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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2113 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2113

 To increase funding for child care under the temporary assistance for 
                        needy families program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 1996

   Mr. Kerry introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To increase funding for child care under the temporary assistance for 
                        needy families program.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASED FUNDING FOR CHILD CARE.

    (a) In General.--Section 418(a) of the Social Security Act, as 
amended by 603(b) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996, is amended by striking paragraph (3) and 
inserting the following:
            ``(3) Appropriation.--For grants under this section, there 
        are appropriated--
                    ``(A) $2,967,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
                    ``(B) $3,067,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
                    ``(C) $3,167,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
                    ``(D) $3,367,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
                    ``(E) $3,567,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
                    ``(F) $3,717,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if enacted on August 22, 1996.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. 97-60260

JULIE CARTER NEWCOMB, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STARKVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL, Defendants,

LARRY BOX, Individually and in his capacity as Superintendent of the Starkville School District; ETHEL WHISLER, Individually and in her capacity as Principal of Ward Elementary School; JULIE JEFFERSON, Individually and in her capacity as Principal of Ward Elementary School, Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:95-CV-378-D-D)

April 9, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and De MOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendants have failed to persuade that they are at this

juncture entitled to be dismissed as a matter of law on the grounds

of qualified immunity. We make no decision regarding defendants’

ultimate entitlement to qualified immunity from any liability.2

Rather, we leave that s et of questions to the trial court for

further consideration at trial.

Implicit in our decision to affirm the denial of summary

judgment is a rejection of the suggestion that plaintiff may not

pursue her constitutional claim of equal protection under 42 U.S.

Code, Section 1983. S ee Southard v. Texas Bo ard of Crim. Just.

,

114 F.3d 539 (5th Cir. 1997). While plaintiff may not use Section

1983 to enforce rights secured by Title VII of the 1964 Civil

Rights Act, it does not follow that conduct violative of both Title

VII and the U.S. Constitution cannot both be pursued.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer Regarding Periodic Report Containing Financial Statements pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Bruce W. Elder, the Principal Financial Officer of Crescent Financial Corporation, in compliance with 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, (i) the Form 10-Q filed by Crescent Financial Corporation (the Issuer) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on
the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                        |  |     |  |                            
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: November 13, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Bruce W. Elder         
|                        |  |     |  | Bruce W. Elder             
|                        |  |     |  | Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
connection with the Quarterly Report of In Veritas Medical Diagnostics, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and 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.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
In Veritas Medical Diagnostics, Inc. and will be retained by In Veritas Medical
Diagnostics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.













/s/
Graham Cooper


_______________________________


Graham
Cooper


President
and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 172 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 172

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
              documentation for the vessel L. R. BEATTIE.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, 
United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
App. U.S.C. 883), as applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation for the vessel L. R. BEATTIE, United States official 
number 904161.

            Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 172

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
              documentation for the vessel L. R. BEATTIE.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Elijah JEMISON, a/k/a D.J., a/k/a Larry R. Mathis, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-7224.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 30, 2002.

Decided Feb. 4, 2003.

Dennis Elijah Jemison, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*205PER CURIAM.

Dennis Elijah Jemison seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions for reconsideration of the denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Jemison has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See United, States v. Jemi-son,*Nos. CR-97-117; CA-01-395-2 (E.D. Va. filed July 19, 2002 *&*entered July 22, 2002; Aug. 9, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4963-4964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01428]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and 
Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Member 
Conflict: Population Sciences Study Section.
    Date: March 5, 2024.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6710B 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Vera A. Cherkasova, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, NIH, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Room 2137B, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (240) 478-4580, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f697a6d7e317c777a6d747e6c70697e5f71767731787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e197849380cf828984938a80928e9780a18f8889cf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)


[[Page 4964]]


    Dated: January 19, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck.
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-01428 Filed 1-24-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### BANK ONE, TEXAS, N.A., Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Paul J. MONTLE, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 91-1723.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Heard March 3, 1992.

Decided Sept. 3, 1992.

Robert Philip Hilson with whom Law Offices of Robert Philip Hilson, Professional Corp., Hingham, Mass., was on brief for defendant, appellant.

John J. O’Connor with whom Molly H. Sherden and Peabody & Arnold, Boston, Mass., were on brief for plaintiff, appellee.

Before TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, CAMPBELL and WEIS,* Senior Circuit Judges.

*

 Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge.

In an opinion dated May 12, 1992, this court, while still retaining appellate jurisdiction, remanded to the district court with directions to conduct further inquiry into the relevant jurisdictional facts and render findings and rulings as to the existence or nonexistence of diversity jurisdiction. *Bank One, Texas, N.A. v. Montle,*964 F.2d 48, 54-55 (1st Cir.1992). The district court was to certify these findings and rulings to the Clerk of this court. *Id.*at 55.

The district court, in compliance with these directions, promptly caused further inquiry to be made into the relevant jurisdictional facts. For this purpose, a magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing and also received and examined further affidavits. The defendant, Paul Montle, testified in person. The magistrate then filed a comprehensive report and recommendation which the district court subsequently approved, adopted and certified to the Clerk of this court. The magistrate judge concluded therein that plaintiff, Bank One, Texas, N.A., had failed to prove that, at the time this action was brought, *to wit*on June 30,1990, defendant Montle had been a resident of Massachusetts. Rather the magistrate judge found that Montle was by then physically residing in Houston, Texas, intending to remain there. Defendant, therefore, resided by the time this action was commenced within the same state as plaintiff. Diversity of citizenship was entirely lacking.

As the district court was without jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, it should have granted Montle’s original motion to dismiss on that ground, and lacked power to go on, as it did, and decide the case. We accordingly vacate the appealed judgment of the district court and remand with directions that the action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

*So ordered.*
Exhibit 23.3**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS**     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-1(the “Registration Statement”) of EnerJex Resources, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”),relating to the registration of shares of the Company’s common stock, of information contained inour reserve report that is summarized as of December 31, 2007 in our summary letter dated January23, 2008, relating to the oil and gas reserves and revenue, as of December 31, 2007, of certaininterests of the Company.     Wehereby consent to all references to such reports, letters and/or to this firm in each of theRegistration Statement and the Prospectus to which the Registration Statement relates, and furtherconsent to our being named as an expert in each of the Registration Statement and the Prospectus towhich the Registration Statement relates.              /s/ Dwayne McCune, P.E. McCune Engineering   McCUNE ENGINEERING, P.E.      Baldwin City, KansasApril 9, 2008
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EUSEBIO LAGUNAS GARCIA;

ELIAZAR GONZALEZ ALONZO,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 05-73895

Agency Nos. A096-057-918

 A096-057-919

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Eusebio Lagunas Garcia and Eliazar Gonzalez Alonzo, husband and wife

and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal

FILED

SEP 23 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 05-73895

proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part

and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived

any challenge to, the BIA’s June 3, 2005, decision denying their motion to reopen.

See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not

specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying order dismissing

petitioners’ direct appeal from the immigration judge’s decision because this

petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186,

1188 (9th Cir. 2003). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 13, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23

- 1822

Lower Tribunal No. F07

- 8599

________________



### Willie Robinson

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from

the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Lody Jean , Judge.

Willie Robinson , in proper person.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz , Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ

, SCALES and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2129

To provide for the immediate application of certain orders relating to the

amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of certificates under

chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

Mr. INHOFE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To provide for the immediate application of certain orders

relating to the amendment, modification, suspension, or

revocation of certificates under chapter 447 of title 49,

United States Code.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS, MODIFICATIONS, SUSPENSIONS,

4 AND REVOCATIONS OF CERTIFICATES.

5 Section 44709 of title 49, United States Code, is

6 amended—

7 (1) in subsection (e)—
2

•S 2129 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘When’’ and inserting ‘‘(1)

2 Except as provided in paragraph (2), if’’; and

3 (B) by striking ‘‘However, if’’ and all that

4 follows through the end of the subsection and

5 inserting the following:

6 ‘‘(2) If the Administrator determines, in the order,

7 that an emergency exists and safety in air commerce or

8 air transportation requires the order to be effective imme9 diately—

10 ‘‘(A) subject to subparagraph (B), the order

11 shall be in effect unless the Administrator is not

12 able to prove to the Board, upon an inquiry of the

13 Board, the existence of an emergency that requires

14 the immediate application of the order in the inter15 est of safety in air commerce and air transportation;

16 and

17 ‘‘(B) the Board shall—

18 ‘‘(i) not later than 5 days after the filing

19 of an appeal under paragraph (1), make a dis20 position concerning the issues of the appeal

