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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4772 

To reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2024 

Mr. KENNEDY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘NFIP Extension Act 

5 of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

7 (a) FINANCING.—Section 1309(a) of the National 

8 Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2023’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘September 30, 2025’’. 

11 (b) PROGRAM EXPIRATION.—Section 1319 of the Na12 tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4772 IS

1 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2023’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘September 30, 2025’’. 

3 (c) RETROACTIVE EFFECTIVE DATE.—If this Act is 

4 enacted after September 30, 2024, the amendments made 

5 by subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect as if enacted 

6 on September 30, 2024. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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

[Proposed] Order on Defendants’ First Request for an Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

MONICA N. ANDERSON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

VAN KAMBERIAN, State Bar No. 176665

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 324-3892

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendants Nuchols, Briddle, Amoskus,

and Felker

SA2005300857

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

TIMOTHY M. JENNINGS,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. FAULKER, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CIV S-04-2131 GEB GGH P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

FIRST REQUEST FOR AN

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Good cause appearing, Defendants are granted a 30-day extension to file a responsive

pleading. Defendants’ responsive pleading shall be due on or before October 12, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: 9/20/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

jenn2131.po.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-02131-GEB-GGH Document 24 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT



To the Board of Directors

1stCentennial Bancorp

(formerly Centennial First Financial Services)

Redlands, California



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-101353 of 1st Centennial Bancorp of our report, dated February 13, 2004, relating to the
financial statements of 1stCentennial Bancorp as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 and for the three years then ended,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of 1stCentennial Bancorp.



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|/s/ Hutchinson and Bloodgood, LLP  
|Glendale, California March 24, 2004
#### Thameera Ramesar et al., Respondents, v Kowsilla Surooj et al., Appellants.

[635 NYS2d 492]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.), dated August 18, 1994, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer to add three counterclaims.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court properly denied the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer to assert three counterclaims against the plaintiff-father for contribution and/or indemnification. The defendants’ proposed amended answer failed to allege "the type of affirmative conduct needed by a parent to remove this case from the general rule that mere negligent supervision of a child is not actionable” *(Navaro v Ieraci,*214 AD2d 713, 714). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4531 

To authorize an exception to the prohibition on the construction of naval 

vessels in foreign shipyards, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 13, 2024 

Mr. LEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize an exception to the prohibition on the construction of naval vessels in foreign shipyards, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Naval Readi5 ness Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO PROHIBITION ON CONSTRUCTION 

7 OF NAVAL VESSELS IN FOREIGN SHIPYARDS. 

8 Section 8679 of title 10, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4531 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘subsection 

2 (b)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (b) and (c)’’; 

3 (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub4 section (d); and 

5 (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol6 lowing new subsection (c): 

7 ‘‘(c) EXCEPTION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NAVAL

8 VESSELS IN CERTAIN COUNTRIES.—(1) Subsection (a) 

9 shall not apply with respect to the construction of a naval 

10 vessel otherwise covered by that subsection if— 

11 ‘‘(A) the foreign shipyard concerned is located 

12 in— 

13 ‘‘(i) a North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

14 member country; or 

15 ‘‘(ii) a country in the Indo-Pacific region 

16 that is party to a mutual defense treaty with 

17 United States; and 

18 ‘‘(B) the cost of the construction concerned is 

19 less than the cost would be if such construction oc20 curred in a domestic shipyard. 

21 ‘‘(2) Before the construction of a naval vessel, or a 

22 major component of the hull or superstructure of a naval 

23 vessel, may commence at a foreign shipyard under this 

24 subsection, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to Con25 gress a certification that the foreign shipyard is not owned 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4531 IS

1 or operated by a Chinese company or a multinational com2 pany domiciled in the People’s Republic of China.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
MARIA COLLINS

,

Appellant,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
National Association

, WARREN E. COLLINS; any and all unknown parties claiming by, through, under, or against the herein named individual defendant(s) who are not known to be dead or alive, whether

s aid unknown parties may claim an interest as spouses, heirs, devisees, grantees, or other claimants; John
Tenant and Jane Tenant whose
names are fictitious to account for parties in possession

Appellee s. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, S TATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 1569

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 14, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County

. Frederic A. Bu ttner , Judge

.

Thomas E

. Ice, Amanda L. Lundergan of ICE Appellate, Royal Palm Beach , for Appellant.

Elliot B. Kula and William Aaron Daniel of Kula & Associates, P.A., Miami , for Appellee.2 PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, CJ., OSTERHAUS

, and WINSOR, J J

. , CONCUR.
No. 55958.

protests 144044-K, etc. (New York).

#### D. Hauser, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

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

LARRY McIVER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-01-1967 KJM

vs.

CALIFORNIA EXPOSITION & FAIR, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ISC, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-04-1790 KJM

vs.

CALIFORNIA EXPOSITION & FAIR, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

The time for filing objections to the proposed consent decrees, filed December 1,

2005, has expired. No objections have been filed. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01790-KJM Document 24 Filed 12/16/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to

enter the final consent decrees, as modified by the court in the order filed December 1, 2005. 

DATED: December 16, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006 mciver-isc.entryconsent

Case 2:04-cv-01790-KJM Document 24 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 46122.

#### Protests 939141-G, etc., of Allied Purchasing Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 58037.

protest 216357-K (New York).

#### Davies, Turner & Co. and Telegraph Apparatus Co. *v.*United States,

*468Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of J4-, *}i-,*and 1-watt carbon resistors, composed in chief value of metal, used chiefly as parts of radio apparatus, instruments, or devices, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Sherwood Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending January 31, 2004, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 

 
| Dated:  March 11, 2004                       |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                              |
|                                              |
|                                              | /s/ Uziel Frydman |   |
| Uziel Frydman                                     |
| Chairman,  President and Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
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

DONALD ROY MILLER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2446 DFL KJM P

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On April 15, 2005, petitioner submitted a letter. That document was not served

on respondent. Petitioner is advised that every document submitted to the court for consideration

must be served on respondent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5; Rule 11, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 

Documents not to be served electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the U.S. Mail. 

If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of respondent, then documents

submitted by petitioner must be served on that attorney and not on the respondent himself. Every

document submitted conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se) must

include a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to respondent

or his attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02446-JKS Document 19 Filed 05/03/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s April 15, 2005 letter

shall be placed in the court file and disregarded. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to comply

with this order may result in imposition of sanctions. 

DATED: May 2, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/kf

mill2446.135b(1) 

Case 2:04-cv-02446-JKS Document 19 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 2
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

GROUP ONE LTD.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

GTE GMBH, RALF WEIGEL, Defendants

UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2022

- 1602

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in No. 1:20

- cv

- 02205

- MKB

JRC, Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie.

______________________
Before D YK , R EYNA , and T ARANTO , Circuit Judge s

. R EYNA , Circuit Judge

. O R D E R
Group One Ltd

. seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying its request to enforce a temporary restraining order and hold a non

- party, the United States Tennis Association, Incorporated, in civil contempt. Having Case: 22-1602 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 09/26/2022GROUP ONE LTD

. v. GTE GMBH 2

received Group One’s response to this court ’ s Ju ly 6, 2022 show cause order, we now dismiss this appeal

. Generally, this court has jurisdiction over only “final decision [ s ] ” of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 129 5(a)(1)

. The Supreme Court “long has stated that as a general rule a district court ’ s decision is appealable under [§ 129 5(a)(1) ] only when the decision ‘ends the litigation on the meritsand leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’” Gulfstre am Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp

., 485 U.S. 271, 275 (1988) (quoting Catlin v. United States

, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)). A denial of a motion for contempt while the case is still ongoing generally fails to end the litigation on the merits and is not i mmediately appealable

. Cf. Doyle v. London Guar. & Accident Co. , 204 U.S. 599 , 603 (1907) ( noting that a prejudgment civil contempt order involving a party generally is not immediately appealable ).
Group One cites no contrary authority that allows a pa rty to appeal (pre

- judgment) from denial of civil contempt . It cites only decisions authorizing a non

- party to appeal (pre

- judgment) from imposition of civil contempt. The rationale for allowing non

- parties to appeal in such circumstances is that a non

- party contemnor “ has no right to appeal from the entry of final judgment

, ” FTC v. Zurixx , 26 F.4 th 1172, 1177 (10 th Cir. 2022 ) (citing Bessette v. W.B. Conkey Co. , 194 U.S. 324, 329

– 30 (1904))

, and “for the non

party, the adjudication in contempt usual ly is the ‘final decision

, ’” Clev. Hair Clinic, Inc. v. Puig , 106 F.3d 165, 167 (7th Cir. 1997). Group One has failed to show how t h at underlying rationale would justify a pre

- judgment appeal from a party that may seek appellate review of the district

cou rt’s order after final judgment in the case

. Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The appeal is dismissed

. Case: 22-1602 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 09/26/2022GROUP ONE LTD

. v. GTE GMBH 3

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

September 26 , 2022 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 22-1602 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 09/26/2022
# STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JASON M. CHAFFIN NO. 2021 KW 1627 FEBRUARY 14, 2022 In Re: Jason M. Chaffin, 

## applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial 

### District Court, Parish of St. 

### Tammany, No. 

### 497, 586. BEFORE: MCCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. PMC JEW MRT



### URkTOFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

# A DEPUTY 

### LERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
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

GLENN T. MASON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1123 FCD PAN P

vs.

M. SANDHAM, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On December 28, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-01123-FCD-EFB Document 58 Filed 02/13/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 28, 2005, are adopted in

full; and

2. Plaintiff’s June 29, 2005, motion for preliminary injunction is denied. 

DATED:February 13, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01123-FCD-EFB Document 58 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 2
From: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov

Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:00 PM To: daugherty@ohaky.com Subject: Trip Report

Hi Steve, this is a courtesy e

- mail letting you know that the trip report that we sent back for you to review will be classified as non

- CBI and is considered to be an accurate account of your aluminum operations. Comments were due back to our office on September 16, 2010. Thanks

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 Mail Drop D243

- 02 Ph: (919) 541

- 1390 Fax: (919) 541

- 3207 Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

DIRECTV, INC., a California CIV. NO. S-04-2352 DFL PAN

corporation,

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER RE DISPOSITION AFTER

 NOTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT

KIRK DIODATI, 

Defendant. 

 /

The court has been advised by plaintiff's counsel,

Brandon Q. Tran, Esq., that this action has been settled. 

Therefore, it is not necessary that the action remain upon the

court's active calendar. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 

1. That counsel file settlement/dismissal documents, in

accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16-160, no later

than November 4, 2005, and,

Case 2:04-cv-02352-DFL-PAN Document 9 Filed 10/06/05 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

2. That all hearing dates previously set in this matter

are vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 10/5/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02352-DFL-PAN Document 9 Filed 10/06/05 Page 2 of 2
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41254

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ARGUETA-HERNANDEZ, 

also known as Jose Saul Hernandez-Argueta,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-346-ALL 

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

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Argueta-Hernandez (Argueta) appeals following his

guilty plea to a charge of illegally reentering the United States

after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Argueta

argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing

Guidelines by characterizing his state felony conviction for

possession of cocaine as an “aggravated felony” for purposes of

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Argueta’s argument is unavailing in

light of circuit precedent. See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez,
No. 05-41254

-2-

130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997). Argueta argues that this

circuit’s precedent is inconsistent with Jerome v. United States,

318 U.S. 101 (1943). Having preceded Hinojosa-Lopez, Jerome is

not “an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly

overruling that prior precedent.” See United States v. Short,

181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999).

Argueta also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)

in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Argueta’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although

Argueta contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided

and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Argueta

properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-78709, 33-60443 and 33-60449) of Katy
Industries, Inc. of our report dated March 29, 2005, except for Note 8, which is
as of April 13, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
March 29, 2005, except for Note 8,
  which is as of April 13, 2005

                                       92