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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 155 

Condemning the assassination of human rights advocate and outspoken defender of freedom of the press, Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink 

on January 19, 2007. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2007 

Mr. CROWLEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning the assassination of human rights advocate and 

outspoken defender of freedom of the press, TurkishArmenian journalist Hrant Dink on January 19, 2007. 

Whereas, on January 19, 2007, Turkish-Armenian journalist 

Hrant Dink was murdered as he exited the Istanbul, 

Turkey, office of Agos Newspaper; 

Whereas Hrant Dink was a fierce defender of the freedom of 

the press and speech, an outspoken advocate for democratic reform, and a champion of human rights and tolerance; 

Whereas Hrant Dink was a man of conviction and principle 

who believed in democratic ideals and peaceful change; 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HRES 155 IH 

Whereas, in Istanbul in 1996, Hrant Dink founded a bilingual newspaper called Agos, in part to foster dialogue 

and understanding between Armenians and Turks; 

Whereas Hrant Dink was honored by his media colleagues 

around the world for his courage and principles and was 

awarded the prestigious Bjornson Prize for Literature for 

his publications; 

Whereas Hrant Dink was prosecuted and convicted under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code; and 

Whereas the United States was founded on the principles of 

democracy and liberty where freedom of expression is 

cherished and protected: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) strongly condemns and deplores the assas3 sination of Hrant Dink; 

4 (2) urges the Government of Turkey to con5 tinue its investigation and prosecution of those indi6 viduals responsible for the murder of Hrant Dink; 

7 and 

8 (3) urges the Government of Turkey to take ap9 propriate action to protect the freedom of speech in 

10 Turkey by repealing Article 301 of the Turkish 

11 Penal Code and by unswervingly opposing intoler12 ance, intimidation, and violence against individuals 

13 who are exercising their natural right of freedom of 

14 speech. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
No. P68/464.

protest 62/8681 (San Francisco).

#### P. W. Bellingall, Inc., and Thos. D. Stevenson & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of steel strips similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Geo. S. Bush & Co.,*Inc., *and Heidner & Co.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 344, Abstract 68344), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 22, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
133170 & (79) Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. CHATHAPURAM S. RAMANATHAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 133170 COA: 266238 Wayne CC: 98-810999-NO WAYNE STATE UNIVE RSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS, Defendant-Appellant, and

LEON CHESTANG, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The application fo r leave to appeal the January 4, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We dir ect the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take ot her peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). At oral argument, the parties shall address: (1 ) whether there is any direct evidence, apart

from the comments about a Sitar and curried lamb, to indicate that the defendant Leon Chestang had a discriminatory animus toward the plaintiff; (2) whether the Sitar and curried lamb comments by the defendant were mo re than mere stray remarks; (3) whether defendant Chestang’s comments and actions are subject to the same actor inference; (4) whether there is any evidence that the provost of defendant university had any knowledge of, or relied in any manner on, any discrimi natory animus by defend ant Chestang; and (5) whether there is any evidence that the provost harbored a ny national origin or racial animus toward the plaintiff or had any re taliatory motivation in reaching her tenure decision. The parties may file supplemental br iefs within 42 days of the date of this order, but they should not su bmit mere restatements of th eir application papers.

0619 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.

June 22, 2007

Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernardo ARAUJO-CANTU, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50054

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Bernardo Araujo-Cantu raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350


(SECTION
906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





In
connection with the Annual Report of, MediStaff Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dale Byers, President,
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.





Dated:  June
29, 2009





By:  /s/
Dale Byers


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


Dale
Byers, President,


Chief
Executive Officer,


Chief
Financial Officer and Director








1
From: rozelle.rumford@themethodisthome.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:36:10 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rozelle Rumford

Macon, GA 31210
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ZACHARY LINVILLE

,

Petitioner

,

v. Case No. 5D 18

- 1975

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 24, 2018

Petition for Belated Appeal, A Case of Original Jurisdiction.

Zachary Linville, Wewahitchka, pro se,
Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona

Beach

, for Respondent.

EDWARDS , J.

T he petition for belated appeal is denied . The record before this Court shows that

Petitioner, Zachary Linville, failed to comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure

9.110(b). That rule requires the notice of appeal to be filed with the clerk of the court

whose order or jud gment is being appealed within thirty days of rendition . If a pro se

inmate relies upon the institution in which the inmate is incarcerated to mail the inmat e’s

notice of appeal, the inmate must clearly state in writing that the original notice of appeal2

is to be mailed to and filed with the clerk of the court whose order or judgment is being

appealed

, and should include the name and address of that clerk of t he court on the

certificate of service.

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.420(a)(2) governs the procedure for a notice

of appeal that is addressed to the clerk of the lower court and placed in the hands of the

inmate’s institution for mailing. Howeve r, filing of the notice of appeal does not occur

when an inmate, as Petitioner did here, places in the hands of the institution a notice of

appeal with a certificate of service that lists the State Attorney and/or the Attorney

General, but which does not affirmatively direct m ailing of the original notice of appeal to

the clerk of the lower court. 1

In this case, the time for filing the original notice of appeal with the clerk of the

lower court has expired; therefore, this Court has no jurisdic tion to entertain Petitioner’s

appeal

, and there is no legal basis for granting Petitioner’s request for a belated appeal.

PETITION DENIED.

SAWAYA and TORPY , JJ., concur.

1 The Appellate Rules Committee should consider whether it would be desirable to amend rule 9.420(d)(1) and/or Form 9.900(a) by including language in a model pro se inmate certificate of service for notices of appeal, to the effect that “the orig inal notice of appeal is to be mailed to and filed with the Clerk of the Circuit/County Court for ____ County” to clarify the requirement that the inmate affirmatively direct that the original notice of appeal is to be mailed to the clerk of the lower trib unal for filing.
1

**February 24, 2012 MEMORANDUM**  **TO: Air Docket**  **EP A**  **- HQ**  **- OAR** **- 2011**  **- 0542**  **SUBJECT: Meeting with Wilmar Oleo North America, LLC**  On Februar y 8 , 2012, EPA met with representatives of Wilmar Oleo North America, LLC to discuss the Notice of Data Availability for Renewable Fuels Produced from Palm Oil Under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program. The meeting took place at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC. Discussion topics included methane emissions from palm oil mills, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated w ith land use change s , palm oil yields, GHG emissions from draining peat soils and policies to reduce deforestation in Indonesia and Malay sia. Wilmar expressed their intention to submit comments to the docket on these topics. A set of slides that Wilmar d istributed during the meeting are attached to this docket entry

. Attendees included: Aaron Lev y, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Benjamin Hengst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Shary n Lie, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Paul Argy

ropoulos , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Robert Larson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency John Cummings, Wilmar Oleo North America (Houston) Jeremy Goon, Wilmar International (Singapore) Ben McMakin, Van Ness Feldman Janet Anderson, Van Ness Feldman Toma s Carbonell, Van Ness Feldman
No. 68112.

#### National Carloading Corp. and Pacific Wood Products *v.*United States,

protest 61/13477 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that no notice of appraisement was sent by the collector to the plaintiff and that the appraised value of the merchandise was higher than the entered value, the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d)).
OFFICER
CERTIFICATE
  March 6,
2009
  Bank
of America Commercial Mortgage Inc.
 Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
 Series
2007-4
 Pooling
and Servicing Agreement
    Pursuant
to the requirements of that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the
"Agreement"), it is hereby certified that on behalf of Midland Loan Services,
Inc. (the "Servicer"), (i) a review of the Servicer's activities during the
calendar year 2008 (the "Reporting Period") and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made under the undersigned officer's supervision; (ii) to the
best of the undersigned officer's knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period; and (iii) the Servicer has not
received any notice during the Reporting Period regarding qualification, or
challenging the status, of any REMIC formed pursuant to the Agreement from the
IRS or any other governmental agency or body.
    MIDLAND LOAN
      SERVICES, INC./s/ Steven W. SmithSteven W.
      SmithPresident and
      Cheif Operating Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Basil HAN, Appellant.

No. 05-1054.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 21, 2005.

Decided: July 26, 2005.

*504Sean R. Berry, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellee.

John Leonard Lane, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellant.

Basil Han, Andover, MN, pro se.

Before BYE, MCMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Basil Han (Han) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute human growth hormone for unauthorized use, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Over Han’s objection under *Blakely v. Washington, 542*U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the district court1 applied a 12-level loss-amount enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(l)(G), then granted a 3-level decrease for accepting responsibility, and after calculating a Guidelines imprisonment range of 18 to 24 months, sentenced Han to 24 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. The court also stated it had considered all of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(l)-(7), and imposed an alternative discretionary sentence of 24 months (with all other sentence conditions remaining the same), if the Guidelines were later found unconstitutional as a whole or in relation to the court’s application in this case. On appeal, Han argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by applying the loss-amount enhancement based on facts that were neither admitted by him nor proved to a jury.

Although application of the enhancement under a mandatory Guidelines system violated the Sixth Amendment, *see United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the error was harmless in the face of the alternative discretionary sentence, *see United States v. Bassett,*406 F.3d 526, 527 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (imposition of enhancement based on facts neither admitted by defendant nor proven to jury, in violation of Sixth Amendment, was harmless where district court imposed alternative identical sentence based on use of its discretion after consideration of § 3553(a) factors).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 284 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 284

 Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to strengthen the 
 point of order against the consideration of legislation that contains 
                        congressional earmarks.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2007

   Mr. Flake (for himself, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Lamborn, and Mr. Pitts) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                                on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to strengthen the 
 point of order against the consideration of legislation that contains 
                        congressional earmarks.

    Resolved,  That clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended as follows:
            (1) Before the period at the end of paragraph (c), add the 
        following: ``, or any inaccuracy in the list required by 
        paragraph (a) or any inaccuracy in such statement''.
            (2) At the end, add the following new paragraph:
    ``(g) For the purposes of this clause, any provision or report 
language that is inserted by the chairman of a standing committee or 
any subcommittee thereof with subject matter jurisdiction over the 
measure containing such provision or report language and that would be 
a congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit 
but for the fact that it was not requested by any Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, or Senator, and that is either targeted to the 
congressional district of such chairman or unrelated to the purpose of 
the underlying measure shall be required to be included in the 
applicable list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 
limited tariff benefits.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 370 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                           May 8, 2007.
    Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the 
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget 
for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008 and including the 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 2012. The 
concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. An amendment in the nature of 
a substitute consisting of the text of House Concurrent Resolution 99, as 
adopted by the House, shall be considered as adopted. All points of order 
against the concurrent resolution, as amended, are waived. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution, as amended, to 
final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
question. If the Senate concurrent resolution, as amended, is adopted, then it 
shall be in order to move that the House insist on its amendment to the 
concurrent resolution and request a conference with the Senate thereon. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on that motion to adoption 
without intervening motion.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Greater Natural Buttes

Final

Environmental Impact Statement

FES 12-8

Volume I

(Chapters 1 through 9)

Bureau of Land Management

March 2012

Vernal Field Office/Utah
form8k_exh101-011813.htm


AMENDMENT ONE TO


 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 







 


This Amendment One to the Employment Agreement, dated December 16, 2008 (“Employment Agreement”), by and between Peoples Federal Savings Bank (the “Bank”) and ______________ (“Executive”) is effective as of January 15, 2013.


 


WHEREAS, the Bank and the Executive wish to revise the Employment Agreement to change the “Anniversary Date” of such Employment Agreement from December 16th of each year to January 15th of each year, commencing January 15, 2013; and


 


WHEREAS, such revision is being made to change the date from which the Employment Agreement renews each year.


 


NOW THEREFORE, Section 2(b) is hereby amended to read as follows, effective as of January 15, 2013:


 


“(b)           Commencing on January 15, 2013 and within thirty (30) days of each January 15th thereafter (“each, an “Anniversary Date”), the disinterested members of the Board of Directors may renew the term of this Agreement for an additional one (1) year period beyond the then effective expiration date, provided that the Executive shall not have given at least sixty (60) days’ written notice of his desire that the term not be renewed.  If Executive has not given notice of nonrenewal, and the Board determines to renew the term of the Agreement, then the Agreement shall renew and shall remain in effect for thirty-six (36) full calendar months from such Anniversary Date.  If the Board determines not to renew the Agreement and written notice of nonrenewal is provided to the Executive, then in such case the term of this Agreement shall become fixed and shall cease at the end of thirty-six (36) months following such Anniversary Date.”


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank and the Executive have executed this Amendment, effective as of the date set forth below.


 








 




 



	 	 	PEOPLES FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK
	 	 	 
	_______________________     	 	By: __________________________________
	Date	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	EXECUTIVE:
	 	 	 
	_______________________	 	By: __________________________________
	Date