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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1441 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1441

  To provide assistance for workforce investment activities to unique 
                   populations in Alaska and Hawaii.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 28, 2011

Mr. Inouye (for himself and Mr. Begich) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide assistance for workforce investment activities to unique 
                   populations in Alaska and Hawaii.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Workforce Investment for Unique 
Populations in Hawaii and Alaska Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE TO UNIQUE POPULATIONS IN ALASKA AND HAWAII.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary of Labor is authorized to provide assistance to the Cook 
Inlet Tribal Council, Incorporated, and the University of Hawaii Maui 
College, for the unique populations who reside in Alaska or Hawaii, 
respectively, to improve job training and other workforce investment 
activities (as defined in section 101 of the Workforce Investment Act 
of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.)).
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may be necessary 
for each of fiscal year 2012 and each subsequent fiscal year.
                                 <all>
```
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1398 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to limit the number of local wage 

areas allowable within a General Schedule pay locality. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 21, 2011 

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

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to limit the number 

of local wage areas allowable within a General Schedule 

pay locality. 

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 ‘‘Locality Pay Equity 

5 Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITING THE NUMBER OF LOCAL WAGE AREAS DE7 FINED WITHIN A GENERAL SCHEDULE PAY 

8 LOCALITY. 

9 (a) LOCAL WAGE AREA LIMITATION.—Section 

10 5343(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1398 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by striking ‘‘(but 

2 such’’ and all that follows through ‘‘are employed)’’; 

3 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ after 

4 the semicolon; 

5 (3) in paragraph (5), by striking the period 

6 after ‘‘Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

7 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(6) the Office of Personnel Management shall 

9 define not more than 1 local wage area within a pay 

10 locality, except that this paragraph shall not apply 

11 to the pay locality designated as ‘Rest of United 

12 States’.’’. 

13 (b) GENERAL SCHEDULE PAY LOCALITY DE14 FINED.—Section 5342(a) of title 5, United States Code, 

15 is amended— 

16 (1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

17 after the semicolon; 

18 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period 

19 after ‘‘employee’’ and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

20 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(4) ‘pay locality’ has the same meaning as is 

22 given such term in section 5302(5).’’. 

23 SEC. 3. REGULATIONS. 

24 The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 

25 shall prescribe any regulations necessary to carry out the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1398 IS

1 purpose of this Act, including regulations to ensure that 

2 the enactment of this Act shall not have the effect of re3 ducing any rate of basic pay payable to any individual who 

4 is serving as a prevailing rate employee (as defined by sec5 tion 5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code). 

6 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

7 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

8 take effect at the start of the first full pay period begin9 ning at least 180 days after the date of enactment of this 

10 Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 48808.

#### Protests 995923-G, etc., of Armand Schwab & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consist of hats in chief value o,f ramie, similar to those involved in Abstract 47291. In accordance therewith the claim was sustained as to this item.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > BLS Economic Growth Model System Used for Projections to 1990

              																																										United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics.								*BLS Economic Growth Model System Used for Projections to 1990 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 2112*.															Washington, D.C: 										U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 												April 1982,												https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5205,				accessed on September 25, 2024.										    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MathStar, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterended June 30, 2007 (the “Quarterly Report”), I, James W. Cruckshank, VicePresident of Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.               TheQuarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

2.               Theinformation contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:   August 9, 2007 | By:    |       /s/ James W.  Cruckshank |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |   | James. W. Cruckshank                                         |
|                                  |   |  Vice President, Administration and                     |
|                                  |   |   Chief Financial Officer                          |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6197

TERRANCE ADAMS,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden Broad River Correctional 

Institution,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:12-cv-01482-JFA)

Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrance Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Terrance Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and the 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Miller-El 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 petition 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 Adams 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 
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 92-8426.

#### Johnson *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
1 

### Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Shane Young [SWyoung@spi-ind.com]

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 9:34 AM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Cc: 'Eric Albright (ealbr ight@environcorp.com)'

Subject: PSD

Good morning Shaheerah,

I wanted to follow up on our conversation Monday regarding the responses to EPA’s questions pertaining to SPI

Anderson PSD permit. You had mentioned a couple of questions that you had and were going to send an e

‐ mail to Eric

and myself. How is this coming? As I mentioned, given the urgency of this permit anything you need please get it to us as

soon as possible so we can address and get back to you.

Regards

Shane Young

Sierra Pacific Industries

19758 Riverside Ave

Anderson Ca. 96007

P 530

‐ 378

‐ 8356

C 530

‐ 604

‐ 0025

swyoung@spi

‐ ind.com
#### Stone & Downer Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6817.

Entry No. 2360, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, October 1, 1945, etc.

Certified October 1945, etc.

Entered at Boston, Mass., November 27, 1945, etc.

(Decided January 28, 1947)

*Joseph F. Lockett*for the plaintiffs.

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

Olivee, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

RAMBLEWOOD EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida non

- profit corporation

, Appellant,

v.

KAYE BENDER REMBAUM, P.L., a Florida professional limited liability company, f/k/a ROBERT KAY & ASSOCIATES, P.A. , Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 166

[ April 1, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Sandra Perlman , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE12

- 030318 (04)

.
