alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
257 La. 613

#### Robert A. WOLF v. R. C. “Pat” ANDERSON.

No. 51147.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 1971.

In re: R. C. Anderson applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Natchi toches. 242 So.Sd 14.

Writs denied. No error noted.
#### Herman R. SLAKMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-40.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 24, 1971.

Cause abated.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32686]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission For OMB Review; Comment Request

    DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
clearance the following proposal for collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of the Census.
    Title: 1998 Annual Demographic Survey--Supplement to the Current 
Population Survey.
    Form Number(s): CPS-580, -589(SP), -676, 676(SP).
    Agency Approval Number: 0607-0354.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement, with change, of an expired 
collection.
    Burden: 20,410 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 50,500.
    Avg Hours Per Response: 24 and one half minutes.
    Needs and Uses: The Bureau of the Census conducts the Annual 
Demographic Survey (ADS) every year in March as a supplement to the 
Current Population Survey (CPS). The Bureau of the Census, the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics, and the Department of Health and Human Services 
sponsor this supplement. In the ADS, we collect information on work 
experience, migration, personal income and noncash benefits, household 
noncash benefits, and race.
    The work experience items in the ADS provide a unique measure of 
the dynamic nature of the labor force as viewed over a one-year period. 
The income data from the ADS are used by social planners, economists, 
Government officials, and market researchers to gauge the economic 
well-being of the Nation as a whole, and selected population groups of 
interest. Researchers evaluate March income data not only to determine 
poverty levels, but also to determine whether Government programs are 
reaching eligible households.
    We have made question changes, additions, and deletions to the 1998 
supplement to address changes caused by the recent welfare reform and 
changes recommended by interviewers, data users, and others.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Section 182 and Title 29 U.S.C., 
Sections 1-9.
    OMB Desk Officer: Nancy Kirkendall, (202) 395-7313.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, room 5327, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to Nancy Kirkendall, OMB Desk Officer, room 10201, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: December 9, 1997.
Linda Engelmeier,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 97-32686 Filed 12-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
EXHIBIT 32.0

| (1)   | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 25, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |   |   |                                                                 |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/Renato Cataldo                    |   |   | /s/Dale Heins                                                        |   |
| Renato Cataldo                       |   |   | Dale Heins                                                           |   |
| President andChief Executive Officer |   |   | Senior Vice President, Finance,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |
* P ursuant 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 lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-20280 Summary Calendar

_____________________

SHIRLEY J. LEWIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE CITY OF HOUSTON; THE CITY OF HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants-Appellees,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No.CA-H-96-4240

October 27, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Shirley J. Lewis, pro se , appeals the summary judgment granted

the City of Houston, dismissing her claims under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA). We AFFIRM

.
Lewis, who was employed by the City as a senior data entry

operator, was diagnosed with systemic lupus erythema tosus in the

early 1990s; her las t day at work was 27 February 1994. She-2-

applied for long term disability benefits (LTD) on 15 August 1994.

On 3 November 1995, Lewis filed a charge of discrimination under

the ADA with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The City

terminated Lewis’s employee benefits on 1 October 1996.

The City mov ed for summary judgment, asserting that Lewis’s

claims of harassment and refusal to accommodate were time barred;

and that Lewis was estopped from claiming she was a “qualified

individual” under the ADA, because of her representat ions on

applications for LTD and Social Security Disability that she is

totally disabled. Summary judgment was granted for the City.

Lewis maintains that the district court erred in finding that

her claims were time barred because there was continuing

discrimination; and that material fact issues exist.

Of course, we review a summary judgment de novo , applying the

same standard as the district court. E.g., F reeman v. County of

B exar , 142 F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir. 1998). Summary judgment is

proper where there is no material fact issue and the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. I d. ; see F ED

. R. C IV

. P.

56(c).

H aving reviewed the record and the briefs, we A FFIRM the

summary judgment for essentially the reasons stated by the district

court. See Lewis v. City of Houston , No. 4:96-CV-04240, slip op.

at 3-6 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 1997).

AFFIRMED
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2457 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the disapproval by 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of courses of education offered by 

public institutions of higher learning that do not charge veterans the 

in-State tuition rate for purposes of Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2021 

Mr. MOORE of Alabama introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the 

disapproval by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of 

courses of education offered by public institutions of 

higher learning that do not charge veterans the in-State 

tuition rate for purposes of Survivors’ and Dependents’ 

Educational Assistance Program. 

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 ‘‘Colonel John McHugh 

5 Tuition Fairness for Survivors Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2457 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS DIS2 APPROVAL OF COURSES OFFERED BY PUBLIC 

3 INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING THAT 

4 DO NOT CHARGE VETERANS THE IN-STATE 

5 TUITION RATE FOR PURPOSES OF SUR6 VIVORS’ AND DEPENDENTS’ EDUCATIONAL 

7 ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3679(c) of title 38, 

9 United States Code, is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘or 33’’ and 

11 inserting ‘‘33, or 35’’; 

12 (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the 

13 following new subparagraph: 

14 ‘‘(D) An individual who is entitled to assistance 

15 under section 3510 of this title.’’; and 

16 (3) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘and 33’’ and 

17 inserting ‘‘33, and 35’’. 

18 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 3679(e) 

19 of such title is amended— 

20 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

21 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or 

22 33’’ and inserting ‘‘, 33, or 35’’; and 

23 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘or 

24 33’’ and inserting ‘‘33, or 35’’; and 

25 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘or 33’’ and 

26 inserting ‘‘33, or 35’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2457 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

3 of this Act and shall apply with respect to an academic 

4 period that begins on or after August 1, 2022. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
256 La. 899

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Raymond B. LOVE v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 50891.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 23, 1970.

In re: Raymond B. Love applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Application denied. Applicant has falsified his application by representing that he has applied to the District Court and advice from the Clerk of Court shows that he did not.
EXHIBIT 32.0 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant
  to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and
  Chief Financial Officer of CPI Corp., a Delaware corporation (the Company),
  do hereby certify that:(1)
  The
  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 1, 2004 (the Form
  10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
  or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
  The
  information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the
  Company.  /s/ Jack
  Krings
  /s/ Gary W.
  DouglassJack Krings
  Gary W.
  DouglassPresident,
  Acting Chief Executive
  Officer and Chief Operating Officer
  Executive
  Vice President, Finance
  and Chief Financial Officer Date: June 10, 2004
Document

EXHIBIT 10.03
THIRD AMENDMENT TO
FLEX 2010 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
The Flex 2010 Deferred Compensation Plan, which was effective as of July 1, 2010, is hereby amended in the following manner.  This Amendment is effective as of July 1, 2020.
Section 2(n) is amended to read as follows:
“(n)    “Disabled” shall mean, with respect to a Participant, that any one or more of the following applies:
(i)    The Social Security Administration has determined that such Participant is totally disabled.
(ii)    The Participant is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.
(iii)    The Participant is, by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months, receiving income replacement benefits for a period of not less than three months under an accident and health plan covering employees of the Participant’s employer.
This definition shall be construed and administered in accordance with the requirements of Code Section 409A(a)(2)(C) and Treasury Regulations thereunder.”
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plan Administrator has executed this Amendment on the date set forth below.
						
		PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
FLEX 2010 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
By:    /s/ Phil Ulrich                                        
Title:    Chief Human Resources Officer    
Date:    June 3, 2020
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 9, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40359 Summary Calendar

ALFREDO GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:02-CV-664

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alfredo Garcia, Texas prisoner # 668073, appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the revocation of his release on mandatory supervision as time-barred. The district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) with respect to the question whether Garcia’s motion to reopen the revocation proceedings constituted “other collateral review” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). We need not decide this question in this case. Even if it is assumed that Garcia’s motion2

constituted “other collateral review,” the limitation period nevertheless expired prior to the filing of the federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D). Although Garcia contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling, COA was not granted as to that question. AFFIRMED.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

D.J.F., the father,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, and

GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, 

Appellees.

No. 4D18-1120

[June 21, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; James Martz, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016-DP-000799-JO.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant 

Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 

West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum of Children's Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for 

appellee Department of Children & Families.

Laura J. Lee, Sanford, for appellee Guardian Ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, LEVINE and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60131 Conference Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus L.C. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:94-cr-88-BN

