alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS and §

EUGENIO VARGAS §

§

VS. § CIVIL NO. 4:22-CV-343-Y

§ (Consolidated w/4:22-CV-430-Y)

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL §

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, ET AL. §

ORDER REFERRING MOTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions

(doc. 216). In the motion, Plaintiff requests sanctions for

Defendants’ alleged improper withholding and redaction of documents

and abuses during depositions ordered by Judge Cureton. After review

of this motion and the record in this case, the Court concludes that

the motion should be and is hereby REFERRED to United States

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton for determination. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(A). 

All papers filed hereafter regarding this motion shall include

the following notation under the case-number: “(Relates to Motion

Referred to Magistrate Judge Cureton).”1 

SIGNED March 6, 2024.

_________________________

TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The judge’s copy of all documents related to this motion should be

mailed to the Honorable Jeffrey L. Cureton, Eldon B. Mahon United States

Courthouse, 501 West 10th Street, Room 520, Fort Worth, Texas 76102.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 221 Filed 03/06/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 5752
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 293 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.293
                                               Agreed to October 7, 1994

                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  four


                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That a revised edition of the book entitled ``History of the United 
States House of Representatives'', prepared under the supervision of 
the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives, 
shall be printed as a House document.
    Sec. 2. In addition to the usual number, there shall be printed the 
lesser of--
        (1) 5,000 casebound copies of the document, of which 4,750 
    copies shall be for the use of the Committee on House 
    Administration of the House of Representatives and 250 copies shall 
    be for the use of the Senate; or
        (2) such number of casebound copies of the document as does not 
    exceed a total production and printing cost of $75,000, with such 
    copies to be allocated in the same proportion as described in 
    paragraph (1).
    Sec. 3. Of the copies of the document for the use of the Committee 
on House Administration of the House of Representatives under section 
2(1), at the request of a Member of the House of Representatives, the 
Member shall be entitled to receive at least 5 copies. The Committee 
shall notify each Member of the entitlement under the preceding 
sentence. As used in this section, the term ``Member of the House of 
Representatives'' means a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident 
Commissioner to, the Congress.
Attest:







                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:







                                               Secretary of the Senate.`
Exhibit






Exhibit 10(b)
	
					
	DISCRETIONARY COMPENSATION




Because special situations occur where individual achievement may not be adequately recognized under incentive plans, the Compensation and Governance Committee (the “Committee”), at the beginning of each fiscal year, grants authority to the Chief Executive Officer to distribute additional discretionary cash and/or stock compensation up to an aggregate maximum amount to eligible participants for each particular fiscal year. For fiscal year 2016, the aggregate amount of cash compensation approved by the Committee was $500,000, and the maximum number of shares approved by the Committee was 125,000 shares of Common Stock. The stock compensation may be in the form of performance share award opportunities and/or outright grants of shares of Common Stock, all to be awarded under the Company's Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Option and Incentive Plan.  Discretionary compensation is awarded based upon individual effort and is paid in amounts and at such times as the Chief Executive Officer determines, in his sole discretion. No employee has a guaranteed right to discretionary compensation in the event that performance targets are not met.
For awards of stock compensation, eligible participants include any employee of the Company, excluding the Chief Executive Officer and any Section 16 reporting officers of the Company.  For awards of cash compensation, eligible participants include executive officers of the Company, excluding the Chief Executive Officer.  The Chief Executive Officer may grant cash compensation to other employees outside of the authority granted by the Committee.
Exhibit
4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated August 25, 2015, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-205629) of Smart Trust, Tax-Advantaged
Growth & Income Trust, Series 8.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


August 25, 2015
Case 3:22-cr-00304-S Document 30 Filed 04/24/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 193
Case 3:22-cr-00304-S Document 30 Filed 04/24/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 194
#### Anne Biggers et al., Appellants, v Farmingdale United Methodist Church, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated July 24, 1989, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Anne Biggers seeks to recover for injuries *477sustained when her foot went through a wooden porch floor located on premises owned by the defendant. The plaintiffs claim that the porch was in disrepair and that the wood was rotting. The defendant denies it had prior notice, either actual or constructive, of any defective or dangerous condition and also affirmatively asserts that the injured plaintiff’s own negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. The plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought summary judgment before Supreme Court and now appeal from the denial of their motion. We affirm.

Because there is "often a question as to whether the defendant or the plaintiff acted reasonably under the circumstances” *(Andre v Pomeroy,*35 NY2d 361, 364), summary judgment is rare in negligence cases, even when the facts are undisputed *(see, Andre v Pomeroy, supra,*at 364). Since in this case there exist fundamental questions of fact, including, *inter alia,*whether the defendant had notice of the condition of which the plaintiffs complain, denial of the motion was proper. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 224 (Monday, November 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29584]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-301-010]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

November 14, 2000.

    Take notice that on November 2, 2000, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet proposed to become 
effective November 1, 2000:

Original Sheet No. 14R

    ANR advises that the purpose of the filing is to implement new 
negotiated rate transactions that supplement the previously approved 
restructured portfolio of negotiated rate transactions with Wisconsin 
Public Service Corporation.
    ANR states that a copy of this filing is being mailed to the 
affected shippers and to each of ANR's FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1 and Original Volume No. 2 customers, and interested state 
regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29584 Filed 11-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
Case 4:22-cr-00228-O Document 24 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 47
Case 4:22-cr-00228-O Document 24 Filed 09/14/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 48
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 261

Designating September 14, 1994, as ‘‘Francis Scott Key Day’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 14, 1993

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland (for himself, Mrs. BENTLEY, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr.

CARDIN, Mr. WYNN, Mr. HOYER, Mr. GILCHREST, and Mr. MFUME) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating September 14, 1994, as ‘‘Francis Scott Key

Day’’.

Whereas Francis Scott Key, lawyer, family man, community

leader, patriot, and poet, traveled from Washington,

D.C., to Baltimore, Maryland, to seek the freedom of a

United States citizen held captive by the British during

the War of 1812;

Whereas Francis Scott Key was detained by the British to

prevent him from revealing the plans to attack Baltimore

and was forced to witness the British assault on Fort

McHenry in Baltimore harbor;
2

•HJ 261 IH

Whereas Francis Scott Key was so moved with joy, relief, and

exhilaration when he saw the United States flag still flying to indicate the failure of the British attack that he

was inspired to compose the poem, at first called

‘‘Defence of Fort M’Henry’’, which later became the

lyrics of our national anthem, ‘‘The Star-Spangled Banner’’;

Whereas an Act of the Congress made ‘‘The Star-Spangled

Banner’’ our national anthem;

Whereas the national anthem is firmly entrenched as a symbol of the spirit of the United States and is beloved by

all the people of the United States; and

Whereas Francis Scott Key has not been given sufficient national recognition for his contributions to our Nation’s

heritage and spirit: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That September 14, 1994, is designated as ‘‘Francis Scott

4 Key Day’’, and the President is authorized and requested

5 to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United

6 States to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and

7 activities.

Æ
<page> EXHIBIT 32.01





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 Dean Witter Diversified
Futures Fund Limited Partnership (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-
Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
?Report?), I, Jeffrey A. Rothman, President, Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.









By:	  /s/Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	President

Date:		November 14, 2005
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ALBERTO JOSE ) GONALEZ-VELAZQUEZ, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1044 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 27, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Laura E. Ward, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Timothy J. Ferreri, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Case 4:22-cr-00221-O Document 33 Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 89
Case 4:22-cr-00221-O Document 33 Filed 08/16/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 90
----

            COUNCIL DECISION         

of 15 May 2006         

authorising the Kingdom of Spain to apply a measure derogating from Article 11 and Article 28e of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes

(2006/387/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States in relation to turnover taxes — Common System of Value Added Tax; uniform basis of assessment (1), and in particular Article 27 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

By way of derogation from Article 11(A)(1)(a) and Article 28e of Directive 77/388/EEC, the Kingdom of Spain is hereby authorised to provide that the taxable amount of a supply of goods or services or of an intra-Community acquisition of goods shall be the same as the open-market value, as defined in Article 11(A)(1)(d) of the said Directive where the consideration is significantly lower than the open-market value and the recipient of the supply, or in the case of an intra-Community acquisition, the acquirer, does not have a right to full deduction under Article 17 of Directive 77/388/EEC.

This measure may only be used in order to prevent tax avoidance or evasion and when the consideration on which the taxable amount would otherwise be based has been influenced by family, management, ownership, financial or legal ties as defined in national legislation. For these purposes, legal ties shall include the formal relationship between employer and employee.

Article 2

The authorisation granted under Article 1 shall expire on the date of entry into force of a Directive rationalising the derogations pursuant to Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC which counter avoidance or evasion of VAT through the valuation of supplies between connected persons, or on 31 December 2009, whichever is the earlier.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.

