensen.
       H.R. 1552: Mr. Evans.
       H.R. 1595: Mr. Smith of Texas and Mr. LoBiondo.
       H.R. 1625: Mr. Funderburk.
       H.R. 1684: Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Dicks, and Mr. Skeen.
       H.R. 1691: Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Olver, Mr. Foley, 
     Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Horn, Mr. Wolf, 
     Mr. Boehner, Mr. Payne of Virginia, and Mr. Moran.
       H.R. 1707: Mr. Matsui.
       H.R. 1733: Mr. McHale and Mr. Bono.
       H.R. 1893: Mr. Gilman.
       H.R. 1920: Mr. Quinn, Mr. Vento, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Mrs. 
     Meyers of Kansas, and Mr. Matsui.
       H.R. 2008: Mr. McHale.
       H.R. 2024: Mr. Luther.
       H.R. 2029: Mr. Kingston.
       H.R. 2180: Mr. Funderburk.
       H.R. 2192: Mr. Levin.
       H.R. 2216: Mr. Fields of Texas and Mr. Miller of Florida.
       H.R. 2240: Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Manton, Miss 
     Collins of Michigan, and Mr. Traficant.
       H.R. 2245: Mr. Faleomavaega and Mr. Frazier.
       H.R. 2357: Mr. Christensen.
       H.R. 2441: Mr. Bono.
       H.R. 2468: Mr. Riggs and Mr. Condit.
       H.R. 2472: Mr. King.
       H.R. 2508: Mr. Burr, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Gilmor, Mr. Roth, 
     Mr. gutknecht, and Mr. Jacobs.
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129096 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129096 

 COA: 260443 

Jackson CC: 03-004015-FH 

ROBBIN KIRK JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 6, 2005 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
#### Melchior F. Topken et al., Respondents, *v.*John H. Starin et al., Defendants. Howard Carroll et al., as Executors of John H. Starin, Deceased, Appellants.

*Topken*v. *Starin,*133 App. Div. 889, affirmed.

(Argued November 23, 1910;

decided December 13, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 2, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover on an alleged breach of contract.

*Edmund L.*Mooney, *Frederick A. Card, Joseph S. Frank*and *George M. Albot,*for appellants.

*Daniel P. Hays*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Collin, JJ.
§ 242.125 Certification determinations made by other railroads. ( a ) A railroad that is considering certification of a person as a conductor may rely on determinations made by another railroad concerning that person's certification. The railroad's certification program shall address how the railroad will administer the training of previously uncertified conductors with extensive operating experience or previously certified conductors who have had their certification expire. If a railroad's certification program fails to specify how it will train a previously certified conductor hired from another railroad, then the railroad shall require the newly hired conductor to take the hiring railroad's entire training program.
( b ) A railroad relying on another railroad's certification shall determine that: ( 1 ) The prior certification is still valid in accordance with the provisions of §§ 242.201 and 242.407;
( 2 ) The prior certification was for the same type of service as the certification being issued under this section;
( 3 ) The person has received training on the physical characteristics of the new territory in accordance with § 242.119; and
( 4 ) The person has demonstrated the necessary knowledge concerning the railroad's operating rules in accordance with § 242.121.
-----Original Message----- 

From: msconfal@comcast.net [mailto:msconfal@comcast.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:06 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Constance Falcone 

6900 Henley Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19119
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 28, 2019

No. 04-18-00760-CV

John Loan PRICE,

Appellant

v.

MG BUILDING MATERIALS, LTD.,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20417CV05199

Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due to be filed by December 31, 2018. Neither the brief nor a 

motion for extension of time was filed. On January 7, 2019, this court ordered appellant to file, 

by January 22, 2019, a brief and a written response reasonably explaining: (1) his failure to 

timely file a brief, and (2) why appellee is not significantly injured by appellant’s failure to 

timely file a brief. One day after the deadline, on January 23, 2019, appellant filed a brief but did 

not file a written response as required by the January 7 order. Accordingly, we ordered that

appellant’s late-filed brief would not be accepted until appellant filed a written response 

reasonably explaining: (1) his failure to timely file a brief, and (2) why appellee is not 

significantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file a brief.

On February 25, 2019, appellant filed a response and request that this court accept his

late-filed brief. We GRANT appellant’s request and accept the brief filed on January 23, 2019. 

Appellee’s brief is due thirty (30) days from the date of this order. 

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of February, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09 - 21 - 00 174 - CV

__________________ IN RE L & S PRO - LINE, LLC AND LEE BURKETT

__________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 457th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 18 - 06 - 07704 - CV

__________________________________________________________________ ORDER L & S Pro

- Line, LLC and Lee Burkett , Relator s , filed a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition and a motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relator s allege that they filed notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment in Trial Cause Number 18

- 06

- 07704

- CV , L & S Pro

- Line, LLC, et al. v. Garrett Gagliano, et al

. Relator s seek a writ compelling the Honorable Vince Santini , Judge of the 457th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, to cancel hearings on motions to enforce a superseded judgment

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221.2 Relator s request that all further proceedings in the trial court be stayed while this Court considers the manda mus petition. The Court finds temporary relief is necessary to prevent undue prejudice. It is ORDERED that all further trial court proceedings in Trial Cause Number 18