Robert E. Ferencik, Jr. and Laura A. Baker of Ferencik Libanoff Brandt Bustamante & Goldstein, P.A., Fort Lauderdale

, for appellant.

Gerard S. Collins and Jeffrey D. Green of Kaye Bender Rembaum, P.L., Pompano Beach ; Bartosz A. Ostrzenski o f Ostrzenski & Striklin, P.A., Boca
Raton ; and Robin Bresky of the Law Offices of Robin Bresky, Boca Raton for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Appellant challenge s a final judgment entered in favor of the appell ee law firm for attorney ’ s fees due under the firm’s contract with appellant to provide legal services. Competent substantial evidence supports the amount of the court’s award

, as well as the court’s finding that appellant breached its contract with the firm. Appellant also claims that the court

err ed in awarding the amount of damages when the firm did not present any expert testimony as to the reasonableness of the fees

. H owever, e xpert testimony is not necessary to support an award of fees as compensatory damages

, where previously incurred attorne y ’ s fees are being sought in a separate contract action against a client. Rodriguez v. Altomare

, 261 So. 3d 590 , 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)

, cert. den.

, 2019 WL 2261369 (Fla. May 28, 2019) (“Attorney sought the previously incurred attorney’s fees as an eleme nt of compensatory damages in his breach of contract action against2 [ c ] lient

. Accordingly, [ a ] ttorney was not required to present an independent expert witness to establish the reasonableness of the fees.”)

. As the judgment was for compensatory damages f or breach of contract, no expert was needed.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER , K LINGENSMITH and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Order entered October 9 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 00356

- CR JASON DANIEL SEWELL, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. 219

- 82792

- 2013



### O RDER Appellant’s September 29, 2015 motion to extend the time to file appellant’s brief is
GRANTED . Appellant’s brief received by the Clerk of the Court on October 6, 2015 is
DEEMED timely filed on the date of this order.
The State’s brief shall be due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the 10-QSB of  American  Utilicraft  Corporation  (the
"Company"), the undersigned officers hereby certify that the Company's quarterly
report on Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  that  ended  September  30,  2003 (the
"Report"),  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof,

     a)   fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and

     b)   that information  contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
          operations of the issuer

     This certificate is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not
be  deemed  to be a part  of the  Report  or  "filed"  for  any  other  purposes
whatsoever.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this certificate to be signed by
it Chief Financial Officer and its Principal Accounting Officer this 11th day of
November, 2004.


/s/ John J. Dupont                                  /s/ M. Karen Shoemaker
-------------------------------------               ----------------------------
John J. Dupont                                      M. Karen Shoemaker
President and Chief Executive Officer               Principal Accounting Officer
99-0554 (La. 4/23/99)

#### Emanuel “Manny” GRIZZAFFI v. Robert L. ELLIOT, M.D., etc.

No. 99-CC-0554.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Grizzaffi, Emanuel “Manny”;— Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of East Baton Rouge 19th Judicial District Court Number 429,441; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number CW98 2693

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J. not on panel.
#### I. Freeman & Son, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6775.

Entry No. 701298, etc.

Invoices dated Sheffield, England, June 4, 1942, etc.

Certified June 15, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 18, 1942, etc.

(Decided January 17, 1947)

*Ooldwater & Flynn*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183 C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be* incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the value of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importers on entries because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 US LEC Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael K. Robinson, Chief 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:



(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/   MICHAEL K. ROBINSON                                
|Michael K. Robinson Chief Financial Officer March 8, 2005
No. 48143.

#### Protests 40693-K, etc., of James H. Rhodes *&*Co. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

At the hearing the vice president of the plaintiff-company testified in its behalf. He identified certain lists which were received in evidence as exhibits 1 and 2, consisting of items similar to those involved in Abstract 45298 [Protest 33658-K] and *Chrystal Co.*v. *United States*(T. D. 49571). The record in Abstract 45298 was incorporated herein. On the record presented the claim at M or Mo of 1 cent per pound, depending on the value, under paragraph 206 was sustained as to certain of the items listed on exhibits 1 and 2, *supra.*
#### Eliseo LOPEZ RAMOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-71673.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2005.

Elíseo Lopez Ramos, Corona, CA, pro se.

Lilia Olan Garcia, Corona, CA, pro se.

Fabian Lopez Olan, Corona, CA, pro se.

Viani Lopez Olan, Corona, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William Campbell Erb, Jr., Terri J. Scadron, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Elíseo Lopez Ramos, his wife, Lilia Olan Garcia, and their two children, Fabian Lopez Olan and Viani Lopez Olan, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming, without opinion, an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the agency’s legal determination that petitioners are statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. *See Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft,*277 F.3d 1137, 1144-45 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ properly denied petitioners’ applications for cancellation of removal because they conceded that they did not have a qualifying relative. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D) (requiring a showing of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi*839dence”); *see also Montero-Martinez,*277 F.3d at 1144-45.

Petitioners’ remaining contentions lack merit.

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Before the First Division,

October 19, 1942

No. 47648.

#### Protests 31761-K, etc., of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on. the authority of Abstract 47002 the horns in question were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 397 as claimed.
(Reap. Dec. 9024)

Entry No. 837125 #3.

#### Shriro Trading Corp. *v.*United States

(Decided November 27, 1957)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

Rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.