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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8210 

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to eliminate 

a requirement that certain individuals be related by blood or marriage 

to be eligible for farm loans as a qualified beginning farmer or rancher, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Agriculture, 

A BILL 

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 

Act to eliminate a requirement that certain individuals 

be related by blood or marriage to be eligible for farm 

loans as a qualified beginning farmer or rancher, 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 ‘‘Future Farmers and 

5 Ranchers of Tomorrow Act of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8210 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR FARM LOANS AS A QUALIFIED BE2 GINNING FARMER OR RANCHER. 

3 Section 343(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and 

4 Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(11)) is amend5 ed by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating sub6 paragraphs (D) through (G) as subparagraphs (C) 

7 through (F), respectively. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### JOSEPH HIRSCHBERG, RESPONDENT, v. BENJAMIN FLUSSER, APPELLANT.

Submitted July 8, 1918

Decided October 11, 1918.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 91 *N. J. L.*66.

Eor the appellant, *Samuel Roessler.*

Eor the respondent, *Philip J. Schotland.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner. JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— None.
##### 



Exhibit 12
 MSW ENERGY HOLDINGS LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
 COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Unaudited, in thousands)
 For the Period from
    
    
    For the Period from
    
    
    For the SixJune 25 through
    
    
    January 1 through
    
    
    Months EndedJune 30, 2005
    
    
    June 24, 2005
    
    
    June 30, 2004EARNINGS:Pre-tax
income (loss) from continuing operations
for minority interest
in consolidated subsidiary
    
    $
    2,662
    
    
    $
    (2,901
    )
    
    $
    11,863Less earnings attributable to Ref-Fuel
prior to consolidation
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (6,545
    )$
    2,662
    
    
    $
    (2,901
    )
    
    $
    5,318Add (deduct):Fixed charges
    
    
    1,074
    
    
    
    31,517
    
    
    
    17,917Distributed earnings of Ref-Fuel
Holdings prior to consolidation
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    31,374Earnings, as adjusted
    
    $
    3,736
    
    
    $
    28,616
    
    
    $
    54,609FIXED CHARGES:Interest expense
    
    $
    1,074
    
    
    $
    31,517
    
    
    $
    17,917Fixed charges
    
    $
    1,074
    
    
    $
    31,517
    
    
    $
    17,917RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES:
    
    
    3.48
    x
    
    
    0.91
    x
    
    
    3.05
    x
EXHIBIT 4.10

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE


$5,000.00                                                Date:  February 8, 2001

For value received, the undersigned  Mariculture Systems, Inc. (the "Borrower"),
at PO Box 968, Lake Stevens, Washington 98258-0968, promises to pay to the order
of Elaine  Louise  Meilahn,  (the  "Lender"),  at 7219 196th  Street  SW,  #C-3,
Lynnwood,  Washington  98036-4402,  (or at such  other  place as the  Lender may
designate in writing) the sum of $5,000.00 with interest  calculated  separately
on the unpaid  principal of the loan dating from the date of  inception,  at the
rate of 12.00% per annum.

The individual loan(s) made to the Borrower is itemized as follows:
         $5,000.00 on 1/24/2001.

The unpaid principal and accrued interest shall be payable in full on any future
date on which the Lender demands repayment (the "Due Date").

All payments on this Note shall be applied first in payment of accrued  interest
and any remainder in payment of principal.

The Borrower  reserves the right to prepay this Note (in whole or in part) prior
to the Due Date with no prepayment penalty.

If any payment  obligation  under this Note is not paid when due,  the  Borrower
promises to pay all costs of  collection,  including  reasonable  attorney fees,
whether or not a lawsuit is commenced as part of the collection process.

If any  one or  more  of the  provisions  of  this  Note  are  determined  to be
unenforceable,  in whole or in part,  for any reason,  the remaining  provisions
shall remain fully operative.

All payments of  principal  and interest on this Note shall be paid in the legal
currency of the United  States.  The Borrower  waives  presentment  for payment,
protest, and notice of protest and nonpayment of this Note.

No renewal or extension of this Note, delay in enforcing any right of the Lender
under this Note, or assignment by Lender of this Note shall affect the liability
or the obligations of the Borrower. All rights of the Lender under this Note are
cumulative and may be exercised  concurrently or  consecutively  at the Lender's
option.

This  Note  shall be  construed  in  accordance  with  the laws of the  State of
Washington.

Signed this 7th day of February, 2001, at Lake Stevens, WA

Borrower:
Mariculture Systems, Inc.

By: /s/ David E. Meilahn
-------------------------------------------
     President
#### Nuriel Vardi, Respondent, v Max Greenblatt, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 97]

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered July 13, 1994, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Jay Dankberg, J.), entered February 9, 1993, denying defendant’s motion to renew and reargue with respect to a judgment of the same court entered November 12, 1992, awarding plaintiff, upon a prior grant of summary judgment, the sum of $16,402.81, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s contention that the Civil Court "misapplied] relevant law by holding that the affirmation of [defendant’s] attorney was insufficient hearsay and by refusing to consider as admissible the attached documentary evidence” is without merit, since Judge Dankberg’s decision clearly indicates that defendant’s submissions were considered. Defendant never rebutted the presumption of negligence, because he failed to establish that the bailed diamond in question was one of the diamonds stolen during a burglary *(Sun Yau Ko v Lincoln Sav. Bank,*99 AD2d 943, *affd*62 NY2d 938). Accordingly, the Civil Court properly awarded plaintiff summary judgment for the value of the missing gem. Moreover, there was nothing "new” about the evidence belated submitted by defendant, which consisted of his cursory statement in an affidavit that easily could have been included with the original opposition papers. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted), I, Claudio
Gianascio, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

         1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
December 31, 2005, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1
(the "PERIODIC REPORT") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company
for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated: March 27, 2006


S/ Claudio Gianascio
--------------------
Claudio Gianascio
CEO & CFO

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

THIS  CERTIFICATION   ACCOMPANIES  THIS  REPORT  PURSUANT  TO  SS.  906  OF  THE
SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED  "FILED" BY THE  COMPANY FOR
PURPOSES OF SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case No. 13,845.

#### Ex parte TETLOW.

[The case reported under above title in le Int. Bev. Rec. 205. and 6 Am. Law Rev. 575, is the same as Case No. 16,456.)
#### WALTER WERNER, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. THE CITY OF EAST ORANGE, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Mr. Frank A. Paglianile*for the petitioners.

*Mr. William Ij. Brack*and *Mr. Edward Stanton*for the respondents.

June 5, 1967.

Denied.
No. 58126.

petition 6949-R (New York).

#### Edward P. Paul & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This is a petition filed under the provisions of section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1930 seeking the remission of additional duties imposed by reason of the appraised value exceeding the entered value of certain lamp bases imported from Naples, Italy, and entered at the port of New York.

The sole witness was the president of the petitioner corporation, an “Importer and manufacturer of lamps, giftwares, and artwares.” The witness stated that while he was in Italy, in 1949, he purchased the lamp bases under consideration, and that when the merchandise arrived in this country it was cleared through customs under his supervision. He further testified that while he was in Italy he made inquiries as to the price at which lamp bases, such as those involved herein, were being offered to other purchasers, and that, before appraisement of the present merchandise, the customs examiner called his attention to the fact “that there were some importers bringing in similar merchandise, similar to our lamp bases, at $1.50 from the same manufacturer,” whereas petitioner had paid only $1.05 for the articles which it had imported. The witness stated further that he returned to Naples and visited the foreign manufacturer and exporter to check the merchandise which he was selling for $1.50 with that for which petitioner had paid only $1.05. In this connection, the witness testified that “in 1950 when I went back to Italy I asked the manufacturer to show me the lamps that he was selling and — I mean the ones he was selling for $1.50. and he showed me *511the lamps that were more richly decorated — there were hand made flowers on the lamp; ours had two flowers and the others had four flowers, more painting and more elaborate; although ours were the same size, they were more cheaply made.”

There was no cross-examination of petitioner’s witness. At the conclusion of his direct testimony, Government counsel stated that “this case is the same” as the case of *Edward P. Paul & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*31 Cust. Ct. 350, Abstract 57705. That case involved a petition, like the present one, in which the merchandise under consideration consisted of lamp bases, the same as those discussed herein. The facts upon which the court granted the petition in the cited case were substantially the same as those established herein.

From an examination of the record and a consideration of all of the facts in the case, we are satisfied that the entry of the merchandise at a value less than that at which it was appraised was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise.

The petition is granted and judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### United Orient Bank et al., Appellants, v Capital Testing Corp., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[634 NYS2d 70]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about June 7,1994, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant Capital Testing’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants perpetrated a scheme whereby plaintiffs were prevented from recovering on the security interests they allegedly held in a commercial cooperative unit. However, plaintiffs have no valid claim against Capital Testing. Indeed, the record clearly demonstrates that Capital Testing innocently purchased the unit in question for fair mar*258ket value, and received the shares allocated to the unit and its proprietary lease (see, Debtor and Creditor Law § 278; *Anderson v Blood,*152 NY 285; *Center v Hampton Affiliates,*66 NY2d 782). There is no evidence that Capital Testing had, or should have had, any knowledge, of the alleged scheme involving cancellation and replacement of the shares and proprietary lease. In fact, Capital Testing ordered all the necessary and customary searches before it closed on the sale of the unit; none indicated that plaintiffs had a lien or security interest in the property. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.
HARVEY SAX
                                                Direct Dial: (404) 237-4646 x140
                                                E-mail: hsax@homecom.com

January 10, 2001

George Bokuchava
3189 Parkridge Crescent
Chamblee, GA 30341

          Re:  Amendment to Employment Agreement of George Bokuchava
               ("Employee") with HomeCom Communications, Inc. (the "Company")

George:

Upon receipt of approval from the Board of Directors of the Company, your
employment agreement shall be amended as follows:

     o    In the event of termination for any reason other than for cause,
          including a constructive termination during a change in control, you
          will receive nine (9) months salary as severance payable at the time
          of termination.

     o    For the purposes of this agreement, "cause" shall be defined as the
          occurrence of any of the following events: (a) willful misconduct or
          grossly negligent conduct by Employee which causes significant harm to
          the Company; or (b) conviction of the Employee of a felony.

     o    For the purposes of this agreement, "change in control" shall be
          defined as (a) the Sale of the Company; (b) a liquidation or
          dissolution of the Company; (c) a declaration of bankruptcy by the
          Company under the federal bankruptcy laws; or (d) the cessation for
          any reason of individuals who, as of the date hereof, constitute the
          Board of Directors to constitute at least a majority of the Board of
          Directors, other than Directors who are appointed to the Board by the
          current sitting Board to replace a resigning member of the Board of
          Directors.


                                              Sincerely,

                                              HOMECOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



                                              By: ______________________
                                              Harvey Sax
                                              President and CEO
Exhibit 31.3









CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d)







I, Marc Kilbride, Vice President and Treasurer of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (successor to Reliant Energy, Incorporated), as servicer (the “servicer”), certify that:






1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of CenterPoint Energy Transition Bond Company, LLC;




2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;




4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance with the terms of the Transition Property Servicing Agreement dated October 24, 2001 between CenterPoint Energy Transition Bond Company, LLC (successor to Reliant Energy Transition Bond Company LLC), as Issuer, and the servicer, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (successor to Reliant Energy, Incorporated) (the “Transition Property Servicing Agreement”),  and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Transition Property Servicing Agreement; and




5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer’s compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.







/s/ Marc KilbrideMarc KilbrideVice President and Treasurer(Senior Officer in Charge of Servicing Function)CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, as servicerMarch 25, 2011
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Anthony A. Cassaro, Jr., Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 426]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 11, 1994, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

*791Claimant, an assistant manager of a video store, was discharged from his employment after he left for the day without permission. The Board denied claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits finding that claimant was terminated for misconduct. Given the evidence in the record, which establishes that claimant wished to leave work early because he was dissatisfied with another employee’s promotion and, in fact, left despite a warning by his supervisor not to do so, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 

          - [CBP Dec. 07-14] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice of re-approval of Intertek Caleb Brett of Corpus Christi, Texas, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 151.13, Intertek Caleb Brett, 134 Heinsohn Road, Suite A, Corpus Christi, Texas 78406, has been re-approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils, and to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analysis or gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific tests or gauger services this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *http://www.cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​ svcs/org_and_operations.xml*.                     

# DATES:

The re-approval of Intertek Caleb Brett as a commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on February 23, 2005. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for February 2008. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene J. Bondoc, PhD, or Randall Breaux, Laboratories and Scientific Services, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060. 

Dated: March 22, 2007. 

Ira S. Reese, 

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

 [FR Doc. E7-5708 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
No. 49273.

#### Protests 102568-K, etc., of B. R. Anderson & Co. et al. (Seattle and Tampa).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Before the Second Division,

October 18, 1949

No. 53636.

protest 115162-K (New York).

#### Sand & Siman *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, 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 MONTANA

No. DA 22-0016

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RILEY JOSEPH LANDWEHR,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 13, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 6 2023

01/06/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0016