alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 115–178—JUNE 1, 2018 132 STAT. 1379 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4009: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Apr. 25, considered and passed House. 

May 16, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–178 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to plan, design, 

and construct a central parking facility on National Zoological Park property 

in the District of Columbia. 

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 ‘‘Smithsonian National Zoological 

Park Central Parking Facility Authorization Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FACILITY FOR IMPROVED VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND ACCESS 

AT THE NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In order to improve visitor experience and 

multi-modal access to the Smithsonian National Zoological Park, 

the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution is authorized 

to plan, design, and construct a central parking facility on National 

Zoological Park property in the District of Columbia. 

(b) CENTRAL PARKING FACILITY.—The facility authorized under 

this section may include parking, transportation improvements, 

visitor amenities including restrooms, a pedestrian bridge to a 

midpoint entry of the National Zoological Park, and ancillary works 

to accommodate alternative uses of the facility. 

(c) FUNDING.—Construction of the facility described in this 

section shall be conducted with funds from nonappropriated sources. 

Approved June 1, 2018. 

Smithsonian 

National 

Zoological Park 

Central Parking 

Facility 

Authorization 

Act. 

June 1, 2018 

[H.R. 4009] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
#### Roy F. VICK, et al., v. Leon LUNGARO, et al.

No. 7870.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Feb. 2, 1970.

James E. Moore, Ben W. Lightfoot, Baton Rouge, for appellants.

James B. Thompson, III, Baton Rouge, for appellees.

Before LOTTINGER, REID and BLANCHE, JJ.

*66LOTTINGER, Judge.

This is a suit filed by Roy F. Vick against Leon Lungaro and others wherein petitioners seek damages as a result of a three car collision.

This matter was one of four consolidated cases which were tried together by the Lower Court after which the Lower Court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner, Roy F. Vick in the sum of $348.80, in favor of Mr. Vick on behalf of his three minor children, Frank Vick, Mark Vick and Diane Vick, in the sum of $150.00 each, and in favor of Mrs. Vick in the sum of $1,000.00, said judgment being against the heirs of Leon Lungaro and Hanover Insurance Company.

For the reasons assigned in our decree this day handed down in suit entitled Jones, et ux versus Lungaro, et al., La.App., 231 So.2d 60 on the docket of this Court, the judgment of the Lower Court will be affirmed, all cost of this appeal to be paid by defendants.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Thomas Raphael FASENMYER, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 38739.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 24, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1969.

Thomas Raphael Fasenmyer, for petitioner.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James Robert Yon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

ADKINS, Justice.

This is an original proceeding in mandamus wherein petitioner seeks an order requiring respondent to withdraw a de-tainer which has been lodged against petitioner in the State of California.

In 1960 and prior thereto, petitioner was in custody of respondent serving several sentences imposed upon him by the Florida courts. On February 7, 1960, petitioner was released by the respondent to the custody of the Sheriff of Hernando County so that he could be tried for the crime of breaking and entering. On March 16, 1960, prior to trial, petitioner escaped.

Since that time petitioner has on various occasions, escaped from lawful custody in Missouri, Washington and California.

His last venture resulted in the imposition of a sentence on November 14, 1966 in California of five years to life imprisonment. A detainer was lodged on January 18, 1968, with the California au*130thorities by respondent, as Florida authorities desire to extradite petitioner for trial.

Petitioner says that Florida has abandoned any right to have him stand trial for the pending offense because of respondent’s failure to file the detainer at an earlier date.

In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus the petitioner must show a clear legal right to the performance by the respondent of the particular duty in question. See 16 F.L.P., Mandamus, § 10. Of course, a writ of mandamus may, in some instances, be enforced upon equitable principles (16 F.L.P., Mandamus, § 12), but certainly none are apparent in this proceeding. The fact that the detainer may affect petitioner’s right to a parole in California has no bearing upon the legality or equity of the detainer in view of his status as an “escapee.”

While incarcerated in other states petitioner had the right to maintain mandamus proceeding seeking a speedy trial in Florida. Dickey v. Circuit Court, Gadsden County, 200 So.2d 521 (Fla.1967).

If a person charged with the commission of a felony escapes from lawful custody he waives any right to object to the filing of a detainer in another jurisdiction by the authorities from whose custody he first escaped. Mere delay is not an abandonment of prosecution, as the responsibility rests upon the escapee to either surrender to the authorities or, if incarcerated in another jurisdiction, seek a speedy trial.

