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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1083 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1083

   To require the Secretary of the Treasury to redesign $20 Federal 
 reserve notes so as to include a likeness of Harriet Tubman, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2019

   Mr. Katko (for himself, Mr. Cummings, Ms. Speier, Ms. Norton, Mr. 
Higgins of New York, Ms. Stefanik, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Raskin, Mr. 
     Grijalva, Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire, and Mr. Hurd of Texas) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Secretary of the Treasury to redesign $20 Federal 
 reserve notes so as to include a likeness of Harriet Tubman, 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 ``Harriet Tubman Tribute Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. LIKENESS OF HARRIET TUBMAN REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED ON THE FACE 
              OF $20 FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES.

    The 8th undesignated paragraph of section 16 of the Federal Reserve 
Act (12 U.S.C. 418) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
sentence: ``The Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure that the face of 
all $20 Federal reserve notes printed after December 31, 2020, shall 
bear the likeness of Harriet Tubman.''.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-14-00834-CR

Style: Booker Newsome v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: March 30, 2015

Type of motion: Third Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: January 5, 2015

Number of extensions granted: 2 Current Due Date: March 27, 2015

Date Requested: April 17, 2015

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: April 17, 2015.

 No further extensions of time will be granted.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

On March 2, 2015, the Clerk of this Court granted appellant’s second extension and

warned counsel that no further extensions would be granted. Because appellant’s 

motion states that more time is needed to review the record, and the reporter’s record

spans 6 volumes, appellant’s motion is granted, but counsel is warned that no further 

extensions will be granted. Accordingly, if appellant’s brief is not filed by April 17, 

2015, the Court will abate this appeal for a hearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2).

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

 

Date: April 7, 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 44A14

FILED 10 April 2015

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

ADRIAN TAREL EPPS

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 

the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 752 S.E.2d 733 (2014), finding no error after 

appeal of a judgment entered on 25 September 2012 by Judge Hugh B. Lewis in 

Superior Court, Gaston County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 18 November 2014.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney 

General, for the State.

Michael E. Casterline for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Justice ERVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### Usina Costa Pinto, S. A., Respondent, v Sanco Sav Company Limited et al., Defendants, and Chase Manhattan Bank et al., Appellants.

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered August 23, 1990, which granted plaintiff’s motion to punish The Chase Manhattan Bank and Cornelius J. Lyons, Esq. for civil and criminal contempt for having willfully disobeyed a prior order of the court, dated October 23, 1989, and fined them $1,000 each for criminal contempt and $250 each plus the amount of plaintiff’s costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, for civil contempt, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the finding of contempt is vacated and the matter remanded to the IAS court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the *488alleged contemners’ willfulness in disobeying the prior order, without costs.

It is well established that contempt is a drastic remedy which should not be granted absent a clear right to such relief. Whether to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as is apparently the case with criminal contempt or " 'with reasonable certainty’ ” in the case of civil contempt *(N.*A. *Dev. Co. v*Jones, 99 AD2d 238, 242), where, as here, there are factual disputes regarding the alleged contemnors’ willfulness in disobeying the prior order, which cannot be resolved on the papers, a hearing must be held before a party or its attorney can be adjudicated in contempt. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
**Exhibit32**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO**

 

                Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that theannual report on Form 10-K of Bemis Company, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2007 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Bemis Company, Inc.

 
| /s/  Henry J. Theisen            |   |                                 | /s/  Gene C. Wulf |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|-------------------|--------|
| Henry  J. Thiesen, President and |   | Gene  C. Wulf, Senior Vice President |
| Chief Executive Officer          |   | and Chief Financial Officer          |
| February 28, 2008           |   | February 28, 2008               |

 

 

52

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JOSHA MEDINA,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 598 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Subsidiary
    
    Registered in
    
    AcquiredA. M. Castle & Co. (Canada) Inc.
    
    Ontario
    
    July 31, 1990Total Plastics, Inc.
    
    Michigan
    
    January 2, 1996Oliver Steel Plate Co.
    
    Delaware
    
    July 15, 1998Paramont Machine Company, LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    April 1, 1999Advanced Fabricating Technology LLC.
    
    Delaware
    
    May 1, 2000Castle Metals de Mexico S.A. de C.V.
    
    Mexico
    
    February 27, 2004Transtar Inventory Corp.
    
    Delaware
    
    September 5, 2006Transtar Metals Corp.
    
    Delaware
    
    September 5, 2006Transtar Marine Corp.
    
    Delaware
    
    September 5, 2006A. M. Castle & Co. (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
    
    Singapore
    
    October 13, 2006A.M. Castle Metal Materials (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
    
    Pu Dong Province,
Peoples Republic of
China
    
    November 22, 2007Metals U.K. Group Limited
    
    United Kingdom
    
    January 3, 2008
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13043

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:12-cr-00457-RDP-TMP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH WAYNE KING, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(April 16, 2015)

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Robert B. Tuten and Mickey J. Gentle, appointed counsel for Joseph Wayne 

King in this direct criminal appeal, have filed a motion to withdraw from further 

representation of King, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v. 

Case: 14-13043 Date Filed: 04/16/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsels’ motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and King’s conviction and sentence 

are AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-13043 Date Filed: 04/16/2015 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit 10(a)  


April 19, 2002 


Board
of Directors

Protective Life Insurance Company

2801 Highway 201 South

Birmingham, Alabama 35223 


Directors:



        We
hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption "Legal Matters" in the statement of additional information filed as part of post-effective amendment number 3 to
the registration statement on Form N-4 (File No. 333-94047) filed by Protective Life Insurance Company and Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933. 













Sincerely,

SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP

By: /s/  DAVID S. GOLDSTEIN     








David S. Goldstein
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JENNIFER PUTZIG,

Appellant,

v.

KENNETH BRESK,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-554

[April 15, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Michael G. Kaplan, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14-54 (59).

Richard F. Della Fera of Entin & Della Fera, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J.

Jennifer Putzig appeals a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection 

against Dating Violence. Putzig argues that the trial court violated her 

due process rights by not affording her the opportunity to present 

evidence, call witnesses, or cross-examine the appellee. We agree and 

reverse.

Putzig and appellee filed countervailing petitions for protection against 

dating violence arising out of the same incident. Both parties appeared 

pro se at the injunction hearing. At the outset, the court asked the 

parties if they had any witnesses. Putzig responded that she had one “on 

the way.” 

The court then swore in the parties and proceeded to question Putzig 

about the alleged act of dating violence. The court asked very specific 

questions and stopped Putzig if she veered off-topic. The court next 

questioned appellee about his version of the events, which he provided. 

When asked for her response to the appellee’s testimony, Putzig told the 

court that he was “making it all up” and indicated that she had 

supporting text messages. The court did not allow Putzig to elaborate, 
- 2 -

and granted each party’s petition. The court did not ask to see Putzig’s 

text-message evidence, inquire as to the status of Putzig’s witness, or 

allow the parties to cross-examine each other. 

“We review whether the trial court afforded a party the opportunity to 

be heard before imposing an injunction for an abuse of discretion.” 

McNulty ex rel. G.M. v. Douglas ex rel. K.D., 111 So. 3d 231, 232 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 2013).

Section 784.046(6)(c), Florida Statutes, requires a full hearing before 

entry of permanent injunction against dating violence. § 784.046(6)(c), 

Fla. Stat. (2014). “A full evidentiary hearing ‘includes direct examination 

of witnesses, cross-examination of witnesses, and the presentation of any 

other evidence.’” McNulty, 111 So. 3d at 233 (quoting Niederkorn v. 

Trivino, 68 So. 3d 991, 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)). Accordingly, a trial 

court abuses its discretion when it denies parties to a petition for a 

dating violence injunction the opportunity to call witnesses, present 

evidence, or cross-examine witnesses. Id.

Here, the transcript of the hearing reflects that the trial court did not 

present Putzig with an opportunity to cross-examine the appellee, call 

witnesses, or present evidence, even though Putzig indicated that she 

had a witness en-route and had text messages she wanted the court to 

consider. Accordingly, we reverse the final injunction and remand for a 

full evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and Remanded.

TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Independent Auditors' Consent


 

 Exhibit 10(i)

 



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT


 



To the Board of Directors of




Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company


 



          We consent to the use in this Post Effective Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement No. 333-95851 on Form
N-4 of our report dated February 15, 2002 for the MassMutual Artistry Segment of Massachusetts Mutual Variable Annuity Separate Account 4 and of our report dual dated March 1, 2002 and March 9, 2002, on Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs referring to the use of statutory accounting practices and the change in certain accounting practices as a result of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of
Insurance’s adoption of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual effective January 1, 2001, all of which practices differ from accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America), appearing in the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in such Statement of Additional Information.


 

Deloitte & Touche LLP

 

Hartford, Connecticut



April 25, 2002
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

March 29, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549


Gentlemen/Ladies:


We have received from our auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP, a letter stating that
our audit was subject to Arthur Andersen's quality control system for the U. S.
accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards and that
there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit and
availability of national office consultation. The availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

Sincerely,




Dennis W. Carroll
Vice President and Controller
KeySpan Energy Delivery
201 Rivermoor Street
West Roxbury, MA 02132
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00551-CR

IN RE Carlos ZUNIGA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 18, 2019

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

On August 19, 2019, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus by which he seeks to 

compel the Board of Pardons and Paroles to determine relator is entitled to parole, “reverse the 

lower court’s judgment in whole or in part and [sic] the judgment of the lower court [sic] should 

have rendered at parole review.” This court’s mandamus jurisdiction does not extend to the Board 

of Pardons and Paroles. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(a), (b). Therefore, we dismiss relator’s

petition for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1 This proceeding arises from a parole panel decision by the State of Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.
ACCEPTED

011400968CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/13/2015 2:34:56 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/13/2015 2:34:56 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE :

RALPH NICHOL, JR.,

Relator. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00234

- CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against

the Honorable Angie Juarez Barill, Judge of the 346th District Court of El Paso County, Texas,

and concludes that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be c onditionally granted. We

therefore order the trial court to vacate its order of September 13, 2019

, in accordance with the

opinion of this Court. The writ of mandamus will not issue unless Respondent fails to comply

with this opinion within a reasonable period of time.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Palafox, J., Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge), and Larsen, J. (Senior Judge)

Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment

Larsen, J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Application Under the Equal Access ) 

to Justice Act of -- ) 

) 

Anlaratek ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W9124R-l 1-P-1054 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 59149, 59395 

Mr. David P. Dumas 

President 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

CPT Cali Y. Kim, JA 

Trial Attorney 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ON 

APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Appellant, Anlaratek, timely moves for reconsideration of our 22 January 2015 

decision upon its application pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 

5 U.S.C. § 504.1 We deny the motion. In order to prevail on its motion, Anlaratek 

must establish a compelling reason for us to modify the original decision. Paradigm 

IL LLC, ASBCA No. 55849, 12-2 BCA ~ 35,152 at 172,528. In determining ifthat 

standard has been met, the Board looks to see whether there is newly discovered 

evidence, mistakes in the findings of fact, or errors oflaw. Id. 

Anlaratek does not meet that standard. Amaratek asserts that it was error 

not to award the cost of the time that its president spent litigating the appeals, but 

under our precedent, the cost of such time is not recoverable. See M Bianchi of 

California, ASBCA No. 26362 et al., 90-1BCA~22,369 at 112,403-04; Roberts 

Construction Co., ASBCA No. 31033, 86-2 BCA ~ 18,846 at 94,974. Goetz 

Demolition Co., ASBCA No. 39129, 91-2 BCA ~ 23,836, which Anlaratek cites (app. 

mot. at 8), is not to the contrary. There, the Board denied recovery of the cost of the 

time and efforts of in-house counsel. Id. at 119,461. Nor does Sterling Federal 

Systems, Inc. v. Goldin, 16 F.3d 1177 (Fed. Cir. 1994), which Anlaratek also cites 

(app. mot. at 4), mandate recovery of the cost of the time of Anlaratek's president; 

Sterling does not address the Board's caselaw interpreting 5 U.S.C. § 504. 

1 Anlaratek elected to have the appeals processed pursuant to Board Rule 12.2; 

consequently, this decision shall have no value as precedent. Board 

Rule 12.2(d). 
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for reconsideration is denied. 

Dated: 14 April 2015 

Administ tive Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals on an application for fees and other 

expenses incurred in connection with ASBCA Nos. 59149, 59395, Appeals of 

Amaratek, rendered in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 504. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24177-24178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9742]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1822]


Approval for Manufacturing Authority; Foreign-Trade Zone 177; 
Hoosier Stamping & Mfg. Corp. (Wheel Assemblies and Accessories); 
Chandler, IN

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Ports of Indiana, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 177, 
has requested manufacturing authority on behalf of Hoosier Stamping & 
Mfg. Corp. d/b/a Hoosier Wheel (Hoosier Stamping) within FTZ 177 in 
Chandler, Indiana, (FTZ Docket 68-2011, filed 10-25-2011);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (76 FR 67132-67133, 10-31-2011) and the application 
has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; 
and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application for manufacturing authority under zone procedures 
within FTZ 177 on behalf of Hoosier Stamping, as described in the 
application and Federal Register notice, is approved, subject to the 
FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.


[[Page 24178]]


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of April 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

    ATTEST:

Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9742 Filed 4-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6478

BERNARD BUSH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BENJAMIN J. ULEP, Medical Doctor,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (2:08-cv-00053-RBS-FBS)

Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: June 2, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Bush, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Bush appeals the district court’s orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and his motion

filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. Bush v. Ulep, No.

2:08-cv-00053-RBS-FBS (E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2008; Mar. 18, 2008). 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.

AFFIRMED