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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8269 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require 

local educational agencies to allow recruiters to access the secondary 

schools served by the local educational agency for recruiting activities, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2024 

Mr. FALLON (for himself and Mr. WALTZ) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in 

addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to require local educational agencies to allow 

recruiters to access the secondary schools served by the 

local educational agency for recruiting activities, 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 ‘‘Recruiters on Campus 

5 Act’’ or the ‘‘ROC Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8269 IH

1 SEC. 2. ESEA MILITARY RECRUITER ACCESS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart 2 of Part F of title VIII 

3 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

4 (20 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 

5 section 8528 the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 8528A. MILITARY RECRUITER ACCESS TO SECONDARY 

7 SCHOOL CAMPUSES. 

8 ‘‘Each local educational agency receiving assistance 

9 under this Act shall provide military recruiters the same 

10 access to the campus of each secondary school served by 

11 the local educational agency for the purpose of recruiting 

12 students who are at least 17 years of age that is provided 

13 to any prospective employer, institution of higher edu14 cation, or other recruiter.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 this Act shall take effect 1 year after the date of enact17 ment of this Act. 

18 SEC. 3. COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING. 

19 On an annual basis, the Secretary of Defense shall— 

20 (1) collect information from military recruiters 

21 regarding the compliance of local educational agen22 cies with the requirements of section 8528A of the 

23 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

24 (as added by section 2 of this Act); and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8269 IH

1 (2) based on such information, prepare and 

2 submit to the Secretary of Education a report 

3 that— 

4 (A) identifies each local educational agency 

5 that the Secretary of Defense determines to be 

6 in violation of such section; and 

7 (B) explains the reasons for such deter8 mination. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 32.01    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Mokita, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Irma N. Colón-Alonso, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.    /s/Irma N. Colón-Alonso By: Irma N. Colón-Alonso Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer  Dated: June 13, 2011  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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7128

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EZEL CROMER, a/k/a Man Cromer,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-96-768, CA-98-1430-8-13)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: Octcober 28, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ezel Cromer, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States

Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

The district court found that this was a second or successive

motion for which Appellant had failed to receive permission from

this Court to file. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Cromer, Nos. CR-96-

768; CA-98-1430-8-13 (D.S.C. July 21, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
March 17, 1952

No. 56486.

protest 164259-K.

#### S. S. Kresge Company *v.*United States,

Abstract 56297. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
Jim Wilkinson - Re: Fwd: Hearing notice 

 

The hearing notice is up! 

>>> Mary Jane Rutkowski 11/2/2012 11:26 AM >>> 

Samantha & Diana 

May we please have this up today? Our managers think we are too close to the legal time line. This will give us 

a small cushion. Thanks! 

>>> Samantha Kappalman 11/2/2012 11:22 AM >>> 

Yep. So it should go up Monday, right? Just send Diana or me the link and we can put it up. 

 

Diana: We should not take anything off notices & alerts. Just add this to the top. 

 

Samantha Kappalman

Director of Communications

Maryland Department of the Environment

410-537-3010

443-934-1023 (cell)

www.mde.state.md.us

 

>>> Kathleen Perry 11/2/2012 11:10 AM >>> 

Hi Samantha, 

 

Would you be able to approve the posting of the attached information to the main page under Notices and 

Alerts? We are required to have the notice up for 30 days before the hearing on December 5th. 

 

Thanks, 

Katy 

From: Diana Alegre

To: Kappalman, Samantha; Perry, Kathleen; Rutkowski, Mary Jane

Date: 11/2/2012 12:01 PM

Subject: Re: Fwd: Hearing notice

CC: Hug, Brian; Wilkinson, Jim

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Setting... 12/10/2012 4:44:59 PM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2159

AELISHA N. MARSH,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CBS MEDIA CORPORATION; BOB SCHOENING, Vice President, CBS 

Charlotte; VEDRA GRANT, National Sales Executive; UNITED 

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, A CBS company; UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGICAL 

ASSOCIATES; JANE MARSH MONTECIGGIO, CBS Corporate; JANE MARSH 

ROCKEFELLER; HEARST PUBLICATIONS, William Randolph Hearst 

Senior; BARBARA MCINTYRE, Human Resources-CBS Charlotte; TERRI 

AVERY, Operations Manager; SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION; REACH 

MEDIA INCORPORATED; ARTIE GOINES; NBC CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS; 

STEVE HARVEY; STEVE HARVEY RADIO NETWORK INCORPORATED; FIRST 

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

INNER CITY BROADCASTING COMPANY; NORTH CAROLINA POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; DONALD PARKER,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:09-cv-00289-RJC)

Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aelisha N. Marsh, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Honeycutt, 

FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, George K. 

Evans, Jr., WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, WinstonSalem, North Carolina, Clinton Russell Pinyan, BROOKS, PIERCE 

MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Greensboro, North Carolina, Joseph 

S. Turner, SEYFARTH & SHAW, Chicago, Illinois, Norris Arden 

Adams, II, ESSEX & RICHARDS, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

Benjamin R. Holland, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, Nancy E. Walker, TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, Erna A.P. Womble, WOMBLE CARLYLE 

SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for 

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Aelisha N. Marsh appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing her complaint filed under Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, alleging defamation and wrongful 

termination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Marsh v. CBS Media Corp., No. 3:09-cv-00289-RJC

(W.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2009). We further deny Marsh’s “Motion for 

Monetary Relief Beyond the Scope of Unemployment.” 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
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01731**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 01731\01731_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

01731\01731_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 01731\01731_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 01731\01731_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 01731\01731_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 01731\01731_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 01731\01731_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

01731\07131_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 01731\Certification Statement Plant ID 01731.pdf Plant certification statement x 01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_Part A_A5-2 AERIAL MAP_Elrama.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_Part A_A5-2 BOUNDARY_Elrama.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_Part A_A5-2 FERN VALLEY MAP_Elrama.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_Part A_WB-1_Elrama.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_PART D Attachment Email to Comment for D2-g.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_Part D_POND-1_Elrama.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_Part D_WWT-1_Elrama.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### The First National Bank of Jersey City, Resp’t, *v.*John Lindenmeyer, Impl’d, App’lts.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,*

*Filed January 24, 1890.)*

Examination before trial—Affidavit.

Where the affidavit for an order for examination of a defendant before trial contains no facts showing that the facts are not within plaintiffs knowledge, or that there is any doubt that defendant’s attendance at the trial can be procured, and it appears therefrom that the object is to ascertain the grounds of the defense in advance, an order granted thereon will be vacated.

Appeal'from order denying motion to vacate order for examination of the defendant

*Luden*Birdseye, for app’lts; *Hamilton*Wallis, for resp’t

Van Brunt, P. J.

It seems to be apparent, upon an examination of the affidavit upon which the order for examination was granted in the case at bar, that the object was to obtain in advance of the trial a statement by the defendant sought to be examined of the grounds of his defense, so that the plaintiff may be the better prepared to meet the same upon the trial.

This in one part of the affidavit is the avowed object, as it is stated that one of the objects of the examination is to ascertain the claims of the defendant in respect to the payment of the special capital.

Furthermore, no facts are stated showing that this examination is necessary to the plaintiff. An attempt is made to do so upon the allegation of the absence of entries in the books of the defendant firm, but there is no statement that the facts are not within the knowledge of the plaintiff’s officers, nor that they have not at their disposal the means of proving all that they seek to extract from the plaintiff. Neither is it shown that there is any doubt about their being able to procure the attendance of the defendant sought-to be examined at the trial.

These applications'are addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and should 'only be granted where it appears that they are sought for a legitimate purpose and not merely upon a hope of discovering something of benefit to the party applying.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the order for examination vacated.

Brady and Daniels, JJ., concur.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

JAMES CODY,

Petitioner,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

vs.

 CASE NO. 2:10-CV-974

ROB JEFFREYS, WARDEN, JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL R. MERZ

Respondent.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or trial.

Pursuant to the Opinion and Order filed June 5, 2013, JUDGMENT is hereby

entered DISMISSING this case.

Date: June 5, 2013 JOHN P. HEHMAN, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:10-cv-00974-EAS-MRM Doc #: 18 Filed: 06/05/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32.1   PATIENT PORTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

     Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Kevin Kelly, President, and Director "principal executive officer") of
Patient Portal Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best
of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the period ended September 30, 2006 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

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

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Registrant.

Dated: 1/31/2007                          /s/ KEVIN KELLY
                                         ----------------------
                                         Kevin Kelly
                                         President and Director


















--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 61 (Friday, March 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5848]



[[Page 15169]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,808]


Invista, S.A.R.L., Nylon Apparel Filament Fibers Group, a 
Subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., Chattanooga, TN; Dismissal of 
Application for Reconsideration

    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative 
reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance for workers at Invista, S.A.R.A., Nylon Apparel 
Filament Fibers Group, a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., 
Chattanooga, Tennessee. The application did not contain new information 
supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also 
did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the 
determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the 
application was issued.

TA-W-60,808; Invista, S.A.R.L., Nylon Apparel Filament Fibers Group, 
a Subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee (March 
15, 2007).

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of March 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-5848 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO. 09-17-00285-CV



### ____________________

IN RE COMMITMENT OF ROYAL LEE SMITH

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 14-03-03232-CV

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Royal Lee Smith was determined to be a sexually violent predator and committed for sex offender treatment. See In re Commitment of Smith , No. 09-14- 00400-CV, 2015 WL 1843526, at *1 (Tex. App. —Beaumont Apr. 23, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.). On June 19, 2017, the trial court signed an order denying Smith’s motion for change of venue. Smith filed a notice of appeal. We questioned our jurisdiction and the parties filed responses. Generally, appeals may be take n only from final judgments. Lehmann v. HarCon Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Sm ith argues the order denying his2 motion for a change of venue disposed of all pending claims and parties. In a civil commitment case, however, the trial court retains jurisdiction while the commitment order remains in effect. See In re Commitment of Cortez , 405 S.W.3d 929, 932 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, no pet.). Smith has not identified a signed order by the trial court that is appealable at this time. We requested responses regarding whether the appeal was frivolous. See Tex. R. App. P. 45. Other than arguing that an order denying a motion to change venue is a final judgment, Smith does not address this Court’s suggestion that his appeal is frivolous. “To determine whether an appeal is objectively frivolous, we review the record from the viewpoint of the advocat e and decide whether the advocate had reasonable grounds to believe th e case could be reversed.” Glassman v. Goodfriend , 347 S.W.3d 772, 782 (Tex. App.—Houston [ 14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied). In a civil commitment case, the trial c ourt must review a case every two years to determine whether a requirement should be modified or probable cause exists to believe that the person’s behavioral abnorm ality has changed to the extent that the person is no longer likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. See Tex. Health & Safety Code A nn. § 841.102 (West 2017). Furthermore, a request to change the forum in which a case will be heard necessarily implies that further proceedings will be conducted on that case. We conclude that the appeal is frivolous.3 See Tex. R. App. P. 45. In the event Smith f iles a frivolous appeal with this Court in the future, the Court will consider imposing sanctions. See id. The appeal is dismissed fo r lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).
APPEAL DISMISSED.

_______ _________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice
Submitted on September 27, 2017 Opinion Delivered September 28, 2017 Before McKeithen, C.J., Ho rton and Johnson, JJ.
<PAGE>

                              AMMENDMENT NO. 1
                              ----------------


The Coinsurance Life Reinsurance Agreement (PreNeed Plans) of November 1, 2000,
between EMPLOYERS REASSURANCE CORPORATION of Overland Park, Kansas and LINCOLN
MEMORIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY of Austin, Texas, is hereby amended as follows:

The Coinsurance Effective Date is changed from November 1, 2000, as specified in
Article I(A), to September 1, 2000.

In all other respects not consistent herewith, said agreement shall remain
unchanged.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this amendment to be executed
in duplicate.



LINCOLN MEMORIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY      EMPLOYERS REASSSURANCE CORPORATION

By: /s/ Randall K. Sutton                    By: /s/ Dale Filsinger
   --------------------------------             --------------------------------

Title: President                             Title: Vice President & Actuary
      -----------------------------                -----------------------------

Date: 12/12/2000                             Date: 12/08/2000
     ------------------------------               ------------------------------
No. 41856.

#### Protests 929325-G, etc., of Strauss Bros. & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of bridge paperweights. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained. *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20) cited.
Reap. Dec. 8742.

#### Frank *P. Dow Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

Entered at Sumas, Wash. [Not published.] Motion by plaintiff.
#### American Express Co. (Finchley, Inc.) *v.*United States

No. 6328.

Entry No. 744214, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, February 18, 1946, etc.

Certified February 19, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 12, 1946, etc.

(Decided August 22, 1946)

*Eugene R. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard F. Weeks,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Keeee, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise, consisting of earthenware and chinaware, and the issues in the appeals to reap-’ praisement in the attached schedule, are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise, consisting of earthenware and chinaware, involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer upon entry, because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, are equal to the prices at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, ,in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign values for such or similar merchandise are no higher.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.