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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 218 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 218

      To authorize testimony, production of Senate documents, and 
         representation by Senate Legal Counsel in civil case.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 27, 1998

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      To authorize testimony, production of Senate documents, and 
         representation by Senate Legal Counsel in civil case.

Whereas, in the case of Buroojy, et al. v. Walsh, et al., Civil Case No. 97-
        91407, pending in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, documents 
        have been subpoened from the offices of Senator John McCain and Senator 
        Jon Kyl;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial process, be taken from 
        such control or possession by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent Members, officers, or employees of the 
        Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for evidence 
        relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate May promote the administration of justice, the Senate shall 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with 
        the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That employees of the offices of Senator McCain and 
Senator Kyl are authorized to testify and produce documents in the case 
of Buroojy, et al. v. Walsh, et al., except concerning matters for 
which a privilege or objection should be asserted
    Sec. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Senator McCain and Senator Kyl and their employees in connection with 
the testimony and document production authorized in section one of this 
resolution.
                                 <all>
```
No. 62862.

#### Alexanders Dept. Stores, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 318761-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that one case of shoes, ADS 238/44, and one case of handbags, ADS 35221/1, reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon one case of shoes, ADS 238/44, and one case of handbags, ADS 35221/1, which were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Before the Second Division,

June 23, 1948

No. 52401.

protests 905498-G, etc. (New York).

#### H. H. Schmidt Glove Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

BENJAMIN BREDFORD,

1

Petitioner Below,

Appellant,

v.

KAREN and RODNEY WASHINGTON 

and HEATHER STONE,

Petitioners Below,

Appellees.

§

§ No. 277, 2018

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ File No. CN17-01266

§ Pet. No. 17-25343

§

§

Submitted: September 4, 2018

Decided: September 14, 2018

O R D E R

It appears to the Court that, on August 16, 2018, the Senior Court Clerk issued a 

notice to the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for his 

failure to diligently prosecute the appeal by not paying the Family Court record 

preparation fee and transcript costs. The appellant failed to respond to the notice to show 

cause within the required ten-day period; therefore, dismissal of this action is deemed to 

be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 

3(b) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice

 

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
B oard o f G overnors o f the F ederal R eserve S ystem

Washington , D C 20551

August 24, 2018

Mr. Neal Wilson 

EJF Capital LLC

2107 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 410 

Arlington, Virginia 22201

Dear Mr. Wilson:

This letter responds to your request dated July 24, 2018, on behalf of EJF 

Capital LLC (together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, “EJF”), Arlington, Virginia, for 

complete relief from commitments EJF made to the Board in connection with its 

September 2013 purchase of preferred shares issued by Reliance Bancshares, Inc. 

(“Reliance”), Des Peres, Missouri, to the U.S. Department of the Treasury as part of the 

Troubled Asset Relief Program’s Capital Purchase Program (“CPP Shares”). EJF 

provided the Board with commitments that were intended to ensure that EJF would not 

exercise a controlling influence over Reliance and that the CPP Shares would not be 

treated as voting securities under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended.

EJF has no remaining equity interest in Reliance. In addition, EJF has 

represented that it does not have: representation or the right to representation on the 

board of directors of Reliance or any of its affiliates; existing or contemplated business 

relationships between EJF and Reliance or any of its affiliates; employee interlocks with 

Reliance or any of its affiliates; formal or informal agreements with Reliance relating to 

the management or policies of Reliance or any of its affiliates; or any relationships with 

other shareholders of Reliance through which it might exert influence over Reliance or its 

affiliates. Moreover, EJF has represented that it will not exercise or attempt to exercise a 

controlling influence over Reliance without the prior approval of the Board if granted 

relief from the commitments.

Based on all the facts of record, the Director of the Division of Supervision 

and Regulation, acting pursuant to authority delegated by the Board under 

section 265.7(a)(2) of the Board’s Rules Regarding Delegation of Authority
(12 CFR 265.7(a)(2)), and after consulting with the General Counsel, has approved EJF’s 

request for relief from the commitments provided in connection with EJF’s purchase of 

the CPP Shares. This action is based on the representations and commitments set forth in 

all of your communications and correspondence related to your request, including the 

representations discussed above. Any change in the facts presented could result in a 

different conclusion and should be reported to Board staff immediately. This 

determination should not be construed as granting relief from any other conditions or 

commitments to which EJF may be subject.

Very truly yours,

Ann E. Misback 

Secretary of the Board
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 1705

JORGE LUIS VALAREZO

- TIRADO

,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

( Agency No. A208

- 449

- 401 )

Present: SMITH, Chief Judge 

, MCKEE

, and AMBRO

, Circuit Judges

1. Motion by Respondent to Amend Opinion

2. Response by Petitioner to M otion to A mend.

Respectfully,

Clerk/ clw

____________________ __ ___________ORDER________________________________

Upon considering the government’s motion to amend the opinion that was

previously filed in this matter on 8/ 27 /21 and the Petitioner’s Response to that Motion,

the motion to amend is hereby granted in part and denied in part as reflected in the

attached Opinion.

The Opinion previously filed on 7/23/21 is hereby vacated and the attached

Opinion is filed in its place.

By the Court,

s/ Theodore McKee

Circuit Judge

Dated: Dec ember 21, 2021

CLW/arr/cc: RDH; CWS; LLJ; ACM; ACP

 Judge Smith was Chief Judge at the time this appeal was argued . Judge Smith completed

his term as Chief Judge and assumed senior status on December 4, 2021.
No. P68/44.

protest 66/3973 (New York).

#### Int’l. Hardware Imports, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of door locks in chief value of iron or steel, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, and not colored with gold lacquer; that following the principle of *Shriro Trading Corp.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 422, C.D. 2669), said locks are not locks of cylinder or pin tumbler construction; and that said locks are not cabinet locks or padlocks, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
| Glossary of Shipping Terms                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
| ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ  
  

The terms in this glossary have been carefully    selected from the myriad of terms one can encounter in the shipping business. We hope you    will find it useful.

This information is disseminated under the sponsorship of    the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S.    Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof nor does it endorse    products.

U.S. Department of TransportationMaritime Administration1-800-99MARAD(6-2723)http://www.marad.dot.gov

  |
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

EARL MORRISHOW, JR.,

Defendant.

CR06-5455BHS

INITIAL ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS

OF VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS

OF SUPERVISION BY UNITED

STATES PROBATION OFFICE

THIS MATTER comes on for hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation Office alleging

that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Special/Assistant United States Attorney, DAVID JENNINGS;

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, RALPH HURVITZ for KAREN

UNGER;

The Court having advised the defendant of the allegations in the Petition(s) filed by the U.S. Probation

Office; the defendant having been advised of the maximum potential sanction if the allegation(s) is/are

substantiated; and the court finding probable cause with regard to the alleged violation(s); 

The matter is scheduled for hearing before the Honorable BENJAMIN H. SETTLE.

Date: AUGUST 12, 2009

Time: 9:00 A.M.

( ) Defendant is released pending the above scheduled hearing.

( X ) Defendant is ordered detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any

other person or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

by the court for further proceedings. – Without Prejudice. 

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the defendant,

the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services Office.

July 22, 2009.

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold________________ J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6336

DARRELL J. WILLIAMS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

SERGEANT JACKSON, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Alvin S. 

Glenn Detention Center; WARDEN, ALVIN S. GLENN DETENTION 

CENTER, a/k/a Renaldo Meyers, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (8:07-cv-03661-CMC) 

Submitted: September 18, 2009 Decided: November 3, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Darrell J. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel C. Plyler, 

DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Darrell J. Williams appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Williams v. Jackson, No. 8:07-cv-03661-CMC (D.S.C. Feb. 10, 

2009). 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
I, PAM ESTES, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District

of the State of Texas, do hereby certify that Ron Seale, Individually and as the Representative of

the Estate of Clara Lavinia Seale, Plaintiff in the trial court secured an extension of thirty-one

(31) days in which to file Appellant’s Brief in the following numbered and entitled cause:

Ron Seale, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Clara Lavinia Seale

No. 12-15-00004-CV vs.

Horace Truett Seale and wife, Nan Seale

This certificate is made pursuant to Tex. Rev. Civ. State. Ann. art. 5069, 1.05 sec. 3(c)

(Vernon Supp. 1985) to assist the Clerk of the Trial Court in calculating the amount of postjudgment interest accrued.

WITNESS MY HAND and seal of said Court at Tyler, Texas, this 25 day of November

2015, A.D.

Respectfully yours,

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By: ______________________________

 Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
# Official Journal L 227/2017

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 227 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 601 September 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 227

English edition

Legislation

Volume 601 September 2017

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2017/1487 of amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2017 | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2017/1487 of amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2017

1

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

Any revenue provided for in Article 21(2) and (3) of the Financial Regulation, entered in Titles 5 and 6 of the statement of revenue, may lead to additional appropriations being entered on the headings which bore the initial expenditure giving rise to the corresponding revenue.

Figures for outturn refer to all authorised appropriations, including budget appropriations, additional appropriations and earmarked revenue.

Budgetary remarks are only executable insofar as they do not modify or extend the scope of an existing legal base, impinge on the administrative autonomy of institutions and can be covered by available resources (as indicated in the annex to the executability letter dated 28 October 2015).

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DARNELL MCGARY,

Petitioner,

v.

DR. HENRY RICHARDS,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5086RJB

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK

TO

DISMISS PETITION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B). This matter comes before the Court upon plaintiff’s motion to dismiss his petition

for writ of habeas corpus. (Dkt. #7). After reviewing plaintiff's motion and the record, the Court

does hereby find and ORDER:

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 41(a), a plaintiff has the right to

voluntarily dismiss his case without order of the Court when no answer or motion for summary

judgment has been filed by an adverse party. Rule 41(a)(1) specifically provides that dismissal as a

matter of right can be foreclosed only by the filing of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. 

Roddy v. Dendy, 141 F.R.D. 261, 262 (S.D. Mississippi, 1992). 

Petitioner requests dismissal after the Court issued an order to amend his petition or show cause

why the matter should not be summarily dismissed (Dkt. #6). In its order the Court explained that

petitioner had failed to exhaust his state court remedies, and directed him to file an amended petition by

April 10, 2006, or show cause why his petition should not be dismissed. Procedurally in this case,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

respondent has not yet been served with the petition. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1),

plaintiff’s motion to dismiss his petition (Dkt. #7) hereby is GRANTED. 

The Clerk is directed to dismiss petitioner’s petition without prejudice and to send a copy of

this Order to petitioner. 

DATED this 10th day of April, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge
EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                       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 on Form 10-Q of Artisoft,  Inc. (the
"Company")  for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  Duncan
G. Perry, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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/ Duncan G. Perry
                                        ----------------------------------------
Dated: May 15, 2003                     Duncan G. Perry
                                        Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Artisoft,  Inc. and will be retained by Artisoft, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 251

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Commending the Republic of Croatia for the conduct of its parliamentary and presidential elections.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 251

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the fourth Croatian parliamentary elections, held on

January 3, 2000, marked Croatia’s progress toward

meeting its commitments as a participating state of the

Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe

(OSCE) and as a member of the Council of Europe;

Whereas Croatia’s third presidential elections were conducted

smoothly and professionally and concluded on February
2

•HCON 251 EH

7, 2000, with the landslide election of Stipe Mesic as the

new President of the Republic of Croatia;

Whereas the free and fair elections in Croatia, and the following peaceful and orderly transfer of power from the

old government to the new, is an example of democracy

to the people of other nations in the region and a major

contribution to the democratic development of southeastern Europe; and

Whereas the people of Croatia have made clear that they

want Croatia to take its rightful place in the family of

European democracies and to develop a closer and more

constructive relationship with the Euro-Atlantic community of democratic nations: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the people of the Republic of Croatia are to

4 be congratulated on the successful elections and the

5 outgoing Government of Croatia is to be commended

6 for the democratic standards with which it managed

7 the elections;

8 (2) the United States should support the efforts

9 of the new Government of Croatia to increase its

10 work on refugee return, privatization reform, acces11 sion to the World Trade Organization, media re12 form, and further cooperation with the International

13 Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to

14 set an example to other countries in the region;
3

•HCON 251 EH

1 (3) the Congress strongly supports Croatia’s

2 commitment to western democratic standards and

3 will give its full support to the new Government of

4 Croatia to fully implement democratic reforms;

5 (4) the United States continues to promote

6 Croatian-American economic, political, and military

7 relations and welcomes Croatia as a partner in the

8 cause of stability and democratization in south cen9 tral Europe;

10 (5) the United States and the Republic of Cro11 atia should work to establish a strategic partnership

12 to include Croatia’s entry into the North Atlantic

13 Treaty Organization’s Partnership for Peace; and

14 (6) the countries of the European Union should

15 develop closer relations with Croatia and, in par16 ticular, should help to expedite Croatia’s accession

17 into global and regional trade organizations, includ18 ing the World Trade Organization.

Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
No. 51815.

#### American Import Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 127911-K, etc. (El Paso, etc.).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.