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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  PROVIDING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION FOR MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT RATES

  (Mr. BURGESS asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, as a physician and now as a legislator, I, 
frankly, do not understand the way our government continues to treat 
those who care for America's patients.
  Earlier this month, I introduced legislation, H.R. 6142, to provide a 
1-year extension for Medicare physician payment rates. This allows 
patients to continue to have access to their physicians in the next 
year.
  Look, this is no mystery. We all know the last patch is going to 
expire on December 31. We all know that before December 31 of this year 
that somehow we'll cobble together and provide another patch. Why not 
do that now? Why make them wait until the deadline? They can't plan. 
They can't grow their practices. They can't expand because they don't 
know what their government is going to do to them.
  Further compounding the problem this year is the specter of 
sequestration that occurs on January 1. No matter how you slice it, 
it's another 2 percent cut on top of the 27 to 29 percent cut they are 
already going to get under the SGR.
  Let's do the right thing. We could pass this bill under suspension 
this afternoon. We could provide our Nation's physicians the stability 
and the certainty that they need to continue to see the patients we've 
asked them to serve.

                          ____________________
```
# Gm
· . ·•r. 

## -··

. 

# lnventoryExpertService

-·-----·- - ·-- --- - -- --- -- - - --· --- - ·- -- · A d iv isi o n o f the A me r ican Chemical So c iety Ph o n e: 800 -63t - 1884 , 6 1 4 -4 47-387 0 Fa x : 6 14-44 7 -3 7 4 7 E - ma i l : a n swe r s @cas .org We b: w ww .ca s.o rg /p r od ucts/o t her- cas·pro duct s/c li e n t -s o r v i cos/

CAS 

# D INVENTORY EXPERT SERVICE REPORT

Please print the above CA Index Name on the appropriate page of your PMN. 

### I f t h i s b ox i s c h ec ke d , 

### C AS h as m ade correc ti o n (s ) ma r ke d i n re d t o your 

### I ES ord e r. Please make the same cor re cti o ns to y o ur PMN befor e sub m itt in g i t t o th e EPA . 254 0 O l e ntan gy R ive r Road P. O. Bo x 33 4 3 Co l umbus , O H 432 1 0 -033 4 U SA
#### In re Habeas Corpus of Carson STEEL.

No. A-12776.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 27, 1959.

See, also, 339 P.2d 1080.

Hyde & Freeman, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Lewis T. Martin, County Atty., McCur-tain County, Idabel, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

This is an original action in habeas corpus by Carson Steel, in which he alleges that he is illegally restrained of his liberty in the county jail of McCurtain County, Oklahoma. In verified petition he alleges that he is incarcerated in lieu of bail in the amount of $10,000, in a case where he is charged with possession of marihuana. It further appears from evidence before this Court that the examining magistrate first fixed the bond in the above sum, and that thereafter, following hearing, the district court of McCurtain County also fixed bail at $10,000.

The case was filed in this Court on May 18, 1959, and Rule to Show Cause was promptly issued, and the matter came on for hearing on May 20, 1959.

The evidence is that a third party in a companion case, arising out of same transaction, was admitted to bail in the sum of $5,000.

We call attention that the penalty upon conviction for the crime charged (63 O.S. 1951 § 451) is set forth in 63 O.S.1951 § 452 at a fine of not more than $5,000, or imprisonment for not more than seven years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

In the case of In re Sanders, Okl. Cr., 289 P.2d 155, this Court said:

> “In fixing the amount of an appearance bond the sole purpose which should guide the court should be to cause the appearance of the accused to answer the charge against him. The amount of an appearance bond should never be fixed at a high figure for the purpose of punishing the accused.”

*1080We are of the opinion that the bond fixed by the justice of the peace, and approved by the district court at a hearing before that court is excessive, and that bail in the amount of $5,000 is reasonable under all the facts and circumstances.

It is therefore ordered that the appearance bond of petitioner be and the same is hereby fixed in the sum of $5,000, said bond to be conditioned as provided by law, and approved by the Court Clerk of Mc-Curtain County; and when so approved the petitioner to be released.

NIX and BRETT, TT., concur.
#### Arthur E. Sullivan et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Retirees Similarly Situated, Respondents, v Edward V. Regan, as State Comptroller and as Administrator of New York State Policemen’s and Firemen’s Retirement System, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and judgment granted, in accordance with same Memorandum as in *Conrad v Regan*(175 AD2d 629 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie *631County, Doyle, J. — Declaratory Judgment.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                              EASTON BANCORP, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                            Three Months             Nine Months
                                         Ended September 30,      Ended September 30,
                                      -----------------------  -----------------------
                                         2002        2001         2002         2001
                                      ----------  -----------  -----------  ----------
<S>                                   <C>         <C>          <C>          <C>
Net income                            $  157,646  $    93,648  $   408,437  $  269,782
                                      ==========  ===========  ===========  ==========


Average shares outstanding               560,318      560,318      560,318     560,318

Basic earnings per share              $     0.28  $      0.17  $      0.73  $     0.48
                                      ==========  ===========  ===========  ==========

Average shares outstanding               560,318      560,318      560,318     560,318

Dilutive average shares outstanding
  under warrants and options             263,800      263,800      263,800     263,800

Exercise price                        $    10.00  $     10.00  $     10.00  $    10.00

Assumed proceeds on exercise          $2,638,000  $ 2,638,000  $ 2,638,000  $2,638,000

Average market value                  $    10.78  $     10.40  $     10.54  $    10.19

Less:  Treasury stock purchased with
  assumed proceeds from exercise
  of warrants and options                244,712      253,654      251,478     258,881

Adjusted average shares-diluted          579,406      570,464      572,640     565,237

Diluted earnings per share            $     0.27  $      0.16  $      0.71  $     0.48
                                      ==========  ===========  ===========  ==========
</TABLE>

     The  stock of the Company is not traded on any public exchange. The average
market  values  are  derived  from trades known to management. Private sales may
occur  where  management  of  the  Company  is  unaware  of  the  sales  price.


<PAGE>
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00040-CV

$5,000 IN U.S. CURRENCY AND 

CHRIS A. ANDERSON,

Appellants

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 81438

ORDER

Appellant’s Motion for Expedited Ruling was filed on July 29, 2013. It does not 

contain a proper proof of service as required by Rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. It was “served” on only the Clerk of this Court. We have previously 

notified appellant by letter dated March 28, 2012 what constituted proper proof of 

service and that a copy provided to the Clerk was for “filing” and not as a party to the 
$5,000 in U.S. Currency v. State Page 2

proceeding to be served. We also warned appellant by the same letter that future 

documents not properly served on all parties to the appeal would be stricken.

Because appellant’s motion was not properly served on all parties to the appeal, 

in accordance with our prior order and notice, the Motion for Expedited Ruling is 

stricken.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion stricken

Order issued and filed August 8, 2013

Do not publish
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Pensacola Aviation Center, LLC, 

Complainant 

v. 

Pensacola International Airport, 

City of Pensacola, FL 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-12 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16 (Rules of Practice). Pursuant to the 

Rules of Practice, § 16.11 (a), the date by which the Director, FAA Office of Airport 

Compliance and Management Analysis will issue a Director's Determination in this matter 

is hereby extended to on or before April, 21 2016. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 72!!}2016, I served via Certified mail a true copy 

of the FAA's Notice of Extension ofTime, addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Leonard D. Kirsch, Esq. 

McBreen & Kopko 

500 North Broadway 

Jericho, New York 11753 

Tel: (516) 364-1095 

Fax: (516) 364-0612 

Counsel for Respondent: 

Robert J. Williams, Esq. 

Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP 

Fifth A venue Place 

120 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700 

Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3001 

Tel: (412) 577-5223 

Fax: (412) 765-3858 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, (AC0-100) 

Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
Exhibit 24.1



POWER OF ATTORNEY



The undersigned directors of Sky Financial Group, Inc. hereby authorize and appoint Marty E.
Adams, Chairman, President and CEO, and/or Kevin T. Thompson, Executive Vice President and CFO, as our agents, as attorneys-in-fact, with full power to act for us and all of us, for the purpose of subscribing our names to the Form 10-K thereof to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for the purpose of making any changes or amendments necessary or desirable to such documents and to any documents ancillary thereto, with the same powers and to the same effect as we may do if
personally present.



Signed in counterpart and dated this 18thday of January, 2006.



|                          |  |  |  |                                        
|------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|/s/ George N. Chandler
II |  |  |  | /s/ Robert C.
Duvall                   
|George N. Chandler II     |  |  |  | Robert C. Duvall                       
|                          |  | 
|/s/ Marylouise
Fennell    |  |  |  | /s/ D. James
Hilliker                  
|Marylouise Fennell        |  |  |  | D. James Hilliker                      
|                          |  | 
|/s/ Fred H. Johnson
III   |  |  |  | /s/ Jonathan A.
Levy                   
|Fred H. Johnson III       |  |  |  | Jonathan A. Levy                       
|                          |  | 
|/s/ Gerard P.
Mastroianni |  |  |  | _______________________________________
|Gerard P. Mastroianni     |  |  |  | Thomas J. OShane                      
|                          |  | 
|/s/ Gregory L.
Ridler     |  |  |  | /s/ Emerson J. Ross,
Jr.               
|Gregory L. Ridler         |  |  |  | Emerson J. Ross, Jr.                   
|                          |  | 
|/s/ C. Gregory
Spangler   |  |  |  | /s/ Joseph N. Tosh
II                  
|C. Gregory Spangler       |  |  |  | Joseph N. Tosh II                      
|                          |  | 
|/s/ R. John Wean
III      |  |  |  |                                        
|R. John Wean III          |  |  |  |
# C_2009282EN.01001302.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-502/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/60/EC - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing - Failure to transpose completely - Failure to communicate the measures to transpose the directive)

2009/C 282/24

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by:J. López-Medel Bascones, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, and by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities, the provisions of national law intended to contribute to ensuring such compliance, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, and by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities, the provisions of national law intended to contribute to ensuring such compliance, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 of that directive;

| 2. | orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 10.01.2009.

1

---
Order filed August 23, 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00640

- CV

____________ DAVID LEE STUDER, P. E. , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 165th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 19260



### ORDER The clerk’s record in this appeal was filed August 10, 2018. The record contains no written order granting summary judgment. In response to this court’s dismissal letter, appellant contends the summary judgment was grante d orally.
No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. Without a reporter’s record the court cannot determine whether the summary judgment was granted orally. The official court reporter for the 165th District Court informed this court that appellant had not made arrangements for payment for the reporter’s record. On August 15,2018 , the clerk of this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide

those issues that do not require a reporter ’ s record unless appellant, within 15 days of notice, provided this court with proof of payment for the record. See T ex. R. App

. P. 37.3(c). Appellant filed no reply.
Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal within thirty days
of the date of this order. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
Order entered October 27, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00707
- CV CARISSA TARVER, Appellant

V. 4441 ALMA ROAD, LLC DBA CUBESMART 5408 AND GAYLA

GUNDERSON , Appellee s On Appeal from the 471st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 471
- 02271
- 2019

ORDER
Th e clerk’s record in this appeal from the trial court’s orders granting appellees’ motions for summary judgment failed to inclu de a copy of appellee 4441 Alma Road, LLC dba Cubesmart 5408’s motion for summary judgment

. A fter fil ing i ndividual opening briefs as to each appellee, appellant moved to have
the clerk’s record supplemented with a copy of the motion a long with a copy of the video “submitted as summary judgment evidence.” We granted the motion , order ed the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record, and provided thatappellant could file amended opening briefs citing to the supplemental record

within fifteen days of the record being filed.
I n accordance with our order, the trial court clerk filed a supplemental record containing a copy of the summary judgment motion. In a separate filing, t he trial court clerk stated no exhibit was attached to the motion for summary judgment

. She noted, however, that appellant had attached “a PDF document with an embedded video” to an email sent to the trial court , but the document and video were “ n ever presented as an exhibit or evidence during a hearing” and were “never
mad e a part of the court’s record.”
Based on the trial court clerk’s filings , it appears the record is complete. Accordingly, we order appellant to file any amended opening briefs citing to the supplemental clerk’s record no later than November 12, 2020. Ap pellees’ responsive briefs shall be filed no later than December 1 4 , 2020.
/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
CSB BANCORP, INC.
EXHIBIT 32.2
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
In connection with the quarterly report of CSB Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thethree-month period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Paula J. Meiler, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Paula J. MeilerPaula J. MeilerSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
*This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode, and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwisesubject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except asotherwise stated in such filing.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mrs. DAVIS of California:
       H.R. 6238.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4285 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4285

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 123 Bridgeton Pike in Mullica Hill, New Jersey, as the ``James C. 
                `Billy' Johnson Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JAMES C. ``BILLY'' JOHNSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 123 Bridgeton Pike in Mullica Hill, New Jersey, shall be 
known and designated as the ``James C. `Billy' Johnson Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James C. 
`Billy' Johnson Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 12, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 4285

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 123 Bridgeton Pike in Mullica Hill, New Jersey, as the ``James C. 
                `Billy' Johnson Post Office Building''.
```