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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5483 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5483

  To suspend temporarily the duty on light emitting diode (LED) spot 
                          light modules (SLM).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

   Mr. Reed introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on light emitting diode (LED) spot 
                          light modules (SLM).

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

SECTION 1. LIGHT EMITTING DIODE (LED) SPOT LIGHT MODULES (SLM).

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Light emitting      Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          diode (LED) spot                                                  12/31/2015
                          light modules
                          (SLM) (provided
                          for in subheading
                          9405.40.80)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

127212 & (50)(53) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. SHERRY COMBEN, ANTRIM COUNTY 

Stephen J. Markman, TREASURER, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 127212 

 COA: 248963 
 Antrim CC: 02-007860-PS 

STATE OF MICHIGAN, and

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

PURE RESOURCES, L.P., DOMINION 

RESERVES, INC., WOLVERINE GAS

AND OIL COMPANY, INC., EUGENIE R. 

ANDERSON, STEPHEN WARD DEVINE,

ELIZABETH PALMER DEVINE, 

MICHAEL EDMUND DEVINE, SUZANNE 

LEE DEVINE, WILLIAM W. DUNN, 

DAVID W. FAY, EDWIN R. FAY, 

PETER W. FAY, ROBERT A. FAY, 

ROSAMOND S. FISHER, FREDERICK T. 

GOLDING, NANCY HAMILTON, LISA 

MARRIOTT JONES, DAPHNE FAY

LANDRY, GEORGE S. LEISURE, JR., 

PETER R. LEISURE, FLORA NINELLES, 

MARJORIE S. RICHARDSON, JAMES W.

RILEY, JR., WILLIAM A. RILEY,

BARBARA F. ROSENBERG, ELIZABETH

R. P. SHAW, ANN WARD SPAETH,

FREDERICK S. STRONG, III, A. W.

ROBERT, STRONG REVOCABLE TRUST, 

and EUGENIE S. KAUFFMAN,

 Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

By order of May 27, 2005, the parties were directed to file supplemental briefs. 

On order of the Court, the briefs having been filed, the application for leave to appeal the 

August 31, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. 

The parties are directed to include among the issues briefed: (1) whether the state 

defendants have standing to prosecute this appeal, and (2) whether a lessee of mineral 

rights who has leased the rights from the surface estate owner is (a) entitled to notice in 

foreclosure proceedings under the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.78k(5)(e), or (b) 

has a “severed” mineral interest that is unaffected by foreclosure proceedings involving 

the surface estate. The motion to file brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. 

We invite amicus briefing from interested persons and organizations, including the 

Real Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan and the Michigan Oil and Gas 

Association. 

WEAVER, J., concurs and states as follows: 

I concur in the order granting leave to appeal, but write separately because it 

appears unnecessary to include among the issues to be briefed the question whether the 

state of Michigan, defendant-appellant, has standing to pursue this appeal. 

l1031 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 27, 2005 

Clerk
**Exhibit 33.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, C. E. Andrews, certifythat:

 

1.             I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution orservicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered bythis annual report, of SLM Student Loan Trust 2005-1

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, theinformation in these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by thisannual report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, thedistribution or servicing information required to be provided to the trustee bythe servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

 

4.             Based on my knowledge and upon theannual compliance statement included in the report and required to be deliveredto the trustee in accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing, orsimilar, agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer hasfulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement; and

 

5.             The reports disclose allsignificant deficiencies relating to the servicer’s compliance with the minimumservicing standards based upon the report provided by an independent publicaccountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform SingleAttestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in thesereports.

 

Date: March 31, 2006

 

/s/ C.E. ANDREWSC.E. AndrewsPresident and Chief Financial OfficerSLM Funding LLC,as the Depositor for SLM Student Loan Trust 2005-1

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a

BRAZOS LICENSING AND

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00454-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00455-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00456-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00458-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00459-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00460-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00461-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00462-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00463-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00464-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court, having reviewed the Corrected Rule 26 Motion for Protective Order by NonParty Wade & Company (USA), Inc. (“Wade”) and Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC 

(“WSOU”) (“the Motion”), and Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) Opposition, 

does hereby ORDER that:

1) The Motion is DENIED;

2) Microsoft’s request for an order to compel Wade to identify a witness to sit for a 

deposition and testify on the topics outlined in Microsoft’s deposition subpoena at 

the earliest possible date prior to the close of fact discovery on September 30, 

2021 is GRANTED;

3) In the event a representative of Wade is not available for a deposition prior to

September 30, 2021, Microsoft’s request to take said deposition after the close of 

fact discovery is GRANTED.

Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 72-9 Filed 09/03/21 Page 1 of 2
SIGNED this ________ day of ____________________, 2021.

___________________________________

HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 72-9 Filed 09/03/21 Page 2 of 2
RECEVED 

s1P1'T COURT CLRKP XAS 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BV__JfVLERK SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

Plaintiff 

V. caseNo.' 

Defendant 

Co 

.-'-- 

FILED 

APR-2 2020 

ThIAKS 

BY 

_oo 

Case 5:20-cv-00364-JKP-HJB Document 6 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 3
PAGE ONE COMPLAINT IV/1 

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk; In The Supreme Court of Texas 

Supreme of Texas 

of the 

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of the Court; Fourth Court of Appeals, San ntonio, Texas 

Scott S. Harris, Clerk; Supreme Court of the United States, 

The FBI and the three Clerks of the Court violated Statue 18 U 

201 and 371: 

Section 201, (b) offers an understanding of what is an unlawful 

influence such public official or person who has been selected t 

official to commit or aid in committing or collude in, or allow, 

make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the Unit 

18 U.S.C. 371: Conspiracy to Commit Offence or to defraud U 

only is it not necessary for a bribe to actually influence or md 

of the Clerk 

section 

ribe; "to 

be a public 

yfraud, or 

I States.. 

States: "not 

official 

Or illegal act; but, in order to face criminal prosecution, it is not ver necessary 

for an individual to actually pay a bribe. Under the federal consp racy statute 

18 U.S.C. 371": 

Charges for conspiracy to commit bribery under statute 18 U.S.0 371, three 

elements must be pursued: (a) an agreement to pay a bribe (b) i tent to pay a 

bribe; and (c) an "overt act" toward payment of a bribe. 

If the government succeed each of these three elements from brbery 

investigation, in due course, the conspiracy members can receiv4 five years in 

prison even though bribe was not paid. 

Who are the guards at the entrance of the Federal Court House nd why are 

they blocking the entrance? Why their intense questioning? Vhy their 

bullying and surrounding me necessary? Thugs they are! 

Case 5:20-cv-00364-JKP-HJB Document 6 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 3
Why is it necessary to control the Federal Court House and pay b ibery money 

to the staff? The most undignified histrionic behaviour is display d by staff in 

what seems to be for FBI money payment and obsequious obedi nce. It is FBI 

domain. 

What do they have to do with my court case against FBI and Dpartment of 

Justice? What is their influence at the Federal Court House? 

What was FBI influence at the Trial Court Hearing ? What is their influence 

with the Fourth Court of Appels? What is their influence at the ffice of the 

Clerk at the Supreme Court of Texas ? And the Office of the Offic of the Clerk 

at the Supreme Court of the United States? Why the money andBribery? 

What a waste! 

And ,finally, what is especially disturbing is the selling of lies conerning me, 

Michael A. Salazar, to the FBI. The FBI fails to verify and just pay. I am also 

followed by agents whores whose goal is to inveigle me into silly ehaviour 

with them and follow s the payment by the FBI if there is success 

/T.44L L-O 

Case 5:20-cv-00364-JKP-HJB Document 6 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 3
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Robert E. Barberee * From the 266 th District Court

and Jane Barberee, of Erath County,

Trial Court No. CV31048

.

Vs. No. 11

- 16

- 00316

- CV * October 4 , 2018

Todd Fanning and * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C. J

. Fanning Construction, Inc., (Panel consists of: Bailey

, C. J.;

Gray

, C. J., sitting by assignment;

and Wright, S.C.J., sitting by

assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t here is no

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the

order of the tria l court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason of this

appeal are taxed again s t Robert E. Barberee and Jane Barberee

.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

AUDREY DUFF § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Plaintiff, 

v. C.A. NO. 1:20-CV-00375-RP 

BETTY BEWLEY, 

Defendant. 