The alternative writ is discharged.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW and BOYD, JJ., concur.
**Former Soviet Union--Commodity Balances (95008)**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000943322
<NAME> TRUMP HOTELS & CASINO RESORTS HOLDINGS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         104,022
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,950
<INVENTORY>                                     13,060
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               201,071
<PP&E>                                       2,292,791
<DEPRECIATION>                                 432,195
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,267,238
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          189,104
<BONDS>                                      1,760,820
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,069
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,267,238
<SALES>                                      1,411,193
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,575,883
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  896,802<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               499,609<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                25,434
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             222,668
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (205,293)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (205,293)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (5,620)
<NET-INCOME>                                 (210,913)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes gaming, lodging, food & beverage and other
<F2>Includes general & administration, depreciation and amortization, and Trump
World's Fair closing costs.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 US Oncology, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R. Dale
Ross, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)
1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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/ R. Dale Ross
----------------------------
R. Dale Ross
Chief Executive Officer
March 20, 2003
#### STATE ex rel. Wash JAMES v. FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, et al.

No. 38991.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 1970.

Prohibition denied without opinion.
Case 4:05-cv-00671-JEJ Document 153 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 4
Case 4:05-cv-00671-JEJ Document 153 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 4
Case 4:05-cv-00671-JEJ Document 153 Filed 08/09/06 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:05-cv-00671-JEJ Document 153 Filed 08/09/06 Page 4 of 4
No. 9742.

#### Hilliard *v.*The Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Company.

(Decided June 19, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Fairfield county.

*Mr. 8. W. Bennett; Mr. W. K. Martin*and *Mr. J. M. Sheets,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Doyle £ Leivis*and *Messrs. Pickering £ Pickering,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shatjck, C. J., Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
No. 00-7277.

#### Osorio-Angel *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1877 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1877

To prohibit the closure or relocation of certain county offices of the 
                          Farm Service Agency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 17, 2005

  Mr. Baucus introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the closure or relocation of certain county offices of the 
                          Farm Service Agency.

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

SECTION 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
Agriculture shall not close or relocate any county office of the Farm 
Service Agency in operation as of the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 10, 2020

No. 04-19-00330-CR

Michael Henry SOLIS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. A11638

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to 

raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he has served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, has 

informed appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief, and has provided 

appellant with a form motion to obtain the appellate record if he desires to do so. See Nichols v. 

State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 

176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so on or before February 10, 2020.

See Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. Appellant’s pro se brief should identify those issues which 

appellant believes this court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any 

meritorious issues. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief 

no later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel to be HELD IN 

ABEYANCE pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 

(1988); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of January, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
#### LeRoy Percy GREEN, Jr. v. Donna Hembree GREEN.

No. 49957.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 9, 1977.

Eaves & Eaves, G. Jyles Eaves, Louisville, for appellant.

Hathorn & Hathorn, J. Hoy Hathorn, Louisville, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Winston County; John C. Love, Jr., Chancellor.

AFFIRMED.
# L_2023192EN.01000901.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 192/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 192/9

---

COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2023/1570

of 23 May 2023

correcting the Hungarian language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/689 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards rules for surveillance, eradication programmes, and disease-free status for certain listed and emerging diseases

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’) (1), and in particular Article 42(6) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Hungarian language version of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/689 (2) contains an error in Part I, Chapter 1, Section 3, point 1, introductory phrase, of Annex IV that alters the meaning of the provision. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Hungarian language version of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/689 (2) contains an error in Part I, Chapter 1, Section 3, point 1, introductory phrase, of Annex IV that alters the meaning of the provision.

| (2) | The Hungarian language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/689 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Hungarian language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/689 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

(Does not concern the English language.)

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 May 2023.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 84, 31.3.2016, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/689 of 17 December 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards rules for surveillance, eradication programmes, and disease-free status for certain listed and emerging diseases (OJ L 174, 3.6.2020, p. 211).

2

---
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Michael R. Robinson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Life Time Fitness,Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;     4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting;     5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors andthe audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting.   Date: November 7, 2005 /s/ Michael R. Robinson     Michael R. Robinson  *Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,481
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,829
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,550
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     14,887
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,571
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             2,591
<LOANS>                                        135,660
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,145
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 165,747
<DEPOSITS>                                     133,071
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,858
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,394
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 165,747
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,850
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,895
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,745
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,472
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,480
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,265
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (3)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,683
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,683
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,401
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.31
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.90
<LOANS-NON>                                         68
<LOANS-PAST>                                       144
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    371
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,149
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        4
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,145
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,145
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            289
        

</TABLE>
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 LeCroy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended July 2, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Sean B. OConnor, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: September 2, 2011



/S/    SEAN B. OCONNORSean B. OConnorChief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David Marzelle TAYLOR.

No. 60652.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 15, 1978.

Jerry A. Kirby, Kirby & Anzalone, Monroe, for defendant-appellant.

*422William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Carl Parker-son, Dist. Atty., Brian E. Crawford, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.