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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8592 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the amount of educational 

assistance paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to an eligible individual during the first year of a full-time program of apprenticeship 

or other on-job training. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2024 

Mr. VAN ORDEN (for himself and Mrs. DINGELL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the 

amount of educational assistance paid by the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs to an eligible individual during the 

first year of a full-time program of apprenticeship or 

other on-job training. 

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 ‘‘Warriors to Workforce 

5 Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8592 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE OF AMOUNT OF EDUCATIONAL ASSIST2 ANCE PAID BY THE SECRETARY OF VET3 ERANS AFFAIRS FOR FIRST YEAR OF A FULL4 TIME PROGRAM OF APPRENTICESHIP OR 

5 OTHER ON-JOB TRAINING. 

6 Section 3313(g)(3)(B) of title 38, United States 

7 Code, is amended— 

8 (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by insert9 ing ‘‘using educational assistance under this chap10 ter’’; and 

11 (2) in clause (i)(II), by striking ‘‘80 percent’’ 

12 and inserting ‘‘90 percent’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                        |  |  |
| Wells Fargo Bank, National Association | U.S. Bank Trust National Association, |
| As Indenture Trustee                   | As Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Marianna C. Stershic  | Attn: Ed Janis |
| 600 S 4th Street                  | 190 South LaSalle Street, 7th Floor |
| MAC: N9300-061                         | Mail Code: MK-IL-SL7R |
| Minneapolis, MN 55415                  | Chicago, Illinois 60603 |
|                                   |   |
| Copy To:                               |   |
| Ally Wholesale Enterprises LLC         | Ally Financial Inc. |
| Attn:  Vice President        | As Administrator |
| 500 Woodward Ave                       | Attn:  Vice President |
| Mail code:  MI-01-20-TRES              | 500 Woodward Ave |
| Detroit, Michigan  48226     | Mail code:  MI-01-20-TRES |
|                                   | Detroit, Michigan 48226 |
|                                   |   |
| Re:                                    | Ally Master Owner Trust |
|                                   | Annual Statement as to Compliance |   |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of January 1, 2019 through  December 31, 2019, and of its performance under the Trust Sale and Servicing Agreement and under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under his supervision, and |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| b. | To the best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under such agreements in all material respects throughout such period. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |   |
|   |   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | Vice President, Controller & Chief Accounting Officer |   |
|   |   |   |

----

|                                |
|--------------------------------|
|                                |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2017-3 |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2018-1 |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2018-2 |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2018-3 |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2018-4 |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0 714 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WOLFGANG ALEXANDER LUCAS VASQUEZ ,

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 July 22 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 15 2020

06/15/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0714
#### The Rochester Savings Bank, *Plaintiff, v.*J. Moreau Smith, and Emma Herrick, *Executors,*and others, *Defendants and Respondents.*(David F. Baker, *Purchaser,*Appellant.)

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Hardin, J.
Case No. 6,817.

#### HUBBARD et al. v. MORGAN et al.

[1 Betts, C. C. MS. 6.]

Circuit Court, S. D. New York, 1

Certificate of Special Partnership—Acknowi^ eugment—When Special Partner Liable as a General One.

(1. The recorder of the city of New York is a judge of the county court within the contemplation of the New York statute respecting special partnerships, and the certificate is properly acknowledged before him.]

[2. Where the names of all the partners are correctly given in a certificate of special partnership, the use of the words “and Company” in the firm name, as a collective appellation to designate the persons specifically named, does not render a special partner liable as a general partner.]

*781[At law. Assumpsit by Elijah T. Hubbard and Henry T. Carrington against Edward M. Morgan, William H. Jessup, Henry T. Morgan, and Knowles Taylor to recover a balance of account of $10,179.75. Heard on motion for a new trial on case. Plaintiffs resided and did business in the state of Illinois, and the transaction out of which the alleged liability arose was had with the firm of Edward M. Morgan & Co. Defendant Taylor had put $75,000 into the firm of Edward M. Morgan & Co. as a special partner, and set up such fact in defense of the action. The court below (BETTS, District Judge) decided that the recorder of New York was not a judge of the county court, within the contemplation of the state act, respecting special partnerships, and accordingly the certificate of special partnership acknowledged before him was not .executed conformably to the act; and also that the use of the term “and Company,” in the name of the firm, rendered Taylor a general partner, and a verdict was accordingly rendered. Taylor appealed.]

PER CURIAM.

It being understood that the highest court of the state has recently decided in effect that the recorder is a judge of the county court, we shall follow that decision, and accordingly hold the certificate to have been properly acknowledged.

On the second point, we think that as the names of all the partners were correctly given, and the “and Company” was not intended to and did not import that any other person was a member of the firm, but was only a collective appellation for those specifically named, that the use of those terms does not render Mr. Taylor a general partner. A new trial ordered.
06/24/201 0 11:2 9 531749194 5 DONKORNRUMP F PAG E 01/0 1

•'P T r ' T'T ' ..11 ' I 1 1 1 1 Ui J
To ; Docke t

Operations , 202-493-225 1 Re : Docke t

Numbe r FA A - 2010-030 2 From : EUe aKomrump f PO B 102 1 Shelte r Islan dN Y 11964

I a mwritin g t o strongl y suppor t th e recommendartion s formulate dan dagree dupo n b y Eas t En dTown s ove r

tfie pais t few weeks , t o th e propose dFAA regulation s regardin g helicopte r flight s ove r

Lon g Island

. A s it

i s no w written , th e propose dplan woul dresul t i n n o relie f

at al l fix«n a n intolerabl e nois e proble move r th e North For

k an dShelter Islan d- an dwould , i n fact , mandat e an dperpetuat e th e problem

. Th e cuircn t rout e allow s for a s man y a s 40 + helicopter s t o fly ove r o r clos e t o m y ow n hous e i n Shelter Islan do n adail y basis , effectively destroyin g th e peac e an dtranquility o f ou r home

. Th e recommendation s includ e extendin g th e Nort h Shore rout e t o EHA F t o Plu mIsland , with helicopte r

the n flying sout

h an dwes t

t o Eas t Hampto n Airport , thu s eliminatin g th e presen t routin g over

th e North For

k an dShelter

Island

. 1 als o suppor

t th e othe r recommendations , includin g raisin g th e minimu mcruisin g altitud e t o 3000' , creatin g a n additiona l leve l o f

airspac e aroun dJF K

fo r helicopter s i n orde r

t o facilitat e th e Sout

h Shor e route , maintainm g th e presen t noise-abatemen t

regulation s at

th e Eas t En d Airports , an dincreasin g th e rol e o f Eas t Hampto n i n th e managemen t o f thei r airport

. A s fo r th e matte r

o f any "additional cost s o n th e affecte dhelicopters" , i t i s manifestl y obviou s that

thos e wh o ca

n affor dt o us e helicopter s a s aluxury , ar e wel l abl e t o tolerat e an y additional cost s generate db y extendin g th e North Shore rout e t o Plu mIsland

. I n enviroimiental terms , th e pollute r pays . I t i s mor e tha n tim e fo

r th e attitude s an dmentalitie s expresse di n th e ERH C websit e t o b e supersede db y regulatio n whic h i s feir an dequitabl e t o all , rathe r tha n i n deferenc e t o th e convenienc e o f

afew : "Callin g Al l Pilots ! ..Peopl e o n th e groun dar e more willin g tha n eve r t o wor k har dt o tak e awa

y you r fireedomt o us e th e national airspac e i f the y perceiv e you r

flight to infring e o n thei r

"quality o f

life "

.. " Th e propose drecommendation s t o Docke t FAA-2010-030 2 wil l ensur e tha t thi s quality o f life , whic h i s n o mer e perception , i s not destroyed

.
#### Jane Boyce, *Respondent, v.*Aaron P. Stowers, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Boardman, J. *.

Learned, P. J., not acting.
JOHN W. HARPER,

Appellant,

v.

ROBERT D. RICHARDSON 

AND BARBARA S. 

RICHARDSON,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2554

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 13, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Clay County.

Michael S. Sharrit, Judge.

Preston H. Oughton and Christopher D. Keever, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

John D. Middleton, Melrose, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. Jensen v. Whetstine, 985 So. 2d 1218, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2008) (“An order is not an appealable partial final order where there is a factual 

overlap between the pending claims and the claims resolved by the order.”).

WOLF, LEWIS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
SCWC-14-0000930

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF WAIPOULI 

BEACH RESORT, through its Board of Directors, 

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

UPONOR, INC., DORVIN D. LEIS CO., INC., and 

GROUP BUILDERS, INC.,

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees,

and

UNLIMITED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.,

UNLIMITED WBR, LLC, and STO CORP.,

Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-14-0000930; CIV. NO. 08-1-1350-07)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee Uponor, Inc.’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on September 25, 2017,

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees Dorvin D. Leis Co., Inc. and

Group Builders, Inc.’s application for writ of certiorari filed

on September 25, 2017, and Respondent/Defendant-Appellee Sto 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-14-0000930

06-NOV-2017

12:41 PM
Corp.’s substantive joinder filed on September 25, 2017, are

hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 6, 2017.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           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 Neptunus Ventures, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William Tay, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/ William Tay
--------------------------------
William Tay
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
January 28, 2011
No. 53661.

petition 6727-R (St. Louis).

#### B-1 Beverage Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

The petition was dismissed.
No. 48622.

#### Protests 870419-G, etc., of Kraft Phenix Cheese Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that involved in Abstract 48269. In accordance therewith the claim for an allowance of 2)4 percent in the weight was sustained.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 97-60131

_____________________ AMPLICON INC., doing business as Amplicon Financial, Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

v. MURRAY ENVELOPE CORPORATION, a Mississippi Corporation; L.E. RHIAN, JR.; Defendants - Appellees-Cross-Appellants, DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg (2:94-CV-376-PS)

_________________________________________________________________ August 06, 1998 Before KING, SMITH, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The district court correctly concluded that this case was controlled by Cal. Civ. Code § 3311 and, following a full bench trial, made all findings of fact necessary for the application of § 3311. Those findings of fact, particularly the critical2

finding that Murray’s tender of the check for the disputed amount was made in good faith, are not clearly erroneous. Since Amplicon did prevail on its claim for the last lease payment, the district court did not err in its disposition of the claims for legal fees. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
----

EXHIBIT 32.1 

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 Gryphon GoldCorporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Anthony D.J. Ker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

| Date: November 14,    2006 |                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|                       | By:           /s/ Anthony D.J. Ker                    |
|                       |                 Anthony D. J. Ker                                                                                           |
|                       |                 Chief Executive Officer                                                                                     |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6578

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS LAGENE FRANKLIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

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

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00007-RJC-1; 3:08-cv-00051-

RJC)

Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 2, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Lagene Franklin, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Lagene Franklin seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or 

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Franklin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 55357.

#### Kwong Mee Yuen et al. *v.*United States,

protests 142113-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOHN KEYS,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 107 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of December , 2019, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:petition for exemption/rulemaking, see attached file
Exhibit 99.8



Consent of Independent Auditor



We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in this Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended June 30, 2017 of DHX Media Ltd. of our report dated September
27, 2017, relating to the consolidated financial statements which appear in the Exhibit 99.2 incorporated by reference in this
Annual Report.



We also consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-208591 and No. 333-207194) of DHX Media Ltd. of our report dated
September 27, 2017 referred to above. We also consent to reference to us under the heading “Interests of Experts,”
which appears in the Annual Information Form included in the Exhibit 99.1, which is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report
on Form 40-F, which is incorporated by reference in such Registration Statements.



|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP                                  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                               
|Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants
|Halifax, Nova Scotia                                           
|                                                               
|September 27, 2017
Exhibit 31.4**CERTIFICATION**I, Craig D. Abolt, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Finance Co., Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 4, 2006         By: /s/ Craig D. Abolt             Craig D. Abolt      Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer