alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 31 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 17, 2008. 

Whereas this distinguished gentleman graduated from the 

University of Texas School of Law in 1959 and became 

a partner with Washington and Jefferson, Attorneys at 

Law, in Houston; he served as an assistant criminal district attorney for Bexar County, a chief assistant United 

States attorney for the Western District of Texas, and a 

trial counsel and labor relations counsel for Humble Oil 

& Refining Company; 

Whereas in 1970, Andrew Jefferson was appointed judge of 

the Court of Domestic Relations 2, Harris County, and 

in 1974, he was elected judge of the 208th District 

Court, Harris County; in 1975, he decided to re-enter the 

practice of law and is currently in private practice; 

Whereas Judge Jefferson was admitted to practice in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 

Sixth Circuit, and Eleventh Circuit and the Supreme 

Court of the United States; 

Whereas a longtime active committee member of the State 

Bar of Texas, he is also a Fellow of the Texas Bar Foundation and the American Bar Foundation and a member 

of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association; he was formerly 

a member of the Texas Constitutional Revision Commission; 
2 

•HRES 31 EH 

Whereas well known for his expertise in the legal field, Judge 

Jefferson has been a highly sought-after speaker 

throughout his career; he has been a frequent speaker at 

the Criminal Law Institute for the Houston Bar Association and the San Antonio Bar Association; he was a 

speaker for the National Bar Association’s convention 

and for the Family Law Institute; 

Whereas a highly respected individual, Judge Jefferson has 

been prominent in community organizations and activities 

throughout his life and is noted for his leadership and 

sound judgment; 

Whereas a former chairman of the board of the Houston 

Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank and of the Texas 

Southern University Foundation, he is a life member of 

the Houston Area Urban League and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; 

Whereas he has been the recipient of a number of awards, 

including the Anti-Defamation League National Torch of 

Liberty Award, the Forward Times Community Service 

Award, the League of United Latin American Citizens 

National Community Service Award, and the Community 

Service Award from La Raza; and 

Whereas an exemplary and distinguished gentleman, Judge 

Jefferson is beloved and respected by his many friends 

and the people of the legal community, and he deserves 

recognition for his outstanding career and accomplishments: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives hereby commends Andrew L. Jefferson, Jr., on his achievements and extends congratulations to him on his selection as the First En-
3 

•HRES 31 EH 

dowed Chair of the Thurgood Marshall School of Law Trial 

Advocacy Program. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      80,892,138
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               61,657,663
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,552,890)
<INVENTORY>                                  5,704,636
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           177,485,397
<PP&E>                                     297,656,973
<DEPRECIATION>                            (55,503,902)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,292,081,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      124,003,616
<BONDS>                                  1,238,924,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      471,103,377
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        93,437
<OTHER-SE>                               1,820,884,376
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,292,081,190
<SALES>                                      5,228,777
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           105,352,629
<CGS>                                       11,323,178
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              102,221,431
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (2,867,533)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          31,190,797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (32,093,649)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (9,976,034)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (22,117,615)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           (20,387,134)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (42,504,749)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.26


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent, v Lisa Sue C., Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 197]

—In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated December 14, 1993, made after a hearing, which terminated her parental rights upon finding that she had violated the terms and conditions set forth in an order of the same court dated January 22, 1991.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence adduced at the hearing to determine, *inter alia,*the mother’s compliance with certain "aftercare recommendations” promulgated pursuant to the Family Court’s order dated January 22, 1991, established that although the appellant was clearly apprised of the exact terms of the "aftercare recommendations”, she nevertheless failed to comply with at least several of the recommendations. Because, pursuant to the order dated January 22, 1991, strict compliance with all the terms and conditions of the "aftercare recommendations” was a condition of the the Family Court’s suspension of the termination of the appellant’s parental rights, the Family Court properly terminated her parental rights at this juncture. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
#### Barbara A. MONEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-1135.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided June 13, 2001.

Submitted June 29, 2001.