Done at Brussels, 15 May 2006.

For the Council

The President

U. PLASSNIK            

----

(1)OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Directive 2006/18/EC (OJ L 51, 22.2.2006, p. 12).

(2)OJ C 125, 24.5.2005, p. 12.

----
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-1519 BEVERLY E. SMITH, BEVERLY BOB PRODUCTIONS LLC, and THE MEN'S RIGHTS FOUNDATION,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. MARY B. WAGNER, PAVLICK LAW OFFICES, MELISSA T. PAVLICK, MARIE C. SMITH, COMMONWEALTH OF PA, and VERIZON WIRELESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS, Defend a nts-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in

case no. 05-CV-4457, Judge J. Curtis Joyner.

ORDER Beverly E. Smith et al. have not responded to the court's September 2, 2008 order directing them to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The appeal is dismissed. FOR THE COURT 

## FEB 2 5 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Date Jan Horbaly Clerk cc: Beverly E. Smith s17 ED U.S. COURT

F OF IL APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT FEB 2 5 2009 JAN HORtair CLERK
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 216

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 20 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 22), 1993

Received

NOVEMBER 23, 1993

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating January 16, 1994, as ‘‘Religious Freedom Day’’.

Whereas December 15, 1991, is the 200th anniversary of the

completion of the ratification of the Bill of Rights;

Whereas the first amendment to the Constitution of the

United States guarantees religious liberty to the people

of the United States;

Whereas millions of people from all parts of the world have

come to the United States fleeing religious persecution

and seeking freedom to worship;
2

•HJ 216 RFS

Whereas in 1777 Thomas Jefferson wrote the bill entitled ‘‘A

Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia’’ to

guarantee freedom of conscience and separation of

church and state;

Whereas in 1786, through the devotion of Virginians such as

George Mason and James Madison, the General Assembly of Virginia passed such bill;

Whereas the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom inspired and shaped the guarantees of religious freedom in

the first amendment;

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized repeatedly that the Statute of Virginia for Religious

Freedom was an important influence in the development

of the Bill of Rights;

Whereas scholars across the United States have proclaimed

the vital importance of such statute and leaders in fields

such as law and religion have devoted time, energy, and

resources to celebrating its contribution to international

freedom; and

Whereas America’s First Freedom Center, located in Richmond, Virginia, plans a permanent monument to the

Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, accompanied

by educational programs and commemorative activities

for visitors from around the world: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That January 16, 1994, is designated as ‘‘Religious Free4 dom Day’’, and the President is authorized and requested

5 to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United

6 States to join together to celebrate their religious freedom
3

•HJ 216 RFS

1 and to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and

2 activities.

Passed the House of Representatives November 18,

1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 21

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States limiting

the number of consecutive terms members of the United States Senate

and House of Representatives may serve.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. DORNAN of California introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States limiting the number of consecutive terms members

of the United States Senate and House of Representatives may serve.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

HJ 21 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person may serve any term or por5 tion thereof as a member of the United States House of

6 Representatives if such person has served as a member

7 of the House for each of the six terms, or a portion of

8 any such term, immediately preceding such term.

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person may serve any term or por10 tion thereof as a member of the United States Senate if

11 such person has served as a member of the Senate for

12 each of the two terms, or a portion of any such term, im13 mediately preceding such term.

14 ‘‘SECTION 3. For purposes of this article, service as

15 a member in the United States Senate or House of Rep16 resentatives in any term which commenced before the rati17 fication of this article may not be included in determining

18 the number of terms served.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ARNOLD STEVEN MIRALDA-CRUZ

#59456-177

§

§

 Movant, §

§

v. §

§

No. 3:22-cv-1045-B (BT) 

No. 3:18-cr-333-B-3

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent.

§

§

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the

Findings,Conclusions, andRecommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge dated November

3, 2022, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct,

and they are accepted as the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Court. IT IS,

THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge are accepted. 

Considering the record in this case, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The

Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that the Movant has failed to show (1)

that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

wrong,” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the [motion] states a valid

claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its

procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Case 3:22-cv-01045-B-BT Document 18 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 95
SO ORDERED this 17

th

 day of November, 2022.

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 3:22-cv-01045-B-BT Document 18 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 96
Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 262-1 Filed 09/15/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 5241
Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 262-1 Filed 09/15/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 5242
Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 97 Filed 08/04/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 900