21 that are related to the existence of an emer22 gency referred to in subparagraph (A); and

23 ‘‘(ii) not later than 60 days after the filing

24 of an appeal under paragraph (1), make a final

25 disposition of the appeal.
3

•S 2129 IS

1 ‘‘(3) If the Administrator determines, in the order,

2 the existence of an emergency described in paragraph

3 (2)(A), the appellant may request a hearing by the Board

4 on the issues of the appeal that are related to the existence

5 of the emergency. Such request shall be made not later

6 than 48 hours after the issuance of the order. If an appel7 lant requests a hearing under this paragraph, the Board

8 shall hold the hearing not later than 48 hours after receiv9 ing that request.’’; and

10 (2) in subsection (f), by inserting ‘‘by further

11 order’’ after ‘‘the Administrator decides’’.

Æ
hvtex102.htm


EXHIBIT 10.2













PERFORMANCE ACCELERATED RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS AWARD NOTICE












«FIRST_NAME» «MI» «LAST_NAME»


«HOME_SUITE»


«HOME_STREET»


«HOME_CITY», «HOME_PROVINCE» «HOME_POSTAL_CODE»












Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc. 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), you have been granted a Performance Accelerated Restricted Stock Units (“PARSUs”) award.  The general terms of this award are outlined below.








	
Grant Date:

	
January 23, 2012


	
Number of PARSUs:

	
«Number_Awarded»


	
Vesting:

	
100% on May 8, 2019 subject to continued employment


	
Vesting Acceleration:

	
The vesting of these units will be accelerated if the Target Market Price per share (“TMP”) goal set by the Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits Committee of the Havertys Board is achieved.  The TMP is based on the closing stock price of the Company’s Common Stock and must be achieved for 10 consecutive trading days after the Grant Date.  The TMP goal price per share for this grant is $21.00.  Achieving the TMP goal will cause the PARSUs to immediately vest.  These PARSUs shall be paid in shares of the Company stock.












Until vested, the units represented by this PARSUs award are not entitled to receive cash dividends and do not have the right to vote. The restrictions governing this award will lapse immediately upon a change in control, death or permanent and total disability as defined in Section 2 of the Plan.  Units not vested at retirement will be forfeited.







This is a summary of the award.  The grant agreement and Plan Prospectus are the authoritative source for all questions on awards made under the Plan.  You should log into your account with the Plan Administrator, Solium, to review and accept the agreement and complete the authorization of your grant by February 24, 2012.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1761

To eliminate taxpayer subsidies for recreational shooting programs, and to

prevent the transfer of federally-owned weapons, ammunition, funds,

and other property to a private Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle

Practice and Firearms Safety.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 15, 1996

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. BUMPERS) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To eliminate taxpayer subsidies for recreational shooting programs, and to prevent the transfer of federally-owned

weapons, ammunition, funds, and other property to a

private Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice

and Firearms Safety.

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 ‘‘Self Financing Civilian

5 Marksmanship Program Act of 1996’’.
2

•S 1761 IS

1 SEC. 2. PRIVATE SHOOTING COMPETITIONS AND FIREARM

2 SAFETY PROGRAMS.

3 Nothing in this Act prohibits any private person from

4 establishing a privately financed program to support

5 shooting competitions or firearms safety programs.

6 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF CHARTER LAW FOR THE CORPORATION

7 FOR THE PROMOTION OF RIFLE PRACTICE

8 AND SAFETY.

9 (a) REPEAL OF CHARTER.—The Corporation for the

10 Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety Act (title

11 XVI of Public Law 104–106; 110 Stat. 515; 36 U.S.C.

12 5501 et seq.), except for section 1624 of such Act (110

13 Stat. 522), is repealed.

14 (b) RELATED REPEALS.—Section 1624 of such Act

15 (110 Stat. 522) is amended—

16 (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a),

17 by striking out ‘‘and 4311’’ and inserting in lieu

18 thereof ‘‘4311, 4312, and 4313’’;

19 (2) by striking out subsection (b); and

20 (3) in subsection (c), by striking out ‘‘on the

21 earlier of—’’ and all that follows and inserting in

22 lieu thereof ‘‘on October 1, 1996.’’.

Æ
#### Anita E. OHLAND, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent.

No. 03-3039.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 6, 2003.

ORDER

Order Vacated, See 2003 WL 1084600. The petitioner having failed to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.