- 06

- 07704

- CV are STAYED until our opinion issues or until further order of this Court. Se e Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b). No bond is required of Relator s as a condition to any relief herein granted. The response of the Real Part ies in Interest, Garrett Gagliano, Snook Holdings, LLC, and Tactical Automation, Inc. , is due July 6 , 2021
. MOTION FOR T EMPORARY RELIEF GRANTED. ORDER ENTERED June 24 , 2021. PER CURIAM Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Back toCO2ManagementPage 1 of 1PetroSource Energy4/29/2011http://www.petrosourceenergy.com/images_large/pipelineco_map.html
126 STAT. 1610 PUBLIC LAW 112–228—DEC. 28, 2012 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 122: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012): 

Dec. 18, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 20, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–228 

112th Congress 

Joint Resolution 

Establishing the date for the counting of the electoral votes for President and 

Vice President cast by the electors in December 2012. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DATE FOR COUNTING 2012 ELECTORAL VOTES IN CONGRESS. 

The meeting of the Senate and House of Representatives to 

be held in January 2013 pursuant to section 15 of title 3, United 

States Code, to count the electoral votes for President and Vice 

President cast by the electors in December 2012 shall be held 

on January 4, 2013 (rather than on the date specified in the 

first sentence of that section). 

Approved December 28, 2012. 

3 USC 15 note. 

Dec. 28, 2012 

[H.J. Res. 122] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2201 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2201

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the treatment of 
 foreign source income of United States-owned multinational insurance 
                          agents and brokers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 4, 1995

Mr. Cardin (for himself, Ms. Dunn of Washington, Mr. Herger, Mr. Camp, 
 Mr. Bunning of Kentucky, and Mr. English of Pennsylvania) 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 clarify the treatment of 
 foreign source income of United States-owned multinational insurance 
                          agents and brokers.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Insurance Broker 
Foreign Source Income Clarification Act of 1994''.
    (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, 
the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other 
provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF RULES APPLICABLE TO UNITED STATES-OWNED 
              MULTINATIONAL INSURANCE AGENTS AND BROKERS.

    Subsection (b) of section 1296 is amended by adding at the end 
thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(4) Treatment of certain insurance agents or brokers.--In 
        the case of any foreign corporation which is a controlled 
        foreign corporation (as defined in section 957(a)), the term 
        `passive income' does not include any income derived from 
        insurance brokerage or agency services. Income earned on 
        fiduciary funds held by an insurance agent or broker shall not 
        be passive income and such funds shall be treated as having a 
        tax basis equal to their original purchase price.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall apply to tax years ending 
after the date of enactment.
                                 <all>
```
§ 228.303 Application and responsibility for compliance. ( a ) This subpart applies to all railroads except the following: ( 1 ) Railroads that operate only on track inside an installation that is not part of the general railroad system of transportation (*i.e.,* plant railroads, as defined in § 228.5);
( 2 ) Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations that are not part of the general railroad system of transportation as defined in § 228.5; or
( 3 ) Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad system of transportation.
( b ) Although the duties imposed by this subpart are generally stated in terms of the duty of a railroad, each person, including a contractor or subcontractor for a railroad, who performs any task or provides camp cars covered by this subpart, shall do so in accordance with this subpart.
#### Martha A. Hungerford, Appellant, *v.*The Village of Waverly et al., Respondents.

*Hungerford*v. *Village of Waverly,*131 App. Div. 919, affirmed.

(Argued November 30, 1910;

decided December 16, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered June 16, 1909, affirming a final judgment dismissing the complaint entered upon a prior order of said Appellate Division which reversed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint and sustained such demurrer in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant’s negligence.

*Charles C. Annabel*for appellant.

*Frank A. Bell*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Gray, Haight, Vann, Hiscock and Collin, JJ. Dissenting from affirmance as to respondent Bingham, on authority of *Bennett*v. *Whitney*(94 N. Y. 302): Cullen, Ch. J. Not voting: Willard Bartlett, J.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 31, 1995 (137), Para 137.10 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H.R. 1905]
[Pages 1805-1806]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.137.10  waiving points of order against the conference report on 
          h.r. 1905

  Mr. QUILLEN, by direction of the Committee on Rules, called up the 
following resolution (H. Res. 248):

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1905) making appropriations for energy and water 
     development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived.

  When said resolution was considered.
  After debate,
  On motion of Mr. QUILLEN, the previous question was ordered on the 
resolution to its adoption or rejection and under the operation thereof, 
the resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said resolution was agreed to

[[Page 1806]]

was, unanimous consent, laid on the table.
```
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 10, 1995 (125), Para 125.11 Clerk to Correct Engrossment]
[Page 1497]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.125.11  clerk to correct engrossment

  On motion of Mr. BURR, by unanimous consent,
  Ordered, That in the engrossment of the foregoing bill, the Clerk be 
authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, cross references, 
and to make other technical corrections.
```
#### § 213.367 Special inspections.

In the event of fire, flood, severe storm, temperature extremes or other occurrence which might have damaged track structure, a special inspection shall be made of the track involved as soon as possible after the occurrence and, if possible, before the operation of any train over that track.
#### George W. Funk, *Respondent, v.*John W. Alexander, *Appellant*.

Order of the ’Special Term reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to dissolve injunction granted. Held, that the facts relied upon for the injunction order might have been set up as a defense to the notes, and no excuse is shown for not setting them up therein.