- - - - - - - - - - (October 19, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * L.C. Lewis challenges the sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to distributing one ounce of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). According to Lewis there is no scientific distinction between cocaine base and cocaine powder, and, therefore, no reason for an enhanced penalty. The disparate sentencing provisions for crack cocaine and cocaine powder in the sentencing guidelines do not violateNo. 95-60131 -2- constitutional due process guarantees. United States v. Thomas , 932 F.2d 1085, 1090 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 1038 (1992). This court noted that Congress was entitled to treat the two substances differently because they are different chemical substances that are prepared for use in different manners. Id .; United States v. Galloway, 951 F.2d 64, 65 (5th Cir. 1992). "[T]he fact that crack cocaine is more addictive, more dangerous, and can therefore be sold in smaller quantities is reason enough for providing harsher penalties for its possession." United
States v. Watson , 953 F.2d 895, 898 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 504 U.S. 928 (1992). Thus, the district court did not incorrectly apply the guidelines. Lewis's argument that the rule of lenity should apply to his sentence because Congress did not define cocaine base is also foreclosed by existing case law. In Thomas , 932 F.2d at 1090, the court proclaimed: "We also reject the contention that [§ 841] is infirm because it does not define the term `cocaine base.'" Lewis's argument that the court should look to a purported amendment to the guidelines which does away with any distinction between cocaine base and cocaine powder is likewise without merit. This appeal borders on being frivolous. Counsel cites no cases in this Circuit to support any of his arguments. In fact, two of his arguments are foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit case law, which he fails to acknowledge. Additionally, this court will not apply a purported proposed amendment to the guidelines that has yet to take effect. And yet, counselNo. 95-60131 -3- requests oral argument to expound his groundless contentions. Counsel is cautioned that he is subject to sanctions and has a duty not to bring frivolous appeals. See United States v. Burleson , 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 283 (1994).
AFFIRMED.
#### Sharon Deliah GILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-788.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 19, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; J. Woodson, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Exchange Stabilization Fund Q&A

1. What is the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF)?

Section 10 of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 created the ESF. By law, the ESF has a 

number of uses, including purchasing or selling foreign currencies to stabilize 

international financial markets and thereby prevent damage to U.S. exports and the 

national economy. The Treasury has a web page devoted to the ESF, describing its legal 

basis, history, and financial statements. Congress has appropriated funds to the ESF. 

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/ESF/Pages/esf-index.aspx

2. How does the debt ceiling affect the ESF?

A portion of the ESF is held in U.S. dollars, and the dollar-balance of the ESF is invested 

in special-issue Treasury securities. The entire dollar-balance matures daily and is 

ordinarily reinvested. There is no requirement that the Treasury Department invest the 

ESF, so Treasury may discontinue investing the dollar-balance of the ESF during a debt 

limit impasse.

3. How much headroom does this action regarding the ESF provide? 

Approximately $23 billion.

4. When is the last time Treasury intervened in the foreign exchange market through 

the ESF?

March 18, 2011, in a coordinated operation by the G7 involving sales of yen.

5. Has the government ever suspended the daily reinvestment of Treasury securities 

held in the ESF before?

Yes, in the past 20 years, Treasury used this extraordinary measure during previous debt 

limit impasses in 1996, 2003, 2004 and 2006.

6. Will this action extend the date on which the United States exhausts its borrowing 

authority beyond August 2, 2011?

No. Treasury’s projection – that the extraordinary measures combined would enable

Treasury to extend its borrowing authority until August 2, 2011 – already took into 

account using this measure.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32519]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2242]


Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in 
Rulemaking Proceedings

December 8, 1997.
    Petitions for reconsideration and clarification have been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice 
and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of 
these documents are available for viewing and copying in Room 239, 1919 
M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. or may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to 
these petitions must be filed December 29, 1997. See. Sec. 1.4(b)(1) of 
the Commission's rule (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must 
be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has 
expired.
    Subject: Administration of the North American Numbering Plan 
Carrier Identification Codes (CICS) (CC Docket No. 92-237).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 2.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Sales,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32519 Filed 12-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Robert L. ADAMS *v. Johnny PARKERSON, District Attorney,*4th Judicial District, Parish of Ouachita.

No. 62287.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1978.

In re: Robert L. Adams applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Ouachita.

Writ granted. Application transferred to district court for action.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2150 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2021 

Mr. LANGEVIN (for himself and Mr. CICILLINE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 

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 ‘‘Rhode Island Fisher5 men’s Fairness Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADDITION OF RHODE ISLAND TO THE MID-ATLAN7 TIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL. 

8 Section 302(a)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fish9 ery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

10 1852(a)(1)(B)) is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2150 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘Rhode Island,’’ after ‘‘States 

2 of’’; 

3 (2) by inserting ‘‘Rhode Island,’’ after ‘‘except 

4 North Carolina,’’; 

5 (3) by striking ‘‘21’’ and inserting ‘‘23’’; and 

6 (4) by striking ‘‘13’’ and inserting ‘‘14’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS