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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3010 

To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to require that repurchaseto-maturity transactions be treated as secured borrowings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 2, 2013 

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

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to require 

that repurchase-to-maturity transactions be treated as 

secured borrowings. 

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 ‘‘Keep Repos to Matu5 rity on Balance Sheet Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ACCOUNTING TREATMENT OF RTM TRANSACTIONS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—In establishing accounting prin8 ciples or standards for purposes of the securities laws, the 

9 Securities and Exchange Commission shall require that a 

10 repurchase-to-maturity transaction be treated as a secured 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3010 IH

1 borrowing in which the transferred asset serves as collat2 eral. 

3 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

4 (1) REPURCHASE-TO-MATURITY TRANS5 ACTION.—The term ‘‘repurchase-to-maturity trans6 action’’ means a transaction in which— 

7 (A) a financial asset is transferred in ex8 change for cash, other financial assets, or let9 ters of credit; and 

10 (B) concurrently with the transfer, the 

11 transferor and the transferee agree that, at the 

12 maturity of the transferred asset, the transferee 

13 may either, at the option of the transferee— 

14 (i) return the transferred asset (or a 

15 substantially similar asset) to the trans16 feror, thereby obligating the transferor to 

17 reacquire the transferred asset (or to ac18 quire the substantially similar asset, as the 

19 case may be) for an amount equal to the 

20 value of the cash, other financial assets, or 

21 letters of credit described in subparagraph 

22 (A), plus a stipulated interest factor; or 

23 (ii) redeem the transferred asset from 

24 the issuer of the transferred asset. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3010 IH

1 (2) SECURITIES LAWS.—The term ‘‘securities 

2 laws’’ has the meaning given such term in section 

3 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

4 U.S.C. 78c(a)). 

5 (3) TRANSFERRED ASSET.—The term ‘‘trans6 ferred asset’’ means a financial asset transferred in 

7 exchange for cash, other financial assets, or letters 

8 of credit in a repurchase-to-maturity transaction, as 

9 described in paragraph (1)(A). 

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The treatment required 

11 under subsection (a) shall apply beginning on the date 

12 that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 

13 Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Unassociated Document


    AFFINITY
      MEDIA INTERNATIONAL CORP.

    


    


    
      	 	 	
              August
                12, 2005,

            
	 	 	
              amended
                as of January 13,
                2006

            
	 	 	 


    

     

    Silverback
      Books, Inc.

    11601
      Wilshire Blvd.

    Ste.
      1500

    Los
      Angeles, CA 90025

    


    Gentlemen:

    


     This
      letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date
“Effective Date") of the registration statement for the initial public offering
      ("IPO") of the securities of Affinity Media International Corp. ("AMIC") and
      continuing until the earlier of the consummation by AIC of a "Business
      Combination" or AMIC's liquidation (as described in AMIC's IPO prospectus;
      such
      date the "Termination Date"), Silverback Books, Inc. shall make available to
      AMIC certain office and receptionist/secretarial services as may be required
      by
      AMIC from time to time, situated at 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1500, Los
      Angeles, CA 90025. In exchange therefore, AMIC shall pay Silverback Books,
      Inc.
      the sum of $7,500 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly
      thereafter until the Termination Date, as follows:

    


    
      
        	 	
                (i)

              	
                $3,000
                  monthly from the proceeds of the IPO not held in trust (as described
                  in
                  AMIC's IPO prospectus); and 

              


      

      
        	 	 	 


      

      
        	 	(ii)	$4,500 monthly from interest earned on the proceeds
                of
                the IPO  held
                in trust (as described in AMIC's IPO
                prospectus).


      

    

     

    In
      case
      of any dispute or uncertainty, the description and terms of this agreement
      set
      forth in AMIC’s IPO prospectus shall be controlling.

     

    
      
        	 	 	 
	 	Very truly yours,
	 	AFFINITY
                MEDIA
                INTERNATIONAL CORP.
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	 	By:  	/s/ Howard
                Cohl
	 	
                
Name:
                Howard Cohl
	 	Title:
                President


      



     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    


    AGREED
      TO
      AND ACCEPTED BY:

    


    SILVERBACK
      BOOKS, INC.

    


    By:
      /s/ Peter Engel

    Name:
      Peter Engel

    Authorized
      Signatory
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 204 (Friday, October 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27007]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (``CERCLA'')

    Notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United 
States v. Cabot Corp., et al, Civ. No. 00-cv-4265 (SMO) (D.N.J.), was 
lodged on August 31, 2000 with the United States District Court for the 
District of New Jersey. The Consent Decree concerns hazardous waste 
contamination at the King of Prussia Superfund Site (the ``Site''), 
located on Piney Hollow Road in Winslow Township, New Jersey. The 
Consent Decree would resolve the liability for reimbursement of past 
response costs incurred by the United States in connection with the 
Site as to Cabot Corporation, Carpenter Technology Corporation; Ford 
Motor Company; Johnson Matthey Inc.; and Rutgers Organics Corporation 
against whom the United States filed a complaint on behalf of the 
United States Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''). The Consent 
Decree requires the settling defendants to reimburse the EPA Hazardous 
Substance Superfund $1,700,000 for its past costs pertaining to the 
Site.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 
7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should 
refer to United States v. Cabot Corp., et al., DOJ Ref. #90-11-3-06970.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 970 Broad 
Street, Room 502, Newark, New Jersey, 07102 (contact Assistant United 
States Attorney Susan Cassell); and the Region II Office of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 
10007-1866 (contact Assistant Regional Counsel, Deborah Schwenk). A 
copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained by mail from the 
Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In 
requesting a copy please refer to the referenced case and enclose a 
check in the amount of $8.25 (25 cents per page reproduction costs) for 
the Consent Decree without Appendices, or in the amount of $11.50 for 
the Consent Decree with all Appendices, payable to the Consent Decree 
Library.

Bruce S. Gelber,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 00-27007 Filed 10-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2876 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide veterans with 

a 1-year exemption from the requirement to maintain minimum essential 

coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2013 

Mr. FLORES (for himself, Mr. BENISHEK, Mr. COOK, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. ROE

of Tennessee, Mr. FLEMING, and Mr. COFFMAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

veterans with a 1-year exemption from the requirement 

to maintain minimum essential coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

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 ‘‘Fairness for America’s 

5 Heroes Act of 2013’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2876 IH

1 SEC. 2. 1-YEAR EXEMPTION FOR VETERANS FROM INDI2 VIDUAL MANDATE UNDER PATIENT PROTEC3 TION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5000A(e) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(6) VETERANS.—Any applicable individual for 

8 any month beginning before January 1, 2015, if the 

9 individual is a veteran. For purposes of this para10 graph, the term ‘veteran’ means an individual who 

11 served on active duty (other than active duty for 

12 training) in the Armed Forces of the United States 

13 and has been discharged or released from active 

14 duty in the Armed Forces of the United States 

15 under conditions other than dishonorable.’’. 

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

17 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the 

18 amendments made by section 1501 of the Patient Protec19 tion and Affordable Care Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5632 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rolling travel bags without a 

removable backpack or daypack. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2012 

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

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rolling travel 

bags without a removable backpack or daypack. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ROLLING TRAVEL BAGS WITHOUT A 

4 REMOVABLE BACKPACK OR DAYPACK. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5632 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Travel bags of manmade 

fibers, with wheels, a telescoping handle and 

stowable shoulder straps, 

without a removable separate backpack or daypack 

attached by zipper or other 

means, valued over $30, 

and not to exceed 85 liters 

in volume (provided for in 

subheading 4202.12.80) .... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

AURENTHIEL GENE YOUNGBLOOD

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 1944

[ February 21, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; Steven J. Levin , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2017CF001912 C

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Karen E. Ehrlich, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, L EVINE and C ON NER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         363,690                 426,688
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,162,545               2,220,014
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (320,000)               (210,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,220,062               4,700,636
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,546,446               7,061,889
<PP&E>                                         375,240                 477,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                (72,119)               (153,465)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,763,366               9,582,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,174,561               5,184,039
<BONDS>                                         13,124                  24,489
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           347                     422
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,388,370               4,027,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,763,366               9,582,807
<SALES>                                      8,365,197              15,859,271
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,365,197              15,859,271
<CGS>                                        5,839,049              11,711,084
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,839,049              11,711,084
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,015,842               3,769,055
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               672,989                  30,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              96,044                 644,073
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,194,215)               (245,895)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   186,863                (40,259)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,384,780)               (250,543)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,384,780)               (250,543)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.46)                  (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.46)                  (0.06)


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Scott D. Peters, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of NNN 2002 Value Fund, LLC; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e), for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. /s/   Scott D. PetersScott D. PetersChief Financial Officer
Triple Net Properties, LLC,
the Manager of NNN 2002 Value Fund, LLC Date: April 27, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27209]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1345-DR]


Florida; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Florida (FEMA-1345-DR), dated October 4, 2000, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 11, 2000.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3772.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this disaster is closed effective October 11, 2000.
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program).

Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 00-27209 Filed 10-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 10

- 00 718

- CR
IN RE Eddie LUNDY Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 20, 2010
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On October 8, 2010, relator Forest Holmes filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se motions. However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the tri al court for which he is currently confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson
v. State , 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court ha s no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See
Robinson , 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 20 10

- CR

- 05 66 , styled State of Te xas v. Eddie Lundy , pending in the 437 th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori Valenzuela presiding.04

- 10

- 00718

- CR

- 2

- declining t o rule on relator’s pro se motions filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the petition is denied. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8( a).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2351

In Re: CHARLES KEITH, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:97-cr-00004-IMK-JSK-1) 

Submitted: March 13, 2009 Decided: April 6, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Charles Keith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 After this court in 2005 vacated seven of the eighteen 

counts on which Charles Keith was convicted in 1997, the 

district court denied Keith’s motion for resentencing. Keith 

now has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order 

compelling the district court to strike the vacated counts from 

his judgment, refund the special assessment imposed on the 

vacated counts, and resentence him under the advisory federal 

sentencing guidelines. We conclude that Keith is not entitled 

to mandamus relief. 

 Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. 

Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 

(4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus relief is available only where there 

is no other available remedy. In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 

(4th Cir. 2001). Because Keith had other means of pursuing the 

relief he sought, namely to file an appeal from the district 

court’s order denying his motion for resentencing, mandamus 

relief is not available. 

 Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

2 
3 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED