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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7432 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit schools and libraries 

that receive universal service support from blocking internet access to 

lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer resources, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 30, 2020 

Mr. SCHNEIDER (for himself, Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. GALLEGO, Mr. GRIJALVA, 

Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mr. SEAN PATRICK

MALONEY of New York, Ms. NORTON, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. SWALWELL of 

California, and Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit 

schools and libraries that receive universal service support from blocking internet access to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer resources, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Don’t Block LGBTQ 

5 Act of 2020’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7432 IH

1 SEC. 2. ACCESS TO LGBTQ RESOURCES UNDER UNIVERSAL 

2 SERVICE SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES PRO3 GRAM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 254(h) of the Commu5 nications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating paragraph (7) as para7 graph (8); 

8 (2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(7) ACCESS TO LGBTQ RESOURCES.—Notwith11 standing subsection (l)(2), an elementary school, sec12 ondary school, or library may not receive services at 

13 discount rates under paragraph (1)(B) if such school 

14 or library (under an internet safety policy with re15 spect to which certification is required under this 

16 subsection or otherwise) blocks internet access to 

17 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer re18 sources.’’; and 

19 (3) in paragraph (8) (as redesignated), by add20 ing at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(J) LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, 

22 TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER RESOURCES.—The 

23 term ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and 

24 queer resources’ means information that is re25 lated to homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender 

26 identity, transgender status, gender nonconVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:36 Jul 23, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7432.IH H7432

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7432 IH

1 formity, gender expansive, gender identity, sex2 ual orientation, or related topics, except that 

3 such term does not include a visual depiction 

4 described in paragraph (5)(B)(i) or (6)(B)(i).’’. 

5 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO COMMUNICA6 TIONS ACT OF 1934.— 

7 (1) SECTION 254.—Section 254(h)(4) of the 

8 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)(4)) 

9 is amended by striking ‘‘paragraph (7)(A)’’ and in10 serting ‘‘paragraph (8)(A)’’. 

11 (2) SECTION 271.—Section 271(g)(2) of the 

12 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 271(g)(2)) 

13 is amended by striking ‘‘section 254(h)(5)’’ and in14 serting ‘‘section 254(h)(8)’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8437-8438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4547]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP96-185-004]


Algonquin Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Refund Report

February 19, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 5, 1997, Algonquin Gas Transmission 
Company (Algonquin Gas) tendered for filing a Refund Report showing 
that on January 7, 1997, it issued refunds (or surcharges) to its 
customers as required by the Stipulation and Agreement in Docket No. 
RP93-14-000.
    Algonquin Gas states that the refunds totaled $36,070.28, including 
$1,006.08 in interest, and were calculated for the period May 1, 1996, 
to October 31, 1996.
    Algonquin Gas also states that copies of the filing were served 
upon its customers and all interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protect said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before February 26, 1997. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the

[[Page 8438]]

appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4547 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Hennion & Walsh, Inc. S-6/A


Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated October 26, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 539 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-258218) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


October 26, 2021
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 13, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00379

- CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellant

v.

ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED ELEVEN THOUSAND SIXTY

- ONE DOLLARS

AND SEVENTY

- NINE CENTS ($1,711,061.79) In U.S. Currency, Elgin Watch, Rope Necklace, ID Bracelet, Two (2) Costume Jewelry Rings, and Five (5) Silver Bars, Appellees

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10,242

T he Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Br yan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice

The State of Texas has filed a motion requesting that we “enter an express order confirming the statutory stay, enjoining the 49th District Court from making or enforcing any order concerning the enforcement of its order which was superseded by appeal pending the mandate of this Court.” “Texas courts are not empowered to give advisory opinions.” City of

Helotes v. Miller , 243 S.W.3d 704, 708 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2007, no pet.). A court renders an advisory opinion by addressing issues that are not ripe or based on a judiciable controversy.

See id. “A case is not ripe if its resolution depends on contingent or hypothetical facts, or upon
events not yet come to pass .” Id. And there is no justiciable dispute without a “real and substantial controversy involving a genuine conflict of tangible interests and not merely a theoretical dispute.” Id.

Although the State’s motion alleges the appellees “will likely try to en force this clause to have the undersigned attorney held in contempt,” the State’s motion does not show the likelihood of such enforcement is anything more than hypothetical. The State’s motion also does not demonstrate there is an existing controversy betw een the State and appellees about whether theappealed order is stayed pending the mandate of this court. We therefore deny the State’s motion

without prejudice

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 13th day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### In re ESTATE of Margaret DION, deceased. Edward H. SWANKO, Appellant, v. A. J. DION, as Executor, Appellee.

