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

[108th Congress Public Law 58]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ058.108]

[[Page 117 STAT. 859]]

Public Law 108-58
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To authorize the Congressional Hunger Center to award Bill Emerson and 
       Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships for fiscal years 2003 and 
              2004. <<NOTE: July 14, 2003 -  [H.R. 2474]>> 

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR CONGRESSIONAL HUNGER CENTER TO AWARD 
            BILL EMERSON AND MICKEY LELAND HUNGER FELLOWSHIPS.

    Notwithstanding the Congressional Hunger Fellows Act of 2002 
(section 4404 of Public Law 107-171; 2 U.S.C. 1161), funds appropriated 
for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for the purpose of providing the Bill 
Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships shall be made available to 
the Congressional Hunger Center for the purpose of awarding the 
fellowships, except that any such funds provided in excess of $3,000,000 
in fiscal year 2003 or $3,000,000 in fiscal year 2004 shall be 
appropriated to the Congressional Hunger Fellows Trust Fund established 
by such Act.

    Approved July 14, 2003.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2474:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 149 (2003):
            June 25, considered and passed House.
            June 27, considered and passed Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 39 (2003):
            July 14, Presidential statement.

                                  <all>
```
No. 50023.

#### Protests 48423-K, etc., of Butler Bros. et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 7/30/2023 1

Unsuccessful Vote-Dilution Challenge 

to Automatic Mailing of Absentee Ballots 

in Vermont 

Martel v. Condos 

(Geoffrey W. Crawford, D. Vt. 5:20-cv-131) 

A district judge dismissed a federal complaint alleging that mailing 

absentee ballots to all registered voters created an unconstitutional 

risk of vote dilution arising from ballots cast by ineligible voters. The 

judge found the concern to be a general grievance that did not afford 

the five plaintiffs standing to pursue the claims. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots; 

Covid-19. 

Five voters filed a federal complaint in the District of Vermont on September 

4, 2020, against Vermont’s secretary of state complaining that an intention to 

mail absentee ballots to all registered voters in Vermont in light of social distancing made necessary by the global Covid-19 infectious pandemic was unconstitutional; it would “dilute the votes cast by honest citizens” because 

“many castable ballots will inevitably fall in the hands of persons other than 

the voter to whom the mail-in ballot was directed.”1 With their complaint, the 

voters filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and expedited hearing.2

On September 10, Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford set the case for a videoconference hearing on September 15.3

 On September 16, Judge Crawford dismissed the action.4

Plaintiffs’ case begins and ends with the issue of standing. . . . Cases in 

which plaintiffs assert generalized grievances of unlawful governmental action are commonly dismissed on standing grounds. . . . 

. . . 

. . . If every voter suffers the same incremental dilution of the franchise 

caused by some third-party’s fraudulent vote, then these voters have experienced a generalized injury.”5

1. Complaint at 3, 8, Martel v. Condos, No. 5:20-cv-131 (D. Vt. Sept. 4, 2020), D.E. 1; Martel v. Condos, 487 F. Supp. 3d 247, 248 (D. Vt. 2020). 

2. Motion, Martel, No. 5:20-cv-131 (D. Vt. Sept. 4, 2020), D.E. 2. 

3. Notice, id. (Sept. 10, 2020), D.E. 6; see Martel, 487 F. Supp. 3d at 248; Minutes, Martel, 

No. 5:20-cv-131 (D. Vt. Sept. 16, 2020), D.E. 15; see also Elizabeth Murray, Vermont Sets Date 

to Mail Ballots to Voters, Burlington Free Press, Sept. 16, 2020, at A7. 

4. Martel, 487 F. Supp. 3d 247. 

5. Id. at 251, 253 (quotation marks omitted).
No. 62545.

#### H. A. Gogarty, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 327632-K (B) (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
**Global Golf Holdings, Inc.**
 
 **Certification of Chief Executive Officer**
 
 I, Ford Sinclair, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Global Golf Holdings, Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does 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 quarterly report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4. The registrants certifying officers are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and
 c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 
 5. The registrants certifying officer has disclosed, based on his most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or person performing the equivalent function):
 
 a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 
 6. The registrants other certifying officers have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date: October 20, 2004/s/ Ford SinclairFord SinclairCEO
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN A. PRICE, No. CIV.S-04-1235 GEB DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, CORRECTIONAL

TRAINING FACILITY, SOLEDAD,

Defendant.

___________________________/

On December 6, 2005, defendant filed a timely motion for

summary judgment, noticing that motion to be heard on January 6,

2006. On January 3, 2006, defendant filed an amended notice of

motion, continuing the hearing on its motion for summary judgment to

February 17, 2006, apparently as a result of concerns expressed by

plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se in this matter, that she did not

receive defendant’s motion in the mail in a timely fashion. That

same day plaintiff filed a request to continue the hearing on the

summary judgment motion, citing her recent changes of address. In

Case 2:04-cv-01235-GEB -DAD Document 70 Filed 01/26/06 Page 1 of 3
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

1 Defendant initially noticed its motion for hearing on

January 6, 2006, prior to the law and motion cut-off date, and it is

therefore deemed timely. Moreover, the Final Pretrial Conference in

this matter is not until April 3, 2006.

2

response to the parties’ expressed concerns, the courtroom deputy of

the undersigned magistrate judge placed defendant’s motion for

summary judgment on the court’s February 17, 2006, calendar for

hearing.

On January 11, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel

production of documents seeking to compel further compliance document

request plaintiff served upon defendant nearly a year ago. By letter

filed January 19, 2006, defendant objected to plaintiff’s motion to

compel as untimely, pointing out that the last day for discovery in

this case was November 18, 2005.

Defendant’s understanding of the scheduling order in this

case is correct. Under the terms of that order, all discovery was

left open, save and except that it was to be conducted as to be

completed by November 18, 2005. Therefore, plaintiff’s untimely

motion to compel will not be placed on the court’s calendar but

rather is hereby denied as untimely.

While the last day for law and motion under the court’s

scheduling order was January 13, 2006, the defendant’s motion for

summary judgment is hereby confirmed for hearing on February 17,

2006, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom no. 27 before the undersigned.1 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01235-GEB -DAD Document 70 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Finally, plaintiff shall file and serve opposition to the

motion for summary judgment, if any, on or before February 3, 2006. 

See Local Rule 78-230(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 25, 2006.

DAD:th

ddad1\orders.prose\price1235.motions

Case 2:04-cv-01235-GEB -DAD Document 70 Filed 01/26/06 Page 3 of 3
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIMON N. DUARTE, No. 2:04-cv-0971-MCE-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

DIANE BUTLER,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this

petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.

On May 26, 2006, the magistrate judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on Petitioner and which

contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within ten (10)

days. Petitioner has not filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 2:04-cv-00971-MCE -CMK Document 9 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the Findings and

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge's analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 26, 2006,

are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is 

denied; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter Judgment 

and close this file.

DATED: July 11, 2006

_________________________________

__

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00971-MCE -CMK Document 9 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 2
2 8 June 2013

Richard Payton

8P

- AR

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII

1595 Wynkoop Street

Denver, CO 80202

- 1129

Dear Richard :

Enclosed is the Exceptional Event report for the high wind/blowing dust episode that occurred on April 5 , 2010

in Alamosa, Pagosa Springs and Durango, Colorado. Data for this event are flagged on AQS, as required. This

report, and the analysis and data contained within it, clearly shows that this exceptional event passed the four

required tests under 40 C FR 50.14 (3)(iv ).

This report was made available for public comment on our website from May 28 through June 27 , 201 3 , and

was also distributed to potentially interested parties

