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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8908 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to limit the 

funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to an amount 

equal to $1. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2024 

Mr. SELF (for himself, Mr. TIFFANY, and Mr. DONALDS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 

to limit the funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to an amount equal to $1. 

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 ‘‘Consumer Financial 

5 Protection Bureau Withdrawal Cap Adjustment Act of 

6 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8908 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITING FUNDING OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PRO2 TECTION BUREAU TO AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 

3 $1. 

4 Section 1017(a) of the Consumer Financial Protec5 tion Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5497(a)) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘the amount 

7 determined by the Director to be reasonably nec8 essary to carry out the authorities of the Bureau 

9 under Federal consumer financial law, taking into 

10 account such other sums made available to the Bu11 reau from the preceding year (or quarter of such 

12 year)’’ and inserting ‘‘an amount equal to $1’’; 

13 (2) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and 

14 (3) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as 

15 paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Alonzo Bradner, *Respondent, v.*Lester B. Faulkner, *Appellant.*

Order affirmed with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Haight, J.
Before the Third Division,

May 17, 1948

No. 52334.

petition 6586-R (Los Angeles).

#### Fred C. King *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial the petitioner testified that he bought the bulbs through an agent of Konynenburg & Mark of Noordwyk, Holland, at the Southern California Flower Market; that when the shipment arrived in this country, he went to a broker’s office with his papers; that he told the broker he did not know how much the bulbs cost, since some cost $2 apiece and some $25 a thousand; that the broker then looked at the papers and told him what he had paid. Subsequently, he received a bill for $20 additional duty, which he paid, and *321a letter from the examiner ashing the difference between the two kinds of bulbs; that he informed him he had bought them to find out the difference; that later he received a letter from the broker directing him to see the examiner, but that it was then too late to amend the entry. On the record presented it was held that the petitioner acted without 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 was therefore granted.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Baroody, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 571]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his conviction of criminal mischief in the third degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. We disagree. The evidence established that defendant damaged "property of another person” (Penal Law § 145.05); further, it was within the province of the jury to conclude that the reasonable cost of repairs to the vehicle that defendant damaged exceeded $250 but not $1,500. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Sirkin, J.—Criminal Mischief, 3rd Degree.) Denman, P. J., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA - 2014 - 0583 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM130AD

84 - 28 - 10, RA --- 5/15/12 84 - 28 - 10 --- 12/6/11 84 - 28 - 14 --- 8/15/12

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket



### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
Exhibit 10.1

                            Summary of Retention Plan


         In  January  2001,  the  Company  adopted a  retention  plan.  The plan
provides for a cash payment to each participant, within five business days after
each of June 30, 2001,  December 31, 2001 and June 30, 2002, if such participant
remains  employed by the Company on the  applicable  date (i.e.  June 30,  2001,
December 31, 2001 and June 30, 2002).  The amount of each payment  equals 25% of
such participant's base salary at the beginning of 2001.

         Participants in the plan include Thomas H. Fraser (whose base salary is
$275,000) and E. Michael Egan (whose base salary is $220,000).
#### Ira Dwight, Resp’t, *v.*The Elmira, Cortland & Northern R. R. Co., App’lt.

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

*Filed February 15, 1890.)*

Appeal—Case—Certificate—Code Civ. Pro., § 1353.

Where the case on appeal contains no evidence that it has been settled, and there is no certificate of the clerk as required by Code Civ. Pro., § 1353, the appeal will not he heard.

Appeal from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee in Tompkins county in favor of the plaintiff for $503 damages, besides the costs of the action.

Plaintiff was the owner of a farm in the town of Dryden, Tompkins county, adjoining the defendant’s line of railroad, and brings this action to recover damages alleged to have been done to his farm by fire escaping from a locomotive of the defendant in July, 1886; the fire having spread to plaintiff’s land and caused a destruction of growing grass, injury to the turf or sod and injury and -destruction of fruit-bearing apple and cherry trees.

*James Armstrong,*for app’lt; *Raymond L. Smith,*for resp’t.

Hardin, P. J.

The case and exceptions before us contain no «evidence that the referee has settled the case as required by rule 32. The appeal book contains a printed form in respect to a settlement of the case, but the same is not signed by the referee. Rule 35 provides, “ ¡No case or exceptions to be annexed to the judgment roll shall hereafter be filed with the clerk of the court, unless the same is so ordered by the judge or referee who tried the cause.”

(2.) The appeal papers do not contain a certificate of the -county clerk as required by § 1353 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The observance of the rule laid down in that section is regarded as important. *Lewisohn*v. *Niederwiesen,*40 Hun, 545; 1 N. Y. State Rep., 72. In the case just cited the court observed: *“*We refrain from any consideration of the merits, and send the case back to be properly certified. The observance of the •duty imposed by § 1353 is regarded as extremely important. The object of the section is undoubtedly for the purpose of securing the presentation to the appellate court of the entire proceedings sought to be reviewed. Case sent back to be properly certified.”

Case sent back for such action or proceeding as counsel may «deem advisable.

Martin and Merwin, JJ., concur.
No. 56065.

protest 149347-K (New York).

#### S. B. Penick & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chaulmoogra oil similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Magnus, Mabee & Reynard, Inc.*(39 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 455), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was sustained.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8670 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify the time at which 

age is assessed for the purpose of determining whether an alien is 

an immediate relative. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2024 

Ms. OMAR (for herself, Mr. CORREA, Mr. GRIJALVA, and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify 

the time at which age is assessed for the purpose of 

determining whether an alien is an immediate relative. 

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 ‘‘Child Status Fairness 

5 and Modernization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AGE REQUIREMENT. 

7 Section 201(f)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(f)(2)) is amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8670 IH

1 (1) by amending the heading to read as follows: 

2 ‘‘AGE REQUIREMENT IN CASE OF PARENT NATU3 RALIZATION.—’’; and 

4 (2) by striking ‘‘age of the alien on the date of 

5 the parent’s naturalization’’ and inserting ‘‘the date 

6 on which the petition was initially filed’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 51057.

#### Protests 35884-K, etc., of Theodore Haviland *&*Co., Inc. (New York).

*268Opinion by

Keeke, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of oatmeals or oatmeal saucers and puree cups or chowder cups the same in all' material respects as those passed upon in *Copeland & Thompson, Inc.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 85, C. D. 833) and *Johnson Bros.*v. *United States*(15 id. 113, C. D. 955). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as-claimed.
Exhibit 32 (b)


                            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 Quarterly Report of MSW Energy Finance Co., Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"),
we, John T. Miller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael J.
Gruppuso, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/John T. Miller                           /s/Michael J. Gruppuso
---------------------------                 ------------------------------------
John T. Miller                                       Michael J. Gruppuso
Chief Executive Officer                     Chief Financial Officer
May 3, 2005                                          May 3, 2005
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,__________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14D0435. JOHN WAYNE MADDOX v. THE STATE.

John Wayne Maddox seeks appellate review of the trial court’s order denying

his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. The trial court entered its order on

May 29, 2014. Maddox filed his application for discretionary appeal on July 2, 2014.

We lack jurisdiction because the application is untimely.

An application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of the

entry of the order or judgment to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The

requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an

application for appeal not made in compliance therewith. See Boyle v. State, 190 Ga.

App. 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Here, Maddox filed his application 34 days after

entry of the order he seeks to appeal. Therefore, his application is untimely, and it is

hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/30/2014

July 30, 2014
#### International Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6334.

Entry No. 743502.

Invoice dated London, England, January 30, 1942.

Certified February 25, 1942.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 21, 1942.

(Decided August 26, 1946)

*Eugene R. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

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

Keefe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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 appeal to reappraisement herein, 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 ease may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised values of the merchandise, consisting of earthenware and chinaware, involved in the appeal to reappraisement herein, 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 this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the 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 *296additions' made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser -in similar cases. Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

 

I, Howard M. Nathan, certifythat:

 

1)              Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pelican Financial, Inc.;

 

2)              Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

 

3)              Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4)              Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [Intentionally Omitted] for the registrant andwe have:

 

a)              designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)             [IntentionallyOmitted];

 

c)              evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

d)             disclosedin this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5)              Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)              allsignificant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)             anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date: August  13, 2004                      |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                        |
| /s/ Howard  M. Nathan                       |   |
| Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
No. 45070.

#### Protest 844427-G of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel uninflated rubber balls or so-called beach balls identical with those the subject of *United States*v. *Woolworth*(24 C. C. P. A. 338, T. D. 48770) were held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 1502 and harmonicas similar to those the subject of Abstract 40586 at 40 percent under paragraph 1541 (a) as claimed.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN C. BARRETT, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Appellant

No. 29,937

July 11, 1975

*Colonel Victor A. DeFioriCaptain John C. Carr,*and *Captain Robert D. Jones*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway, Captain Joel M. Martel,*and *Captain John F. Schmutz*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

In addition to the uncontested evidence of record, an unopposed and unre-butted post-trial affidavit from appellant’s mother indicates that the appellant elected to enter the Army in 1967 rather than serve a 4-year term in a Utah reformatory following his juvenile conviction for rape, breaking and entering, and assault.

As in *United States v Catlow,*23 USCMA 142, 145, 48 CMR 758, 761 (1974), appellant did not of his own volition seek out a recruiting officer to enlist. Rather, an Army recruiter contacted appellant while he was confined and advised him "to enlist in the Army or be *475removed from the detention center and sent to the reform school at Ogden, Utah.” For the reasons enunciated in *Catlow,*appellant’s enlistment was void at its inception.

 Because an agent of the Government acted improperly in securing appellant’s enlistment, fairness prevents the Government from now relying upon a constructive enlistment as a jurisdictional base. *United States v Brown,*23 USCMA 162, 165, 48 CMR 778, 781 (1974). Additionally, the absence of evidence that the juvenile charges against appellant were dismissed following his enlistment would preclude reliance upon a constructive enlistment. *United States v Catlow, supra*at 146, 48 CMR at 762.

.Government counsel maintain that a limited rehearing on the jurisdictional issue should be authorized. *United States v Burke,*48 CMR 246 (ACMR 1974); *cf. United States v DuBay,*17 USCMA 147, 37 CMR 411 (1967). Unlike *Burke,*the void enlistment issue clearly was raised in the accused’s sworn testimony at trial. Thus, the Government had an affirmative obligation to establish jurisdiction over the accused. *Runkle v United States,*122 US 543, 556 (1887); *see United States v Singleton,*21 USCMA 432, 45 CMR 206 (1972). Neither at trial nor during the course of this appeal has the Government met that burden. The absence of controverting evidence on the jurisdictional question obviates the need for a limited rehearing.

The decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review is reversed. The findings of guilty and sentence are set aside, and the charges are ordered dismissed.
#### Frank P. Dow & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6336.

Entry No. 5815.

Invoice dated Burslem, England, February 22, 1941.

Certified March 14, 1941.

Entered at Los Angeles, Calif., May 22, 1941.

(Decided August 27, 1946)

*Strauss & Hedges*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware and the issues in the appeal for reappraisement 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, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is 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 value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that this case 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 appeal relates to all other merchandise it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.