No. 70-1128.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 8, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7026

KEVIN SMITH, a/k/a Bar-None-Royal Blackness,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LAURIE F. BESSINGER; JOYCE BROWN; VAUGHN JACKSON; MARCELLA MCCOY; JUDY C. ANDERSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-97-51-O-23BD)

Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: February 10, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, ELLIS,

LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district

court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) (West Supp. 1997). We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting

the magistrate judge's recommendation and find that this appeal is

frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. Smith v. Bessinger, No. CA-97-51-O-23BD (D.S.C.

June 20, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
P. 1


# OAR Box 1878 Prepped byCharmelle Matltews



### Document

Number: 

# 132 ) ll-E-1 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 11/28/20081:21:26

PM Sheet 132 of 145P. 2



# JAC ACorp . A-90-1 9 ll-E-1 6 55 0 Pinetow n Rd . Ft . Washington , PA 1903 4 215/643-546 6 Fax : 215/643-277 2 

# Telephon e Log
Date : Januar y10 , 199 1 Time : Projec t No. : 00721 9 Projec t Name : HO

N Perso n Contacted/Title : Phon e Number : (301 ) 763-514 0 

### Fax : Compan y Representing : U.S . Departmen t o frnmnerrP . Riirpai i n fth P fpnsiic rTrad e Dat a

Service s JACARepresentative : Andr e Jenkin s : Discussion : Taskpr ffn rth P iqaq-iqq n impnr t anr i pypnr t fignrp c fn rHydroquinone . Imports : 1989 : 1,370,76 9 kq/$3,875,59 3 Jan.-Oct . 1990 : 1,272,63 9 kq/$4,150.72 1 Exports : 1989 : 950,46 3 kg/$4,469,09 0 Jan.-Oct . 1990 : 1,160,12 3 kg/$3,980,99 3 \t I P R i' 1 *
#### Robert A. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. Norma J. ANDERSON, Appellee.

No. 77-129.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 21, 1977.

*857William H. Shields of Pavese, Shields, Garner, Haverfield & Kluttz, Fort Myers, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant/plaintiff, Robert A. Anderson, brought suit on an alleged oral contract between himself and his former wife, appel-lee/defendant, Norma J. Anderson. Appel-lee filed an answer and asserted res judica-ta as an affirmative defense. She also filed a motion for summary judgment alleging “that there is no genuine issue of any material fact concerning the defense of Res Ju-dicata arising as a result of the Final Judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties hereto. . . . ” The motion was granted and this appeal followed.

The four elements of res judicata are not present in this case, and the doctrine is thereby inapplicable. Although under Florida’s permissible joinder rule of civil procedure appellant may have been able to resolve this controversy during the dissolution proceeding he was not required to do so.

Because there is an issue of genuine material fact as to the existence and terms of an oral contract between appellant and appellee pertinent to the alleged legal obligation of appellee to pay one-half of the indebtedness evidenced by the promissory note we reverse and remand for further proceedings. *Holl v. Talcótt,*191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and HOBSON and OTT, JJ., concur.
#### Willie KINSEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-2.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 8, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4471]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Keweenaw National Historical Park Advisory Commission; Notice of 
Meeting

SUMMARY: This notice announces an upcoming meeting of the Keweenaw 
National Historical Park Advisory Commission. Notice of this meeting is 
required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463).

DATES: Tuesday, February 25, 1997; 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Keweenaw National Historical Park Headquarters, 100 Red 
Jacket Road (2nd floor), Calumet, Michigan 49913-0471.
    This meeting is open to the public. We will begin with the 
Chairman's welcome; minutes of the previous meeting; update on the 
general management plan; update on park activities; old business; new 
business; next meeting date; adjournment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent, Keweenaw National 
Historical Park, P.O. Box 471, Calumet, Michigan 49913-0471, or 
telephone 906-337-3168.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Keweenaw National Historical Park was 
established by Public Law 102-543 on October 27, 1992.

    Dated: February 12, 1997.
William W. Schenk,
Field Director, Midwest Field Area.
[FR Doc. 97-4471 Filed 2-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
#### The State, ex rel. Hawke, *v.*Darby et al.

*Court of common pleas*— Suspension *or removal of*attorney— *Section 1707, General Code*— Jurisdiction.

(No. 18033

Decided January 22, 1924.)

In Mandamus.

*Mr. George S. Hawke, in propria persona.*

*Mr. Charles S. Bell,*for defendants.