. Some minor non

- substantiative external comments were

received and correction s have been made to the report

. S ome non

- substantiative and formatting changes were

also made to the report by the Air Pollution Control Division.

We respectfully request a review of this exceptional event report and concurrence by EPA on this natural high

wind/blowing dust event

.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Gordon E. Pierce

Program Manager

Technical Services Program

Air Pollution Control Division

cc. D ei rdre Rothery, EPA

Lisa Clarke, APCD

Kaitlin Stabrava, APCD

Pat McGraw, APCD

Pat Reddy, APCD

Terry Furuli, APCD
February IRC Handout DRAFT

Chart of Accounts IRC Mee�ng Handout

• 195000 Lessee Right-To-Use Lease Asset & 195900 – Accumulated Amor�za�on on Lessee Lease 

Assets USSGL’s will be moved from the Other Assets category to the Property, Plant, and 

Equipment category.

• USSGL 233000 – Unearned Lessor Revenue will be moved from the Other Liabili�es category to 

the Unearned Revenue category.

• USSGL 214010 - Unfunded Accrued Interest Payable will be moved from the Other Liabili�es 

category to the Accrued Liabili�es – other category.

• USSGL 220500 – Liability for Unearned Insurance Premiums will be moved from Accrued 

Liabili�es – Other category to the Unearned Revenue category.

• USSGL 221100 – Withholdings Payable will be moved from the Accrued Liabili�es – Payroll & 

Benefits category to the Other Liabili�es category.

• USSGL 222500 - Unfunded FECA Liability will be moved from the Accrued Liabili�es – Payroll & 

Benefits category to the Accrued Liabili�es – Other category.

These changes are being made to beter place the defini�ons of the accounts with their proper grouping 

on the Chart of Accounts. The Chart of Accounts provides basic structure to General Ledger accounts 

and this in no way effects their lines on the crosswalks.
#### AIRLINES REPORTING CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claudio MENICOCCI; Olga Menicocci, Defendants-Appellants, and Cisne Corporation, d/b/a Cisne Corporate Travel, Defendant.

No. 00-2258.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 28, 2001.

Decided April 16, 2001.

Claudio Menicocci, Olga Menicocci, pro se. Henry St. John Fitzgerald, Mclnroy & Rigby, L.L.P., Arlington, VA, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Claudio Menicocci and Olga Menicocci appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Plaintiffs in their civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Menicocci,*No. CA-99-1699-A (E.D.Va. filed Aug. 21, 2000, entered Aug. 24, 2000 & Mar. 23, 2000). 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.*
No. 57263.

protests 819795-G, etc. (New York).

#### H. M. Koenigswerther, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for-free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 24(C)

                         AMERIPRISE CERTIFICATE COMPANY
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

City of Minneapolis
State of Minnesota

The undersigned as a director and officer of Ameriprise Certificate Company, a
face-amount certificate company registered under the Investment Company Act of
1940, hereby constitutes and appoints Ross P. Palacios, David K. Stewart, Scott
R. Plummer, and Christopher O. Petersen or any one of them, as his
attorney-in-fact and agent, to sign for him in his name, place and stead any and
all registration statements and amendments thereto (with all exhibits and other
documents required or desirable in connection therewith) that may be prepared
from time to time in connection with said Company's existing or future
face-amount certificate products--whether pursuant to the requirements of the
Securities Act of 1933, the Investment Company Act of 1940 or otherwise--and
periodic and other reports, and amendments thereto, including those on Form
10-K, Form 10-Q and Form 8-K, as required pursuant to provisions of applicable
federal securities laws, and any necessary or appropriate filings with states or
other jurisdictions, and grants to any or all of them the full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act required or necessary or
appropriate in connection with such signatures or filings.

Signed on this 24th day of February, 2009


/s/ William F. Truscott
-----------------------------------
Name: William F. (Ted) Truscott
March 31, 1953 

Hon. William H. Scott Opi.nion No. S-22 

Crimina~l District Attorney 

Civil Courts Bullding Re: Applicabil~ity of the motor 

Houston 2, Texas vehl~cle transfer tax to the 

submItted transact!on between 

Johnston Oil,Field Service 

Corporation and Johnston 

Testers, Inc. 

Attention: Hon. James R. Gough 

Assistent~ District Attorney 

Deer Sir: 

You request the~opinion of this office es to whether-e 

certain transfer of motor vehicles between the,Johnston Oil 

Field Service Corporation end Johnston Testers, Inc. Is subject 

to the tex levied by Article 7047k, Civil Statutes, 

The facts seem to be es follows: All of the capital 

stock of Johnston Oil Field S,ervice CorporatLon, e Texas corporation, was acquired by the Johnston Testers, Inc., e Delewere 

corporetion, with a permit to do business in the State of Texas. 

This being accomplished the Johnston Oil Field Service Corporetion wes liquidated by transfer of ~11 the assets of the Johnston 

011 Field Service Corporation, including the motor'vehlcles 

owned end registered by the Johnston Oil Field Service'Corporetlon. There wes in fact a merger of the Johnston~Oil Field ServLce Corporation with the Johnston Testers, Inc., without consideretion. 

transection does nc 

We ere of the opinion thet under the conceded facts this 

)t constitute a taxable sale of the motor 

vehicles under the provisions of Article 7047k, V .C.S'. There is 

no case in this ?,tate or I,n any other jurisdiction which our re- '. 

search has revealed exactly in point. In the cese of Jones, 

Collector of Internal Revenue v. Noble Drill!ng Comoang Incorporated, 135 Fed. 2d 721, involvi~ng facts somewhat simiier, the 

court said: 

"The merger agreement was without ConsideratSon. 

There.wes e statutory merger, not a mere sale of assets." 

It appears that if there be a merger of two corporations, 

either by contract or by operation of law, wlthout consideration 
Hon. WIllfern H. Scott, page 2 s-22 

moving to the liquidated corporation, it does not have the effect 

of converting the transfer of the essets of the liquidated corporation to the surviving corporation Into a sale of the assets. 

We do not think the facts here are enalegous to the 

facts upon which our previous Opinion No. v-36 (1947) is based. 

A transfer of the motor vehicles by the pertnership to the corporation in Opinion No. v-36 wes concededly based upon the value 

of the motor VehiCleB transferred, hence upon a 'substantlel and 

ascertainable consideration. Such 1,s not the cese here. 

SUMMARY 

There'ls not e sele of motor vehicles within 

the.provisions of the motor vehi,cle~ sales tax imposed by Article 7047k-upon the transfer of motor 

vehicles from a Liquidated corporation to the surviving corporetion by e merger of the corporations 

when the merger wes without consideration. 

Yours very truly, 

JOHN BEN SHEPPRRb 

Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

W.V. Geppert' 

Taxation Division 

Willis Gresham 

Reviewer 

Robert S. Trotti 

FLrst Assistant 

John Ben Shepperd 

Attorney General 

LPL:MG9c 

By: s/L. P. Lollar 

L. .P. Lollar 

Assistant
No. 58957.

protest 244339-K (New York).

#### W. R. Grace & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of American Bank Note Holographics,
Inc. (the Company), that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered
by the Report and the results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.



By: /s/ Mark J. BonneyMark J. BonneyExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer


Date: August 7, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. and will be retained by American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

View Administration Reports: View Vouchers Completed

To view a voucher’s completed report, complete the following steps:

1. From the Reports tab, click Deposit Processing Reports. The View Reports page 

appears. 

2. Under Administration Reports, click View Vouchers Completed. The View Vouchers

Completed page appears.

3. Click the Voucher # hyperlink. The Voucher Event Log page appears as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: View Voucher Event Log Page

The View Voucher Event shows additional information about the voucher and the 

history of the voucher events through the FI (Financial Institution) System to System 

Interface.

4. Click the Voucher # hyperlink to view the details of the deposit or adjustment. The Voucher 

Details Information page or the View Adjustment Details page appears.

Or

Click a Voucher Event State hyperlink to view the voucher event details. The Voucher 

Event Details page appears as shown in Figure 2.

Application Tip
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Figure 2: Voucher Event Details Report Output

The Voucher Event Details page presents the following:

• Processing errors associated with the voucher event

• Additional information about the voucher and the transmission associated with the 

voucher events through the FI System To System Interface

• The Collections Information Repository (CIR) interface

• Click Cancel to return to the OTCnet Home Page. No data is saved. 

• Click Clear to clear all data fields and reset to the default selections.

• Click Previous to return to the previous page.

• Click Refresh to redisplay the page with any additional vouchers that are in-process.

• Click Return Home to return to the previous page.

Application Tips

Additional Buttons