alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 291 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.291
                                      Agreed to September 23, 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 in the enrollment of the bill (S. 1587) to revise and streamline 
the acquisition laws of the Federal Government, and for other purposes, 
the Secretary of the Senate shall make the following corrections:
        (1) In paragraph (2)(A) of the matter proposed to be added at 
    the end of section 3553(f) of title 31, United States Code, by 
    paragraph (2) of section 1403(c)--
            (A) strike out ``person'' both places it appears and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``party''; and
            (B) strike out ``subparagraph (C)'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``subparagraph (B)''.
        (2) In the matter proposed to be inserted in section 111(f)(5) 
    of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 by 
    subsection (a) of section 1435, insert after ``and no party'' in 
    the second sentence the following: ``(other than a small business 
    concern (within the meaning of section 3(a) of the Small Business 
    Act))''.
        (3) In the matter proposed to be added at the end of the Office 
    of Federal Procurement Policy Act by section 4101--
            (A) strike out ``subsection (c)'' in subsection (a)(2) of 
        such matter and insert in lieu thereof ``subsection (b)''; and
            (B) strike out ``subsection (a)'' in subsection (b) of such 
        matter and insert in lieu thereof ``subsection (a)(2)''.
        (4) In the matter proposed to be added at the end of the Office 
    of Federal Procurement Policy Act by section 8003, strike out 
    ``subsections (a)'' in subsection (c) of such matter and insert in 
    lieu thereof ``subsections (a)(2)''.
        (5) In subsection (c) of section 10001, strike out ``and 7207'' 
    and insert in lieu thereof ``and 7206''.
Attest:







                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:







                                               Secretary of the Senate.`
#### Thomas F. Dalton, Plaintiff, *v.*E. Joseph Zebrowski, as President of Local 407, Funeral Directors, Embalmers & Undertakers Union of New York City et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court:, Special Term, Nassau County,

November 18, 1957.

*972*Dublirer & Haydon*for plaintiff.

*Butler, Bennett, Fitzpatrick & De Sio*for defendants.

L. Barron Hill, J.

Plaintiff seeks a temporary injunction in this action restraining the defendant union from picketing. Plaintiff owns and operates one or more funeral parlors.

The union picketed one of plaintiff’s funeral parlors daily from June 24, 1957 to about September 1, 1957. Since September 1, 1957 the picketing occurs only when a funeral is in progress.

The picketing is orderly and consists of two pickets whose placards read: “EMBALMING PERFORMED AT THIS CHAPEL IS DONE BY NON-UNION LABOR”, “THIS CHAPEL DOES NOT NOT EMPLOY UNION EMBALMERS ”, “MY JOB IS TO ELEVATE THE EMBALMER ”.

Plaintiff contends that this picketing, occurring as it does only during the course of a funeral is offensive to the mourners, is a violation of section 2220 of the Penal Law, and is a form of economic compulsion to coerce him into signing a contract recognizing defendant as the bargaining agent for plaintiff’s employees.

Heretofore defendant filed an unfair labor practice charge against plaintiff before the State Labor Relations Board in answer to plaintiff’s petition to said board for a determination as to whether defendant represented plaintiff’s employees. On August 12, 1957 the State Labor Board dismissed defendant’s charge against plaintiff upon defendant’s concession on the record that it did not represent a majority of plaintiff’s two employees.

Defendant, of course, is entitled to engage in organizational picketing *(Wood*v. *O’Grady,*307 N. Y. 532). It may not picket to force plaintiff by means of economic compulsion to recognize defendant union as bargaining agent for plaintiff’s employees without a voice or a vote by such employees in the selection of their bargaining agent *(Goodwins, Inc.*v. *Hagedorn,*303 N. Y. 300; *Hot Shoppes*v. *Ferrara,*2 Misc 2d 415, 417).

On the record before me, I am convinced that the type of picketing presently engaged in by defendant falls within the *973ban of *Goodwins, Inc.*v. *Hagedorn (supra).*The signs carried by the pickets are directed at the employer and not the employees; picketing occurs only during a funeral and is bound to be distasteful to those in attendance. This undoubtedly will affect plaintiff’s business relations with the public.

I hold, therefore, that a labor dispute does not presently exist and that a temporary injunction shall issue restraining defendant from the current type of picketing. Nothing in the order to be settled herein, however, shall restrain defendant from engaging in organizational picketing.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Brett D. Davis, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2015-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                                      I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                      All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.

 

March 25, 2019

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Brett D. Davis                                               |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Brett D. Davis                                                   |
|   | Title: | President (senior   officer in charge of the servicing function) |

 

----
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
                           OF THE UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Ixion  Biotechnology,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Weaver
H. Gaines , Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to the 18
U.S.C. section 350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.

/s/Weaver H. Gaines
Weaver H. Gaines
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 42 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 42

  Expressing the sense of the Congress that the job opportunities and 
      basic skills training program (JOBS) should be fully funded.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 17, 1993

Mrs. Kennelly submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Congress that the job opportunities and 
      basic skills training program (JOBS) should be fully funded.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the job opportunities and 
basic skills training program (JOBS) should be fully funded.

                                 <all>
```
----

(2004/C 78 E/0184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2849/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Complaints or infringements regarding the implementation of Greece of Community environmental legislation

In reply to my question E-1829/03 (1), Commissioner Wallström obligingly indicated that it was possible to obtain general statistics concerning complaints and infringements regarding transposition into Greek law and implementation of Community environmental legislation in Greece. Would the Commission be kind enough to forward to me the relevant statistics and the matters to which they relate from 1994 to the present date?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2003)

For technical reasons, the Commission can only provide the Honourable Member with statistics relating to 1995 onwards. Thus, between 1995 and 2002 the Commission registered and investigated 257 dossiers relating to alleged or established infringements of Community environment law in Greece. These dossiers were opened on the basis of complaints, petitions and parliamentary questions, and on the Commission's own initiative. At 24 September 2003, 98 dossiers relating to alleged or established infringements of Community environment law in Greece were still open.

The infringement procedure laid down by Article 226 of the Treaty was initiated for 85 of the 257 dossiers. Of these 85 dossiers, 19 concerned air pollution, 18 related to Community waste management legislation, 13 dealt with nature protection, 11 related to chemicals, ten concerned water protection, five related to Directive 85/337/EEC (2), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (3), three concerned genetically modified organisms and six concerned other areas of Community environment law.

----

(1)OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 175.

(2)OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(3)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

----
ORDER Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DONALD RAY LONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

PACE REALTY,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 3:22-cv-02100-E-BT 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of 

United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford dated May 26, 2023. The Court has reviewed 

the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts 

the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED: June 13, 2023. 

Case 3:22-cv-02100-E-BT Document 23 Filed 06/13/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 65
Exhibit 32.3

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 Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Juliano, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                   |  |                                                                      
|------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 12, 2010 |  | /s/ MARK JULIANO                                                     
|                   |  | Mark Juliano                                                         
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer of
Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings, L.P.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6263
THOMAS D. CROOKS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director of SCDC; WILLIAM R. DAVIS, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-2198-2-17AJ) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas D. Crooks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and denying his motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate j udge and find no reversible error. Accord ingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Crooks v. Moore , No. CA-97-2198-2-17AJ (D.S.C. Dec. 17, 1997). 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
FAA PART 16 AIRPORT PROCEEDINGS DOCKET 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

ALCA, Inc., Cylinder Shop, Inc., 

Suncoast Aviation, Aircraft Parts 

and National Aviation, 

Complainants, 

vs. 

Docket No. 16-08-05 

H g d D W [I 

m 2 3 2008 

PAA AIRPORTS 

PART 16 DOCKETS | 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Respondent. 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF 

CD 

Petitioners, hereby files this Motion for Extension of Time to File R^ly Br^and 

in support thereof would show: ^-~ ^^ 

1. Petitioners have filed a Part 16 Complaint against Miami Dade County; 

2. The County filed its response after a several month delay and 

received a several month time extension; 

3. The Reply Brief will address issues spanning a lengthy time period and involving 

multiple parties and factual and legal issues; 

4. Undersigned counsel is currently preparing for several trials and several appeals; 

5. It is requested that undersigned counsel receive an extension of up to November 

1,2008, to file the Reply Brief; 

: .• • 
Respectfully submitted, 

MICHAEL A. PIZZI, Jr., P.A. 

Attorney for Defendant 

15271 NW 60*" Avenue 

Miami Lakes, Fl 33016 

Phone: 305 231 2121 

FAX: 305 2312123 

E-mail: mpizzijr@vahoo.com 

Bv: A ^ 4 

Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., Esq, 

Florida Bar No. 079545 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Reply Brief was mailed/FAXed to: 

Office of the Chief Coimsel 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings 

Docket 16-08-05 

Room 925, Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., SW 

Washmgton,DC 20591 

Jennifer Trock, Esq. 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 

2300 N. Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

ichael A. Pizzi, Jr., Esq. 1 

. /
#### ELLIS v. WOODMEN OF WORLD LIFE INS. SOC.

No. 14405.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

March 27, 1942.

James E. Faulkner, of Henderson, for appellant.

Norman M. West, of Henderson, for ap-pellee.

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was not filed within the time required by law.

The motion for new trial was overruled, and notice of appeal was given, on August 14, 1941.

The term of court at which this case was tried began on August 4, 1941, and ended on October 4, 1941, as provided by Art. 199, Par. 4, Vernon’s Ann. Civil Statutes, as amended in 1941. Therefore, under Art. 2253, Vernon’s Ann. Civil Statutes, as amended in 1927, the- appeal bond was required to be filed within 20 days after the date of the notice of appeal, the plaintiff appearing from the transcript to have been a resident of Rusk County.

The appeal bond was filed on September 9, 1941.

Under Rule No. 356 of the New Rules of Civil Procedure, Texas, which became effective on September 1, 1941, the appeal bond is required to be filed within 30 days after the date of the judgment or order overruling motion for new trial.

*1003It is seen that the appeal bond was filed more than 20 days after the date of notice of appeal, and less than 30 days after the order overruling motion for new trial.

**We consider that the rule applicable is the proportionate rule referred to in 3 Tex.Jur. *272,*and in such cases as Mineral Investing Corporation v. Bishop Cattle Co., 124 Tex. 387, 78 S.W.2d 174. Under this rule the time which has elapsed under the former period of limitation will be counted in the ratio which it bears to the whole period thereunder, and the time allowed under the new law will be computed on the basis of such ratio. Seventeen days expired before the effective date of the new rules of procedure. Therefore, l7/20ths of the time allowed under the old law had expired when the new law became effective, which had the effect of giving appellant 3/20ths of the time allowed by the new rule, after it became effective, within which to file her appeal bond. Three-twentieths of 30 (the number of days allowed under Rule 356) amounts to 41⁄2. Thus, September 5th was the last day on which the appeal bond could lawfully be filed. Since the appeal bond was not filed until September 9th, the appeal must be dismissed.

This renders moot another question which has been raised concerning the filing of a purported statement of facts.

The appeal is dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-381-B

§

EDSON FRANK CURTIS §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent 

of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, 

and no objections thereto having been filed within fourteen days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the 

undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning the 

Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and 

EDSON FRANK CURTIS is hereby adjudged guilty of Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

☐ The defendant is ordered to remain in custody.

☒ The Court adopts the findings of the United States Magistrate Judge by clear and convincing evidence that the 

defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released and should therefore 

be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ Upon motion, this matter shall be set for hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions 

of release for determination, by clear and convincing evidence, of whether the defendant is likely to flee or pose a 

danger to any other person or the community if released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The defendant is ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2). The defendant shall self-surrender to the 

United States Marshal no later than __________________________.

☐ The defendant is not ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) because the Court finds

☐ There is a substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or

☐ The Government has recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, and

☐ This matter shall be set for hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions of 

release for determination, by clear and convincing evidence, of whether the defendant is likely to flee or 

pose a danger to any other person or the community if released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ This matter shall be set for hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions of release for 

determination of whether it has been clearly shown that there are exceptional circumstances under § 3145(c) why 

the defendant should not be detained under § 3143(a)(2), and whether it has been shown by clear and convincing 

evidence that the defendant is likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released under 

§ 3142(b) or (c).

SIGNED this 12th day of July, 2023.

________________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00381-B Document 37 Filed 07/12/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 59