This cause came on to be heard upon defendants’ motion for judgment upon the pleadings and was argued by counsel and submitted to the court. On consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged that the motion be sustained, and it is accordingly ordered that the petition be dismissed at relator’s costs, for the reason that this cause includes essentially the same elements of fact which were pleaded in cause No. 17837, *State, ex rel. Hawke,*v. *LeBlond,*108 Ohio St., 126, and that the same is governed by the same principles of law as were declared in that case.

*Petition dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7116 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7116

To amend the Klamath Basin Water Supply Enhancement Act of 2000 to make 
                     certain technical corrections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 2020

Mr. Walden (for himself and Mr. LaMalfa) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Klamath Basin Water Supply Enhancement Act of 2000 to make 
                     certain technical corrections.

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

SECTION 1. KLAMATH BASIN WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000 TECHNICAL 
              CORRECTIONS.

    Section 4(b) of the Klamath Basin Water Supply Enhancement Act of 
2000 (114 Stat. 2222; 132 Stat. 3887) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--
                            (i) by striking ``Pursuant to the 
                        reclamation laws and subject'' and inserting 
                        ``Subject''; and
                            (ii) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``is 
                        authorized to''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, including 
                conservation and efficiency measures, land idling, and 
                use of groundwater,'' after ``administer programs'';
            (2) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ``and'' after the 
        semicolon at the end;
            (3) by redesignating the second paragraph (4) (relating to 
        the effect of the subsection) as paragraph (5); and
            (4) in paragraph (5) (as so redesignated)--
                    (A) by striking subparagraph (B);
                    (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; or'' and 
                inserting a period; and
                    (C) by striking ``the Secretary--'' and all that 
                follows through ``to develop'' in subparagraph (A) and 
                inserting ``the Secretary to develop''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**     In connection with the Form 10-Q of Dean Holding Company (the “Company”) for the quarter endedJune 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Gregg L. Engles, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.              /s/ GREGG L. ENGLES   Gregg L. Engles   *Chief Executive Officer*   Date: August 15, 2005Note: This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 and shall not be deemed filed, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,544
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,439
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        723
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,927
<PP&E>                                           1,593
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,663
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,095
<BONDS>                                            322
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,206
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,663
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,095
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,992
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,310
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,363)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (480)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (833)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (883)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)
        


</TABLE>
#### Richard E. SANDSTROM, Josephine V. Sandstrom, and Davie Sand Corp., Appellants, v. DAN-MAR CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-246.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 18, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; John H. Moore, II, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: AIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

______________________________ 

AIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, 

PHOENIX, 

Respondent, 

DOLPHIN INCORPORATED, an Arizona 

corporation, 

Real Party in Interest.

No. 21-71120 

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05161-DJH 

MEMORANDUM*

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Argued and Submitted November 19, 2021

Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and DORSEY,** District 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

DEC 14 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

Judge.

Petitioner AIG Specialty Insurance Company (“AIG”) filed a petition for a 

writ of mandamus asking this Court to direct the district court to vacate its orders

requiring the production of five documents that AIG maintains are protected by the 

attorney-client privilege. We deny the petition.

Following Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), we 

presume that “postjudgment appeals generally suffice to protect the rights of 

litigants and ensure the vitality of the attorney-client privilege.” Id. at 109. 

Although a writ of mandamus may be available to correct a “particularly injurious 

or novel privilege ruling,” Hernandez v. Tanninen, 604 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 

2010) (quoting Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 110), AIG has not demonstrated that the 

disclosures ordered by the district court would be particularly injurious or novel. 

We therefore presume that any error by the district court in identifying privileged 

documents could be corrected on appeal.

Moreover, even if the district court did err, its order was not “clearly 

erroneous.” In re United States, 884 F.3d 830, 834 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Perry 

v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010)). The parties agree that 

documents relating to ordinary insurance business functions are not covered by the 

** The Honorable Jennifer A. Dorsey, United States District Judge for 

the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
 3 

attorney-client privilege. AIG does not point to any Ninth Circuit or Arizona cases 

explaining how to determine whether a document was prepared as part of the 

normal claims-adjustment process or to provide legal advice. As the “line between 

what constitutes claim handling and the rendition of legal advice is often more 

cloudy than crystalline,” HSS Enterprises, LCC v. Amco Ins. Co., No. C06-1485-

JPD, 2008 WL 163669, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 14, 2008), we cannot say that the 

district court clearly erred in drawing the line where it did. Because the absence of 

clear error precludes the grant of a writ of mandamus, In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891, 

898 (9th Cir. 2021), we deny the petition.

PETITION DENIED.