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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8015 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8015

  To maintain prompt and reliable postal services during the COVID-19 
               health emergency, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 11, 2020

  Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To maintain prompt and reliable postal services during the COVID-19 
               health emergency, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Delivering for America Act''.

SEC. 2. PROMPT AND RELIABLE POSTAL SERVICES DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC.

    (a) In General.--During the period beginning on the date of 
enactment of this Act and ending on the last day of the COVID-19 public 
health emergency or January 1, 2021, whichever is later, the United 
States Postal Service may not implement or approve any change to the 
operations or the level of service provided by the Postal Service from 
those in effect on January 1, 2020, that would impede prompt, reliable, 
and efficient services, including any of the following actions:
            (1) Any change in the nature of postal services which will 
        generally affect service on a nationwide or substantially 
        nationwide basis.
            (2) Any revision of service standards.
            (3) Any closure or consolidation of any post office or 
        reduction of facility hours.
            (4) Any prohibition on payment of overtime pay to Postal 
        Service officers or employees.
            (5) Any change that would prevent the Postal Service from 
        meeting its service standards or cause a decline in 
        measurements of performance relative to those service 
        standards.
            (6) Any change that would have the effect of delaying mail, 
        allowing for the non-delivery of mail to a delivery route, or 
        increasing the volume of undelivered mail.
    (b) Definition of COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.--In this Act, 
the term ``COVID-19 public health emergency'' means the public health 
emergency declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on 
January 27, 2020, with respect to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ALLFIRST
FINANCIAL INC. JUNE 30, 2000 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         871,892
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,274
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               184,810
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 2,918
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  4,200,337
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     10,979,275
<ALLOWANCE>                                    157,351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,041,778
<DEPOSITS>                                  11,861,433
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,507,496
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            639,317
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,195,702
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            8,463
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        85,395
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,733,223
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              18,041,778
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                419,751
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              127,516
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,529
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               549,796
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             192,028
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             300,174
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          249,622
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   16,875
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 175
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                254,743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                140,691
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     140,691
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    92,161
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.39
<LOANS-NON>                                     63,368
<LOANS-PAST>                                    34,915
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 80,962
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               157,351
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   22,906
<RECOVERIES>                                     6,031
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              157,351
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            90,822
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              9,741
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         56,788



</TABLE>
---

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009 of Great Basin Gold Limited of our report dated March 22, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting which appears in this Annual Report on Form 40-F.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form F-10, as amended, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission under File No. 333-157767 and File No. 333-163021 of our report referred to above.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPChartered Accountants

Vancouver, BCMarch 31, 2010

---
#### Raymond BRIGGS, Appellant, v. Barbara BRIGGS, Appellee.

No. 71-316.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 29, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### L. C. EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-700.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 8, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">1894 Eastchester Professional Building, Ltd., Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Gerald Christopher d/b/a/ Good to Go Restaurant, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Tenant appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Verna L. Saunders, J.), entered on or about October 6, 2016, after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Final judgment (Verna L. Saunders, J.), entered on or about October 6, 2016, affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that tenant violated the terms of the parties' commercial lease. Tenant installed, without the required permits, an outdoor deck adjacent to its restaurant and a kitchen area/prep station in the building's basement; failed to seek and procure an amended certificate of occupancy allowing the deck to be used for outdoor dining and allowing the basement to be used as a kitchen prep area; and did not seek or obtain modification of its liquor license to permit the consumption of alcohol on the deck (<i>see Britti Corp. v Perry Thompson Third LLC</i>, 26 AD3d 235 [2006]; <i>Marsam Realty 13th Ave., LLC v Bagels 'N' Greens BP, LLC, </i>2018 NY Slip Op 50419[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th and 13th Jud Dists 2018]). The evidence also showed that after tenant was served with a notice to cure, it did not cure the violations and its application for <i>Yellowstone</i> relief was dismissed as untimely.</p><p>Even were we to accept tenant's claim that the prior owner orally consented to the construction of the deck, the prior owner expressly testified that tenant was still obligated to obtain the required permits and governmental approvals for the deck, which tenant indisputably failed to obtain. Likewise, even accepting tenant's claim that the current owner was aware of and acquiesced to the construction of the kitchen prep area in the basement, tenant still was required, but failed, to obtain the required permits or governmental approvals prior to or after the work was completed. </p><p>On a bench trial, the decision of the fact-finding court "should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence" (<i>Claridge Gardens v Menotti</i>, 160 AD2d 544, 545 [1990]). <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>Applying that standard of review here, we find no basis to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court in awarding possession to landlord.</p><p>We have examined tenant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: April 27, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Order filed, April 16, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00031-CR