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ABATE 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

Plaintiff, Audrey Duff, files this Notice of Non-Opposition to Defendant Betty Bewley's 

Motion to Abate and would respectfolly show the Court the following: 

1 Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that her mother, Defendant Betty Bewley 

published defamatory statements suggesting that Plaintiff had an incestuous sexual relationship 

with Plaintiffs own father. 

2 Defendant filed a motion to abate following amendment, suggesting that Plaintiff 

did not comply with the Texas Defamation Mitigation Act. 

3 While Plaintiff disputes Defendant's claim of non-compliance, Plaintiff also 

considers cooperation between counsel on this issue is better than contention. 

4 Accordingly, Plaintiff files this Notice of Non-Opposition to Defendant's Motion 

to Abate. 

5 Accompanying this notice is a proposed joint order abating the action for sixty 

(60) days from the date of entty of the proposed joint order. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court consider this Notice when 

considering Defendant's Motion to Abate. 

1 

Case 1:20-cv-00375-RP Document 11 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 3
2 

Respectfully submitted, 

GRlSSOM & THOMPSON, L.L.P. 

ls/William W. Thompson, III 

William W. Thompson, III 

State Bar No. 19960050 

Federal ID No. 23489 

Donald H. Grissom 

State Bar No. 08511550 

Federal ID No. 23490 

509 West 12th Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

(512) 478-4059 

(512) 482-8410 Fax 

Attorney in Charge for Plaint1f]' 

Case 1:20-cv-00375-RP Document 11 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing documents was served on all 

counsel of record by way of e-service through the CM/ECF system on this 18th day of May 

2020. 

Timothy Cleveland 

State Bar No. 24055318 

Austin H. Krist 

State Bar No. 24106170 

CLEVELAND I TERRAZAS, PLLC 

4611 Bee Cave Road, Suite 306B 

Austin, Texas 78746 

512-689-8698 

tcleveland@clevelandterrazas.com 

akrist(a),clevelandterrazas.com 

3 

ls/William W. Thompson, III 

William W. Thompson, III 

Case 1:20-cv-00375-RP Document 11 Filed 05/18/20 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 194 (Thursday, October 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25540]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the President's Cancer Panel.
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: President's Cancer Panel.
    Date: November 16-17, 2000.
    Time: 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
    Agenda: Town Hall Meeting to review Improving Cancer Care for 
All: Real People--Real Problems.
    Place: Vanderbilt University, Vanderbilt Cancer Center, Medical 
Research Building II, Nashville, TN 37322-6838.
    Contact Person: Maureen O. Wilson, Executive Secretary, National 
Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, 
Building 31, room 4A48, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/496-1148.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 26, 2000.
Laverne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-25540 Filed 10-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
NewPage Paper Boiler 8

Capital Costs

Purchased Equipment

catalyst $ 511,000

Platform $ 75,000

Instrumentation 10% $ 51,100

Sales tax 3% $ 15,330

Freight 5% $ 25,550

Subtotal P.E.C. $ 677,980

Installation

Installation of SCR, 85% $ 576,283 Per OAQPS Cost Manual

 urea stg., deliver, electrical, 

piping, insulation

Direct costs $ 1,254,263

Indirect Costs

General Facilities 5% $ 62,713

Engineering, etc. 10% $ 125,426

Process Contingency 5% $ 62,713

Subtotal $ 250,853

Project Contingency 15% $ 225,767

Total Installation $ 1,730,883

Preproduction Costs 2% $ 34,618

Total Capital Investment $ 1,765,501

Annual Operating Costs

Labor for operating $ - Per OAQPS CCM

Maintenance 1.5% TCI $ 26,483

Reagent $ 39,752 Urea, 31.5 g/46 g NO2, $450/t

Electricity $ 42

Catalyst Replacement $ 97,893 24000 hrs, per OAQPS CCM

Catalyst disposal $ 30 24000 hrs, per OAQPS CCM

Total Direct Costs $ 164,199

Indirect costs $ - Per OAQPS CCM

Annualized Investment Cost $ 193,852 15 yrs, 7% int. = 0.1098

Total Annual Cost $ 358,051

Savings, with no FGR $ 102,390 5 month costs, co. estimate

Net cost $ 255,661

Cost per ton 129 tons $ 1,982
NewPage Paper Boiler 9

Capital Costs

Purchased Equipment

SCR system $ 711,000

Platform $ 75,000

Instrumentation 10% $ 71,100

Sales tax 3% $ 21,330

Freight 5% $ 35,550

Subtotal P.E.C. $ 913,980

Installation

Installation of SCR, 85% $ 776,883 Per OAQPS Cost Manual

 urea stg., deliver, electrical, 

piping, insulation

Direct costs $ 1,690,863

Indirect Costs

General Facilities 5% $ 84,543

Engineering, etc. 10% $ 169,086

Process Contingency 5% $ 84,543

Subtotal $ 338,173

Project Contingency 15% $ 304,355

Total Installation $ 2,333,391

Preproduction Costs 2% $ 46,668

Total Capital Investment $ 2,380,059

Annual Operating Costs

Labor for operating $ - Per OAQPS CCM

Maintenance 1.5% TCI $ 35,701

Reagent $ 82,246 Urea, 31.5 g/46 g NO2, $450/t

Electricity $ 42

Catalyst Replacement $ 105,449 24000 hrs, per OAQPS CCM

Catalyst disposal $ 27 24000 hrs, per OAQPS CCM

Natural gas $ 353,825 1/4 Company estimate; see note

Total Direct Costs $ 577,289

Indirect costs $ - Per OAQPS CCM

(no property tax in MI)

Annualized Investment Cost $ 261,330 15 yrs, 7% int. = 0.1098

Total Annual Cost $ 838,619

Savings, with no FGR $ 102,390 5 month costs, co. estimate

Net cost $ 736,229
Cost per ton 266.9 tons $ 2,758
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5356 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5356

 To suspend temporarily the duty on 3-[8-Amino-1-(2-phenyl-quinolin-7-
   yl)-imidazo[1,5-a]pyrazin- 3-yl]-1-methyl-cyclobutanol (OSI-906).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

   Mr. Dold introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on 3-[8-Amino-1-(2-phenyl-quinolin-7-
   yl)-imidazo[1,5-a]pyrazin- 3-yl]-1-methyl-cyclobutanol (OSI-906).

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

SECTION 1. 3-[8-AMINO-1-(2-PHENYL-QUINOLIN-7-YL)-IMIDAZO[1,5-A]PYRAZIN-
              3-YL]-1-METHYL-CYCLOBUTANOL (OSI-906).

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        3-[8-Amino-1-(2-    Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          phenyl-quinolin-7-                                                12/31/2015
                          yl)-imidazo[1,5-
                          a]pyrazin-3-yl]-1-
                          methyl-
                          cyclobutanol (OSI-
                          906), (CAS No.
                          867160-71-2)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2933.49.26)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roberto Roman, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered December 3, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts of robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 1675/86 and one count of robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 2172/86 and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to two indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 12 to 25 years under each indictment, the sentences to run consecutively, unanimously affirmed.

Under indictment No. 2172/86, defendant was charged with robbing complainant at knifepoint in her apartment when her children were present. Defendant took over $2,000 in cash and a .38 caliber revolver. Under indictment No. 1675/86, defendant was charged with robbing four persons at gunpoint. Defendant was apprehended shortly after the incident, and the gun from the first robbery was recovered.

Defendant’s argument that he was penalized for going to trial, rather than accepting a plea bargain, is unpreserved for appellate review, having never been raised before sentencing court *(People v Hurley,*75 NY2d 887). Even if we were to reach this issue in the interest of justice, we would find it without merit. It was well within the sentencing court’s discretion to impose consecutive sentences.

Furthermore, the court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating the indictments. Proof of the gun stolen under indictment No. 2172/86 was material and admissible at a trial of the gunpoint robbery charged under indictment No. 1675/ 86. The defendant may defeat a motion to consolidate if he can "make a convincing showing that he has both important testimony to give concerning one offense and a strong need to refrain from testifying as to the other.” *(People v Lane,*56 NY2d 1, 5.) Defendant failed to provide the court with adequate information to show that his claim of prejudice was genuine *(People v Lane, supra,*at 8-9). Concur—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 37-6 Filed 01/15/21 Page 1 of 3
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 37-6 Filed 01/15/21 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 37-6 Filed 01/15/21 Page 3 of 3