Stephen F. Shea, Willoner, Calabrese *&*Rosen, P.A., College Park, MD, for appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte Hard-nett, Acting General, Frank V. Smith, Acting Deputy General, John M. Sacchetti, Associate General Counsel, George G. Davidson, Office of the General, Social Security Division, Department of Health and Human Services, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Barbara A. Money appeals the magistrate judge’s order* granting summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security in Money’s action for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 401-433 (West Supp.2000). This Court must uphold the denial of such benefits if the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standard was applied. *See*42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West Supp .2000); *Craig v. Chater,*76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir.1996). We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. 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.*

*

 The parties consented to. the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp.2000).
August 10, 1959

No. 63298.

protests 326320-K, 326321-K, and 326322-K.

#### Chas. Kurz Co. *v.*United States,

Cases restored to docket by order of the court.
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 Annual Report of Atlas Resources Public #18-2008 (A) L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sean P. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner, 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 Partnership. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                                                |
|------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ SEAN P. MCGRATH                            |
| Sean P. McGrath                                |
| Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner |
| August 14, 2014                                |
Served: September 26, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joint Application of

AIR TAHITI NUI. SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE

DELTA AIR LINES, INC

. KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAA RT MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V.

ALITALIA COMPAGNIA A EREA ITALIANA S. P .A.

under 49 U.S.C. §§ 41308 and 41309 for approval of

and antitrust immunity for alliance agreements

Docket DOT

- OST

- 2013

- 00 77

NOTICE ESTABLISHING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE

In this proceeding, several airlines are seeking antitrust immunity for trans atlantic service. The

record is now substantially complete and we establish a procedural schedule, as set forth below.

On April 15, 2013, Air Tahiti Nui, Société Air France, Delta Air Lines, Inc., Koninklijke

Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V., and Alitalia Compagnia Aerea Italiana S.p.A. (collectively, the

“Joint Applicants”) filed a joint application requesting approval of and antitrust immunity for

alliance agreements covering foreign air transportation via trans atlantic routings. They also filed

a joint motion seeking confidential treatment for supporting documents and information,

pursuant to Rule 12 of the Department’s procedural regulations (14 C.F.R. § 302.12).

On April 19, 2013 , we issued a Notice suspending the procedural schedule and providing acc ess

to documents. On July 31, 2013 , we issued an Order Requesting Additional Information. The

Joint Applicants responded to this order by submitting additional documents and information on

August 22

, August 27, and September 25

, 2013. In each case the j oint applicants accompanied

their supplemental filings with a motion seeking confidential treatment for certain information

they provided.

We have completed our initial review of the application and all supporting materials subm itted

by the Joint Applican ts and find that t he record is now substantially complet e. 1 We therefore

establish the following procedural schedule for public comment:

1 We reserve the right to require the filing of additional information deemed relevant to the proceeding at any time.2

Answers

– must be filed no later than 21 calendar days from the date of issuance of this

Notice ;

Replies

– must be filed no later than 7 business days after the last day for filing an

answer.

We will serve this N otice on all persons on the service list for this docket.

By:

SUSAN L. KURLAND

Assistant Secretary

for Aviation and International Affairs

Date:

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available at http://www.regulations.gov
|  Continental Divide Trail Society |  |
|----------------------------------------|--|

        -  				Home			  -  			Silent Trail		 
-  			Jim Wolf		 
-  			Proposal to CDTC		 
 
        -  				CDT Location			  -  			Montana		 
-  			Wyoming		 
-  			Colorado		 
-  			New Mexico		 
 
        -  				Membership			 
        -  				Donate 			 
        -  				Store			  -  			Guide to the Continental Divide Trail 		 
-  			Printed Maps		 
-  			DVDs		 
-  			Archived Newsletters		>  -  			Sample Newsletter		>  -  			User Comments		 
 
 
-  			Embroidered Patches		 
-  			Shopping Cart		>  -  			International Shipping		 
 
-  			2016 Order Form		 
 
        -  				What's New			  -  			Archives		 
 
        -  				Contact Us			 
        -  				Links			  -  			Hikers' Reports		 
-  			Environmental		 
-  			Legal and Administrative		 
-  			Volunteer		 
-  			Planning Aids		 
-  			Other Information		 
 
        -  				Shopping Cart			 
        -  				New Page
## P e t i t i o n t o A m e n d E x i s t i n g 3 3 3 E x e m p t i o n

C u r r e n t E x e m p t i o n : N o

. 1 4 9 0 5

E x e m p t i o n H o l d e r : C a s e y L e w i s t o n

T h i s l e t t e r i s b e i n g w r i t t e n w i t h t h e p u r p o s e o f a d d i n g t w o a u t h o r i z e d a i r c r a f t t o t h e e x i s t i n g

e x e m p t i o n n u m b e r 1 4 9 0 5

. T h e e x e m p t i o n c u r r e n t l y a l l o w s o n l y f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e c u s t o m

b u i l t A P

­ 1 m u l t i r o t o r

.

I w o u l d l i k e t o r e q u e s t t h e f

o l l o w i n g a i r c r a f

t b e a d d e d a s a u t h o r i z e d e q u i p m e n t :

D J I I n s p i r e

D J I P h a n t o m 4

T h e p r o p o s e d a i r c r a f

t h a v e b e e n u s e d i n v i d e o p r o d

u c t i o n s i n c e t h e i r f

i r s t s a l e s

, a n d h a v e a g r e a t

t r a c k r e c o r d o f s a f

e t y a n d r e l i a b i l i t y

. I n a d d i t i o n

, t h e D J I a i r c r a f t a r e m u c h s m a l l e r a n d l i g h t e r

w e i g h t t h a n o u r e x i s t i n g C o p t e r r a A P

­ 1

. T h i s w i l l a l l o w f o r a n i n c r e a s e i n s a f

e t y w h e n t h e l a r g e r

a i r c r a f t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y

.

T h e t w o a i r c r a f

t n a m e d a r e c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e t h r o u g h t h e p i l o t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n e r

. T h e y w i l l b e r e g i s t e r e d w i t h p r o p e r N

­ n u m b e r s b e f o r e a n y f l i g h t s t a k e p l a c e

, a n d w i l l o p e r a t e

u n d e r t h e s a m e g u i d e l i n e s a s a r e l i s t e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l e x e m p t i o n r e q u e s t

.

T h a n k y o u f o r y o u r t i m e

,

C a s e y L e w i s t o n

c a s e y @ a g a f i l m

. c o m

5 6 7 5 O l d R e d w o o d H w y A p t 4

P e n n g r o v e

, C A

, 9 4 9 5 1

7 0 7

. 6 0 1

. 2 6 3 7
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Al Minkins, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 15]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.), rendered March 31, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Most of the challenged prosecutor’s summation comments are unpreserved as a matter of law due to defendant’s failure to object (CPL 470.05; *People v Iannelli,*69 NY2d 684, *cert denied*482 US 914), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In any event, taken in context, they were appropriate responses to the defense summation *(see, People v Marks,*6 NY2d 67, *cert denied*362 US 912; *People v Colonna,*135 AD2d 724), and within the broad bounds of permissible rhetorical comment *(People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396). Moreover, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, impropriety, if any, by the prosecutor in summation would be harmless *(see, People v Woodwards,*215 AD2d 203; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.
From: bettyww@centurytel.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:19:37 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,

Elizabeth Watts

Greenville, AL 36037
Exhibit 10.2 [millstream10k033111ex102001.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex102002.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex102003.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex102004.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex102005.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex102006.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex102007.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex102008.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex102009.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex102010.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex102011.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex102012.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex102013.jpg]
#### The Union Insurance Company of Philadelphia. Respondent, v. Melancthon Vandercook, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, without leave to plead over. Opinion by

Landon, J.
Table of Contents

Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Smith Barney Westport Futures Fund L.P. (the‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the periodending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’),I, Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Director ofCitigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/ Daniel R. McAuliffe,Jr.

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Daniel R. McAuliffe,Jr.Citigroup Managed Futures LLC Chief Financial Officer andDirector     Date: August 14,2006

----
BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION,

February 27, 1967

No. P67/48.

No. P67/49.

No. P67/50.

No. P67/51.

No. P67/52.

#### The Durst Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 322461-K, etc. (New York).

#### Globe Importing Company *v.*United States,

protests 324444-K, etc. (New York).

#### Globe Importing Company *v.*United States,

protests 58/22050, etc. (New York).

#### The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/30307, etc. (New York).

#### Globe Importing Company *v.*United States,

protests 61/16211, etc. (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of strainers in chief value of brass similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Company*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 488, Abstract 69651), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-034 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. SoethoutDwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company