____________

RAYMOND EDWARD LEAL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1227701

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due February 7, 2012, 2012. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. On March 1, 2012, this court GRANTED a motion for extension of time to 

file the record to April 12, 2012. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, 

we issue the following order.

We order the Official Court Reporter of the 208th District Court, to file the 

record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. No further extension will 

be entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are jointly 
responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.3(c). If the Official Court Reporter of the 208th District Court does not timely file 

the record as ordered, we will issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing 

to determine the reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Michael T. Vesey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Orleans Homebuilders, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; 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: February 14, 2005

                                          /s/   Michael T. Vesey
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Michael T. Vesey
                                          President and Chief Operating Officer
No. 10541.

#### Smiti-i *v.*Tpie Bankers Life Association.

Decided March 31, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Miami county.

*Mr. C. B. Jami-son*and *Mr. D. B. Van Pelt,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. I. M. Earl*and *Mr. A. F. Broomhall,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
259 La. 688

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Linda GOINGS.

No. 51665.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 17, 1971.

In re: Linda Goings applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Application denied. Applicant has a remedy by appeal in the event of a conviction.
Ms. Genevieve Woydziak

Secretary Treasurer

Elkhorn Aviation, Inc., dba Baker Aircraft

43769 Heilner Road

Baker City, OR 97814

Dear Ms. Woydziak:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§ xx.xx of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can’t process 

your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can’t Process Your Request

We entered your October 26, 2011, exemption request on behalf of Elkhorn Inc., dba Baker 

Aircraft into the public docket (No. FAA-2011-1278), but we are unable to process your 

request any further. The information you sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 

14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us 

all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to 
2

send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption.

If We Don’t Hear From You

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Ida M. Klepper

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3

Project No.: AAM-12-086-E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM-101:KJones:11/22/11:Doc#333333

ARM-1/100/101:Program Office AAM-800

Statistics: Reject Letter.doc, 390 words

Original, 22 Nov 2011 13:06

Style Index 10 Excellent for a Legal Document

Average Sentence Length 18 Excellent

Passive Index 0 Excellent

MS GENEVIEVE WOYDZIAK

SECRETARY TREASURER

ELKHORN AVIATION INC DBA BAKER AIRCRAFT

43769 HEILNER ROAD

BAKER CITY OR 97814
---

CONSENT OF AUTHOR

****

****

Ross Banner54 Trickle Ridge Place Kimberley,
BCV1A 2H8 Email: rossbanner@shaw.ca



US Securities and Exchange Commission



I, Ross Banner, Pr.Eng, certify that I have read the written
disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are
any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical Report or
that the written disclosure in the Form 40F of Great Basin Gold Ltd. contains
any misrepresentation of the information contained in Technical Report Summary
Report for the Ivanhoe Project, Elko Nevada, USA dated April 2002.

I do hereby consent to the filing with the regulatory
authorities.



Dated this 30th day of March, 2006.



/s/ R. Banner

|Ross Banner, P.Eng.
|-------------------

---
258 La. 368

#### AMERICAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. James H. MICHAEL and James W. Barber, d/b/a Michael and Barber Construction Co., Bayou State Discount House, Inc., Intervenor.

No. 51341.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1971.

In re: Bayou State Discount House, Inc., Intervenor applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 244 So. 2d 882.

Application not considered. Not timely filed.
Exhibit
21.1
 
 LIST
OF SUBSIDIARIES
 
 NCN Group
Limited
 NCN Media
Services Limited
 NCN
Management Services Limited
 Crown
Winner International Limited
 Cityhorizon
Limited
 NCN Group
Management Limited
 NCN
Huamin Management Consultancy (Beijing) Company Limited
 Shanghai
Quo Advertising Company Limited
 Xuancaiyi
(Beijing) Advertising Company Limited
 Guangdong
Tianma International Travel Service Co., Ltd.
 NCN
Landmark International Hotel Group Limited
 Beijing
NCN Landmark Hotel Management Limited
 Teda
(Beijing) Hotels Management Limited
 NCN Asset
Management Services Limited
 NCN
Travel Services Limited
 NCN
Financial Services Limited
 NCN
Hotels Investment Limited
 NCN
Pacific Hotels Limited
 Linkrich
Enterprise Advertising and Investment Limited
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that this periodicreport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in theperiodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the issuer.

 

 
| Date: February 17,  2009 | Michael T. Vesey        |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                          | Michael T. Vesey        |
|                          | President and           |
|                          | Chief Operating Officer |

 

----
#### Bobby Lee DANIELS, Petitioner, v. L. L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-644.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 11, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
EXHIBIT 11.1

Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

Computation of Earnings Per Share

The following formula was used to calculate the earnings per share, Consolidated Statements of Income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007 and 2006,
included in this report as Exhibit 13.3.

Earnings Per Share

Net Income / Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding for the period



|                                    |  |                             |           |      |   |          
|----------------------------------- |  | --------------------------- | --------- | ---- | - | ---------
|                                    |  | Three months ended June 30,
|                                    |  | 2007                        |           | 2006
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  |                             | 1,528,443 |      |   | 1,528,443
|Net Income                          |  | $                           | 506,022   |      | $ | 549,433  
|Per Share Amount                    |  | $                           | 0.33      |      | $ | 0.36     



|                                    |  |                           |           |      |   |          
|----------------------------------- |  | ------------------------- | --------- | ---- | - | ---------
|                                    |  | Six months ended June 30,
|                                    |  | 2007                      |           | 2006
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  |                           | 1,528,443 |      |   | 1,528,443
|Net Income                          |  | $                         | 921,418   |      | $ | 1,149,476
|Per Share Amount                    |  | $                         | 0.60      |      | $ | 0.75     

No common stock equivalents exist.
#### Robert Earl REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-389.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 5, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; A. J. Haseman, Judge.

Appeal' dismissed; motion to amend denied.
#### Macio Bernard SIMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-259.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 27, 1971.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and Gerald Sohn, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment and decision of this Court in this cause was filed August 4, 1970, and reported in 237 So.2d 341, wherein the judgment of the Criminal Court of Record for Duval County was affirmed; and

Whereas, said decision and judgment was declined review by the Supreme Court of Florida by certiorari proceedings, 240 So.2d 645; and

Whereas, in the October Term, 1970, the said cause came on to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States on petition for writ of certiorari to this Court and response thereto; and

Whereas, the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States has been filed with this Court, which said mandate was predicated upon the order and judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, entered June 14, 1971, 403 U.S. 384, 91 S.Ct. 1801, 29 L.Ed.2d 549, which said judgment vacated the judgment of this Court first above mentioned and remanded the case to this Court for consideration in light of Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469, accordingly,

The judgment and opinion of this Court filed August 4, 1970, is set aside and held for naught, and the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States filed June 14, 1971, is adopted as this Court’s opinion and judgment and the same shall accompany the mandate of this Court to the Criminal Court of Record for Duval County; and, accordingly,

The Criminal Court of Record for Duval County is directed to hold an adversary proceeding for the purpose of examining the record of the prior proceeding against appellant herein and to take into account the pleadings, evidence, charge, and other relevant matter, and conclude whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration in the instant proceeding, which *657said examination shall be in accordance with and for the purpose of the principles set forth in Ashe v. Swenson, supra, and for such further proceedings as may be deemed appropriate in the premises.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD, K., JJ., concur.
#### Irma JONES, Appellant, v. Floyd KELLY, Appellee.

No. 72-287.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 19, 1973.

Gershon S. Miller, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings and Walter S. Holland, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment based upon a jury verdict for the defendant in a negligence action. Essentially, appellant contends that a new trial should have been granted because the jury was confused in the application of the trial judge’s instructions on the law to the facts of the case. Our review of the record before us convinces us that the limited record presented is not sufficient to demonstrate error. See Cleeland v. Miami Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 260. All other points have been reviewed and do not constitute reversible error.

Affirmed.