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

[105th Congress Private Law 7]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:pvtl7.105]

Private Law 105-7
105th Congress

                                 An Act

 
     For the relief of Mai Hoa ``Jasmin'' Salehi. <<NOTE: Nov. 10, 
                         1998 -  [H.R. 1794]>> 

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MAI HOA ``JASMIN'' SALEHI.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Mai Hoa ``Jasmin'' Salehi 
shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of 
status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Mai Hoa ``Jasmin'' Salehi enters the 
United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 
she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, 
if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under 
section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an immigrant 
visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed with 
appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Mai Hoa ``Jasmin'' Salehi, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of the 
alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.

    Approved November 10, 1998.
```
PUBLIC LAW 104–77—DEC. 28, 1995 109 STAT. 789

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 965:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104-366 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):

Dec. 5, considered and passed House.

Dec. 20, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 104–77

104th Congress

An Act

To designate the Federal building located at 600 Martin Luther King, Jr. Place

in Louisville, Kentucky, as the ‘‘Romano L. Mazzoli Federal Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The Federal building located at 600 Martin Luther King, Jr.

Place in Louisville, Kentucky, shall be known and designated as

the ‘‘Romano L. Mazzoli Federal Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Federal building referred

to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Romano

L. Mazzoli Federal Building’’.

Approved December 28, 1995.

Dec. 28, 1995

[H.R. 965]
Exhibit 31.2  I, Dempsey Mork, certify that:  1.           I have reviewed this quarterly report for the period ended June 30, 2009 on Form 10-Q of China Holdings, Inc.;  2.           Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.           Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.           The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and 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 financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.           The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Nov. 19, 2009   /s/ Dempsey Mork Dempsey Mork Chief Financial Officer
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 949

_____________________________ S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellant,

v.

R AUL H ERNANDEZ

- R ODRIQUEZ , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Bruce Anderson , Judge

. May 3, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J.
, and B ILBREY and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Ashley Moody , Attorney General, Steven E. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Valerie Jonas o f Weitzner & Jon as, P.A., Miami, and Patrick F. Trese of The Law Office of Patrick Trese, P.A., Fort Lauderdale
, for Appellee.
#### Harriet S. ARTHUR, Appellant, v. Malcolm B. ARTHUR, II, Appellee.

No. 70-367.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 15, 1971.

*9Collins, Hallett, Ford & Thurman, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

J. D. Hobbs, Jr. and Bailey M. Welden, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

HOBSON, Judge.

Appellant appeals that portion of the final decree of divorce concerning alimony and other provisions which need not be enumerated here. The granting of the divorce itself is not challenged in this appeal.

The parties were married for approximately 24 years, from which marriage there were four children born. Appellant is 47 years of age.

The appellant in her counterclaim for divorce prayed that she be awarded lump-sum alimony in such manner as the court may deem equitable in all the assets acquired by the parties during their marriage. She also prayed for support for herself and the minor children. The court awarded as alimony the lump sum of $7500 payable in equal monthly installments of $250 until paid in full.

Appellant now challenges the granting of the lump-sum alimony and takes the position that the lower court abused its discretion in denying her permanent periodic alimony. The appellee has not challenged the correctness of the trial court’s award of lump-sum alimony. In view of the fact that the appellant prayed for lump-sum alimony and the appellee has not objected to the granting of the lump-sum award, we cannot hold that such award was erroneous even though under the facts of this case we might not, had we been the chancellor, have granted lump-sum alimony.

It had been held that a wife who has been awarded lump-sum alimony is precluded from availing herself of the provisions of Section 61.14, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., relative to modification of alimony judgments in the event oh a change in circumstances. Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.App. 1967, 204 So.2d 734; Schreiber v. Schreiber, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 301.

In Gordon, *supra,*the final decree was modified to reserve to the chancellor the right upon a proper showing under Florida Statute 61.14, F.S.A. to modify the alimony provisions of the final decree by providing for periodic payments in the future if it became necessary.

We are of the opinion that the facts and circumstances appearing from the record in this case warrant the modification of the final decree as was done in the Gordon case, *supra.*

The other points on appeal have been carefully considered and found to be without merit.

Therefore, the final decree is hereby affirmed as modified.

LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United St ates District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-3050

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Veronica Perales, also known * as Veronica Ramirez, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 27, 2009 Filed: November 9, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Veronica Perales appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed upon revoking her supervised release, arguing that the se ntence should have been more lenient, and that the court abused its discretion and failed properly to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Upon careful review, we conclude that the revocation sentence was not unreasonable. SeeUnited States v. Tyson , 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review ). The sentence is within the statutory-2- limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Furthermor e, contrary to Perales’s argument, the court explicitly considered multiple rele vant section 3553(a) factors, including Perales’s violations of supervised releas e, the high risk that she would commit new felonious conduct, the prior sentencing leni ency given to her, and the need for substance abuse treatment that best could be provided in prison. Cf. United States v. Larison , 432 F.3d 921, 922-24 (8th Cir. 2006) (record must show that court considered relevant matters and stated reason for its decision; no error in imposing 60- month sentence that exceeded Guidelines recommended range of 5-11 months, where sentence was within statutory maximum, court expressed grave concern over defendant’s numerous and repeated violati ons of supervised release and inability to complete drug treatment programs, and de fendant persisted in criminal conduct despite many chances afforded by probation office). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
#### Donald KELLY and Rita Kelly, his wife, Appellants, v. CAMBRIDGE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and William Cordray, Appellees.

No. 77-557.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 21, 1978.

William C. Owen, Jr., of Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, Te-questa, for appellants.

Maureen L. McGill of Adams, Sullivan, Coogler, Watson & Smith, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

MOORE, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment entered against the plaintiffs in a negligence case.

Appellant-husband, one of the plaintiffs below, was a tenant of appellee and was injured while mowing appellee’s lawn at the latter’s request. It was alleged that appel-lee negligently constructed a concrete decorative wall, failing to warn appellant of its unstable condition. In the course of mowing appellant backed into the wall, causing it to collapse, and in the process of falling pulled the power mower over his foot.

We find that appellee, in moving for summary judgment, has failed to show conclusively the absence of any genuine issues of material fact. Whether appellee failed to maintain his premises in a reasonably safe condition or failed to warn appellant of a dangerous condition which he either knew or should have known existed are questions of fact to be determined by the jury. See *Post v. Lunney,*261 So.2d 146 (Fla.1972).

Accordingly, the final summary judgment must be and is hereby

REVERSED.

DOWNEY, C. J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
#### In re RULES OF the SUPREME COURT Relating to Admissions to The Bar.

No. 40745.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 9, 1971.

John Germany, Chairman, Tampa, and C. Graham Carothers, Tallahassee, for plaintiff.

*38PER CURIAM.

Article IV, Section 22(c) (2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Florida Relating to Admissions to the Bar, 32 F.S. A. is hereby amended to read:

> (2) upon producing such evidence as the Board may require, that such applicant was in the practice of law in the District of Columbia or in other States of the United States of America, or in practice in federal courts in territories, possessions or protectorates of the United States for at least ten years, and that he was in good standing at the bar of the District of Columbia, the territory, possession or protectorate, or of the State from which he came; and

> It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
No. 00-6984.

No. 00-6999.

No. 00-7041.

No. 00-7078.

#### In re Cothrum; In re Williams; In re Cornelius; and In re Roux.

Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26167]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) 
meeting:

    Name of SEP: Efficacy Studies of Chemopreventive Agents in 
animal Models and Evaluation of Chemopreventive Agents by in Vivo 
Screening Assays.
    Date: October 20-21, 1997.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: Double Tree Hotel--Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Courtney M. Kerwin, Ph.D., M.P.H., Scientific 
Review Administrator, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Executive 
Plaza North, Room 630I, 6130 Executive Boulevard, MSC 7405, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-7405, Telephone: 301/496-7421.
    Purpose/Agenda To review and evaluate proposals submitted in 
response to master agreement announcements.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. Proposals 
and the discussions could reveal confidential trade secrets or 
commercial property such as patentable material and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals, 
the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers: 93.393, 
Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 
Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, 
Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, 
Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control.)

    Dated: September 26, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-26167 Filed 10-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25830]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Freight Forwarder License; Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission applications for licenses as ocean 
freight forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 510).
    Persons knowing of any reason why any of the following applicants 
should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Freight Forwarders, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C. 
20573.

Atlantic Cargo, Inc., 5635 NW 74th Avenue, Miami, FL 33166, Officer: 
Allan D. Silverman, President
Boston Logistics, Inc., 186A Lee Burbank Highway, Revere, MA 02151, 
Officer: Anthony M. Puleio, Jr., President

    Dated: September 25, 1997.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25830 Filed 9-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RYAN KERWIN, )

Plaintiff, )

)

Vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-93 Erie

)

LT. WILLIAM MCCONNELL, )

Defendants. )

O R D E R 

AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 2005, upon consideration of the 

Objections/Appeal (Document No. 38) filed by the Plaintiff, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the said Appeal is DENIED 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Order entered on December 7, 2005, 

by Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter is hereby AFFIRMED.

 

Sean J. McLaughlin 

United States District Judge

cc: all parties of record

Case 1:05-cv-00093-SJM Document 39 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.36

 
                                WAREHOUSE NOTE
                                --------------

$37,500,000                                                    February 22, 1999

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, MATRIX FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, an Arizona
corporation ("Borrower"), promises to pay to the order U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION ("Lender") that portion of the principal amount of $37,500,000 that
may from time to time be disbursed and outstanding under this note together with
interest.

     This note is a "Warehouse Note" under the Amended and Restated Loan
Agreement (as renewed, extended, amended, or restated, the "Loan Agreement")
dated as of January 31, 1997, between Borrower, Lender, certain other Lenders,
and Bank One, Texas, N.A., as Agent for Lenders.  All of the defined terms in
the Loan Agreement have the same meanings when used, unless otherwise defined,
in this note.

     This note incorporates by reference the principal and interest payment
terms in the Loan Agreement for this note, including, without limitation, the
final maturity, which is the Warehouse-Actual-Termination Date.  Principal and
interest are payable to the holder of this note through Agent at either (a) its
offices at 1717 Main Street, Dallas, Texas 75201, or (b) at any other address so
designated by Agent in written notice to Borrower.

     This note incorporates by reference all other provisions in the Loan
Agreement applicable to this note, such as provisions for disbursements of
principal, applicable-interest rates before and after Default, voluntary and
mandatory prepayments, acceleration of maturity, exercise of Rights, payment of
attorneys' fees, court costs, and other costs of collection, certain waivers by
Borrower and other obligors, assurances and security, choice of Texas and United
States federal Law, usury savings, and other matters applicable to Loan
Documents under the Loan Agreement.

     This note is an amendment, restatement, renewal, extension, modification
of, consolidation of, and substitution for, the existing Warehouse Notes (as the
same may have been amended and replaced to the date hereof, the "Former Notes")
which Former Notes were executed and delivered pursuant to the  Loan Agreement.

                              MATRIX FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, as Borrower

                              By           /s/
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                   George R. Bender, President


                                                                     Exhibit A-2
                                                                     -----------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

JOSE Ol-IVO, I 

Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Civil Action No. 05-36 Erie 

Respondent. I 

MEMORANDUM ORDER 

This petition for writ of habeas corpus was received by the Clerk of Court on 

January 28, 2005 and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise 

Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, filed on March 14, 2006, 

recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot 

inasmuch as the Petitioner has been released from federal custody. The parties were 

allowed ten (1 0) days from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on 

Petitioner at his most recent address of record (last updated April 28, 2005 Doc. # 

61) and upon Respondent. Petitioner has filed no objections to Magistrate Judge 

Baxter's Report and Recommendation. After de novo review of the petition and 

docunients in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following 

order is entered: 

AND NOW, this 3rd day of April, 2006, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is 

DISMISSED as moot. 

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed on March 14, 

2006 [Doc. # 111, is adopted as the opinion of the Court. 

st Sean J. McLaughlin United States D~strict Judge 

cm: All parties of record 

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:05-cv-00036-SJM-SPB Document 12 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 1