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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3423

To clear certain impediments to the licensing of a vessel for employment

in the coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 2, 1993

Mr. PAXON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To clear certain impediments to the licensing of a vessel

for employment in the coastwise trade and fisheries of

the United States.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883) and sections 12106,

5 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, as ap6 plicable on the date of this Act, the Secretary of Transpor7 tation may issue a certificate of documentation with ap8 propriate endorsement for the vessel NAN–SEA, United

9 States official number O.N.572933.

Æ
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JA NUARY 14, 2016

NO. 03

- 15

- 0077 7

- CR

Herman Lee Kindred, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE , JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction signed by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed the

record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction o ver this appeal. Therefore, the Court

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
(April 16, 1991)

#### In the Matter of Katherine Patrick et al., Respondents, v Cesar Perales, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Respondent, and James Krauskopf, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert E. White, J.) entered June 29, 1989 which, awarded the petitioners-respondents pre-judgment interest on their successful claim for an adoption maintenance subsidy, and denied that part of the petition seeking a medical subsidy, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the award of interest on the amount awarded and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The petitioners adopted Alicia, the adoptive child, on September 1, 1976. Prior thereto the petitioners applied for an adoption subsidy based on financial need. The New York City Department of Social Services recommended that the petitioners be granted the adoption subsidy in a Request For Authorization And Approval For Care And Services dated July 7, 1975. The petitioners’ application was denied however, on December 18, 1975. Thereafter, in 1981, petitioners sought a medical subsidy pursuant to 18 NYCRR 450.7 (h).

The matter was eventually appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in a memorandum granted the State Department of Social Services’ motion to dismiss the petition which sought the medical allowance subsidy pursuant to Social Services Law § 454 *(Matter of Patrick v Perales,*67 NY2d 731). However, the Court determined that the petitioners were entitled to an adoption maintenance subsidy from the New York City *280Department of Social Services, pursuant to Social Services Law § 398 (6) (k) (repealed and replaced by Social Services Law §§ 450-458; L 1977, ch 865), then in effect. *(Supra.)*

The petitioners are not entitled to interest on the amount awarded them by the Trial Court. "The right to interest is purely statutory. Under CPLR 7806, which specifies what relief may be granted in a judgment in a special proceeding, only restitution or damages which are incidental to the primary relief sought by the petitioner may be awarded” *(Matter of Gross v Perales,*133 AD2d 37 [1st Dept 1987], *affd*72 NY2d 231).

Petitioners’ argument, advanced on their cross-appeal, concerning their entitlement to a medical subsidy pursuant to 18 NYCRR 450.7 (h) first applied for in 1981, has been reviewed and found to be without merit as the regulation was repealed four years prior to petitioners’ 1981 application. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Denali Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov","author_name":"denaliadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/author\/denaliadmin\/","title":"Denali Commission 2022 Funding Opportunity Announcement Final Project Recommendations","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"X0zUa9gvoP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/denali-commission-2022-funding-opportunity-announcement-final-project-recommendations\/\">Denali Commission 2022 Funding Opportunity Announcement Final Project Recommendations<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/denali-commission-2022-funding-opportunity-announcement-final-project-recommendations\/embed\/#?secret=X0zUa9gvoP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Denali Commission 2022 Funding Opportunity Announcement Final Project Recommendations” — Denali Commission\" data-secret=\"X0zUa9gvoP\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/logo-1.png","thumbnail_width":189,"thumbnail_height":188}
#### James Ingram, Appellant-Respondent, v James Johnston, Respondent-Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*for ejectment, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated January 2, 1990, as denied his motion to direct the defendant to deposit with the court the fair market rental value of the subject premises, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as granted the plaintiff an injunction prohibiting the defendant from interfering in certain landlord-tenant relationships between the plaintiff and the tenants of the premises, and denied the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting the provision thereof granting the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and substituting therefor a provision denying that motion, and (2) deleting the provision thereof which denied the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint and substituting therefor a provision granting the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with costs to the defendant.

The plaintiff in this action has failed to establish that he holds any ownership interest in the subject premises or that he was a party immediately entitled to the real property upon the termination of the prior life estate pursuant to RPAPL 851. Therefore, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) and (7) should have been granted.

*644The plaintiff’s assertion that his service of an amended complaint, subsequent to the issuance of the order cross-appealed from, has rendered the instant cross appeal moot is without merit. The allegation in the amended complaint that the plaintiff obtained a 50% ownership interest in the subject premises subsequent to the commencement of the instant action is entirely unsubstantiated by the record. Furthermore, this allegation is irrelevant as concerns those causes of action predicated upon RPAPL 851. In light of our determination on the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied. Thompson, J. P., Fiber, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
MPS GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of MPS Group,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending  December 31, 2002 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Robert P.  Crouch,
Senior Vice  President,  Treasurer and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.



/s/ Robert P. Crouch
--------------------------
Robert P. Crouch
Senior Vice President, Treasurer
and Chief Financial Officer
March 31, 2003
*

 * Information has been Redacted in accordance with the two principled exceptions of the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act (FATAA) 

of 2016; including the health and security of implementing partners, as well as national interest of the United States.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2014 (the Report) of Solar Senior Capital Ltd. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, MICHAEL S. GROSS, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Registrant.

|      |  |                        
|----- |  | -----------------------
|      | 
|      |  | /S/    MICHAEL S.
GROSS
|Name: |  | Michael S. Gross       
|Date: |  | May 5, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERNANDO GASTELUM,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
KPK HOSPITALITY LLC, an IGH Hotel, DBA Holiday Inn Express Colton

- Riverside North,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 22

- 55821

D.C. No. 5:21

- cv

- 01510

- JGB

- KK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 26, 2024 * *

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Fernando Gastelum appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(“ADA”) and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 28 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 55821

for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal on the basis of its local rules.

Ghazali v. Moran , 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) . We affirm

. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Gastelum’s

action because Gastelum failed to respond timely to defendants’ motion to dismiss

the second amended complaint after Gastelum had previously failed to respond

timely to defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint

. See C. D. Cal . R. 7

-

1 2 (“ The failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the

deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion

. . . . ”);

Ghazali , 46 F.3d at 53

- 54 (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a

case for failure to follow local rules).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gastelum’s motion

to set aside the dismissal order because Gastelum failed to demonstrate any basis

for relief. See Sch

. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County , Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d

1255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) (s etting forth standard of review and factors for

reconsideration).

In ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss Gastelum’s first amended

complaint, the district court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction over

Gastelum’s state law claim but should have dismissed that claim without prejudice.

See Wade v. Reg’l Credit Ass’n , 87 F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Where a

district court dismisses a federal claim, leaving only state claims for resolution, it3 22

- 55821

should decline jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them without

prejudice.”). We affirm the dismissal of the state law claim but instruct the district

court to amend the May 5, 2022 order to reflect that the dismissal of Gastelum’s

state law claim is without prejudice.

AFFIRMED with instructions to amend the dismissal order

.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                   CORAM HEALTHCARE CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES

Coram Alternate Site Services, Inc.
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Alabama
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Florida
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Greater D.C.
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Greater New York
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Illinois
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Indiana
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Kentucky
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Massachusetts
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Michigan
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Mississippi
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Nevada
Coram Healthcare Corporation of New Hampshire
Coram Healthcare Corporation of New York
Coram Healthcare Corporation of North Texas
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Northern California
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Rhode Island
Coram Healthcare Corporation of South Carolina
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Southern California
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Southern Florida
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Utah
Coram Healthcare Corporation of Washington
Coram Healthcare Limited
Coram Healthcare of Wyoming, LLC
Coram Homecare of Illinois, Inc.
Coram Homecare of Minnesota, Inc.
Coram Homecare of Northern California, Inc.
Coram Homecare of South Carolina, Inc.
Coram Homecare of Texas, Inc.
Coram, Inc.
Coram Independent Practice Association, Inc.
Coram International Holdings Ltd.
Coram Prescription Services, Inc.
Coram Resource Network, Inc.
Coram Service Corporation
CTI Network, Inc.
Curaflex Health Services, Inc.
Fairfax Hematology Oncology Associates, Inc.
HealthInfusion, Inc.
Home Care Hawaii, LLP
H.M.S.S., Inc.
Medisys, Inc.
T2 Medical, Inc.
Caremark Pharmacy Services, Inc.
Clinical Homecare Corporation
Comprehensive Pharmacy Home IV Services, Inc.
Dallas Home Therapeutics, Inc
Extendacare Health Systems, Inc.
Stratogen of Rhode Island, Inc.
* Pursuant 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 limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20485

MIRIAM TINSLEY Plaintiff - Appellant

v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORP; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC, as Successor by Merger with Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB; UNKNOWN HOLDERS AND OR OWNERS, Residual Interest in Securitization of Mortgage Loan of Miriam Tinsley; HUGHES WATTERS, & ASKANASE, LLP; CAROLYN TAYLOR; ANDERSON, BURNS, & VELA LLP Defendants - Appellees
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston

No. 4:06-CV-591
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The district court’s Final Judgment entered May 3, 2006, and its Order to Pay Fees entered April 21 , 2006, are not supported by written reasons for its summary resolution of the many jurisdictional and other issues that underlie the Final Judgment and the award of attorneys’ fees as sanctions against Tinsley and counsel. Without reasons, we are unable to engage in meaningful appellate United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 13, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-20485

2 review. Accordingly we VACATE both the Final Judgment and the Order to Pay Fees and REMAND to the district court with instructions to the ChiefJudge to reassign this case to a different district judge. We do not intimate that dismissal ofsome or all ofthe plaintiff-appellant’s claims is ultimately inappropriate, nor do we intimate that sanctions are inappropriate. VACATED AND REMANDED with instructions tothe ChiefJudge. Each party shall bear its own costs.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4140

To amend the Bankruptcy Act to make small business investment companies

and specialized small business investment companies ineligible to file

bankruptcy, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 24, 1994

Mr. LAFALCE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Bankruptcy Act to make small business investment companies and specialized small business investment companies ineligible to file bankruptcy, 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 That section 109(b)(2) of title 11, United States Code,

4 is amended by inserting after ‘‘homestead association’’ the

5 following: ‘‘small business investment company licensed by

6 the Small Business Administration under subsection (c)

7 or (d) of section 301 of the Small Business Investment

8 Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 681),’’.
2

HR 4140 IH

Æ
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Reg. Nos. 333-17715,  333-18695,  333-49505,  333-67271,
and  333-106855)  and on Form S-8 (Reg. Nos.  333-99262,  333-06899,  333-15701,
333-16043,  333-30445,  333-41305,  333-49495,  333-49493, 333-58261, 333-69915,
333-79001,  333-88329,  and  333-64252)  of MPS Group,  Inc. of our report dated
March 12, 2004 relating to the consolidated financial statements,  which appears
in this Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Jacksonville, Florida
March 12, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donna Clarkson, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered April 14, 1989, convicting defendant after jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her as a predicate felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 4-Vi to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant sold five vials of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer. Although more than three hours elapsed between the purchase and the time that the defendant was apprehended on the street and identified, no arrest was made until after the undercover officer confirmed that defendant was the person from whom he had purchased drugs earlier in the day. The undercover officer also made a subsequent stationhouse confirmation of defendant’s identity. Under the circumstances, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light *315most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that there is ample evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statements  on  Form  S-3  (Reg.  Nos.  333-17715,   333-18695,  333-49505,  and
333-67271) and on Form S-8 (Reg. Nos. 333-99262, 333-06899,333-15701, 333-16043,
333-30445,  333-41305,  333-49495,  333-49493,  333-58261, 333-69915, 333-79001,
333-88329,  and  333-64252) of MPS Group,  Inc.  (formerly,  Modis  Professional
Services, Inc.) and its subsidiaries of our report dated March 26, 2003 relating
to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Jacksonville, Florida
March 26, 2003
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 542 

To provide limitations on maritime liens on fishing licenses and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2013 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. BEGICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To provide limitations on maritime liens on fishing licenses 

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 ‘‘Maritime Lien Reform 

5 Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON MARITIME LIENS ON FISHING LI7 CENSE AND LICENSE DESCRIPTION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter I of chapter 313 of 

9 title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

10 end the following: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 542 IS

1 ‘‘§ 31310. Limitation on maritime liens on fishing li2 cense and license description 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—This chapter— 

4 ‘‘(1) does not establish a maritime lien on a li5 cense that— 

6 ‘‘(A) authorizes a person or use of a vessel 

7 to engage in fishing; and 

8 ‘‘(B) is issued under State or Federal law; 

9 and 

10 ‘‘(2) does not authorize any civil action to en11 force a maritime lien on such a license. 

12 ‘‘(b) FISHING LICENSE DESCRIBED.—A fishing li13 cense— 

14 ‘‘(1) is governed solely by the State or Federal 

15 law under which it was issued; and 

16 ‘‘(2) is not included in the whole of a vessel or 

17 as an appurtenance or intangible of a vessel for any 

18 purpose. 

19 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.— 

20 Nothing in subsections (a) and (b) shall be construed as 

21 imposing any limitation upon the authority of the Sec22 retary of Commerce to modify, suspend, revoke, or sanc23 tion any Federal fishery license issued by the Secretary 

24 of Commerce or to bring a civil action to enforce such 

25 modification, suspension, revocation, or sanction.’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 542 IS

1 (b) TABLE OF SECTIONS AMENDMENT.—The table of 

2 sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by 

3 inserting after the item relating to section 31309 the fol4 lowing: 

‘‘31310. Limitation on maritime liens on fishing license and license description.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS