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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 108 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 108

 To provide that professional baseball teams, and leagues composed of 
          such teams, shall be subject to the antitrust laws.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. Bilirakis (for himself, Mr. Bunning, and Mr. McCollum) introduced 
    the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that professional baseball teams, and leagues composed of 
          such teams, shall be subject to the antitrust laws.

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

SECTION 1. FINDING.

    The Congress finds that the business of providing for profit public 
baseball games between teams of professional baseball players in a 
league and between such teams of rival leagues is in, or affects, 
interstate commerce.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL.

    The antitrust laws shall apply to the business of providing for 
profit public baseball games between teams of professional baseball 
players and to leagues composed of teams of professional baseball 
players.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

    For purposes of this Act, the term ``antitrust laws'' has the 
meaning given it in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton 
Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)), except that such term includes section 5 of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent that such 
section 5 relates to unfair methods of competition.

SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF SECTION 2.

    Section 2 shall not apply with respect to conduct occurring before 
the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 15 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-170695) and Amendment No. 394 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2015, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 8, 2015, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.








/s/ Ernst & Young LLP









Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


October 1, 2015
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section
302 and 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-Q of Andean Development Corporation
(the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jose Luis
Yrarrazaval, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec.1350, 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, 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 Company.

Dated:  November 14, 2002
                                  /s/ Jose Luis Yrarrazaval
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Jose Luis Yrarrazaval, Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0403

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP 

OF:

G.R.M., 

 A Minor Child:

DIANA R. MERIDETH and KENNETH M. 

MERIDETH,

 Petitioners, Appellees,

 and Cross Appellants.

________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP 

OF:

G.R.M., 

 A Minor Child:

CAROL M. MERIDETH,

 Petitioner and Appellant.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR 

APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly 

and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT Dana Charles Christian, whose name appears next on 

the list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Domestic Relations appeals 

which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the 

mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

09/01/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0403
A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this September 1, 2020.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Kevin S. Brown, Margaret Sullivan Braun, Sheryl L. Wambsgans, Sherine Diane 

Blackford, Monica Payne
Agreement for Offering Expenses


 


The following agreement is made between Ke Yi Cai, Yue
Kan, Ding Fang Huang, Pingxi Zhang and Yanhuang International Development Company, Inc. (The designation of each party above
can be found in the signatures at the end of this document).


 


The above parties herein agree to
equally split any offering expenses relating to this offering and the filing of this Registration Statement on behalf of
Yanhuang International Development Company, Inc.


 


The fees shall be divided equally unless a particular
member is willing to   and also agrees to pay more than another party to this agreement. 


 


Name: Ke
Yi Cai  Signature: /s/ Ke Yi Cai  Title: President, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer) and Chairman of the Board of Directors Date: September 29, 2015


 


Name: Ke
Yi Cai  Signature: /s/ Ke Yi Cai  Title: Chief Accounting Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)  Date:
September 29, 2015 


  


Name: Yue
Kan Signature: /s/ Yue Kan  Title: Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Vice
Chairman of the Board of Directors Date: September 29, 2015 












 


Name:
Ding Fang Huang Signature: /s/ Ding Fang Huang  Title: Chief Operating Officer Date:
September 29, 2015 


 


Name:
Pingxi Zhang Signature: /s/ Pingxi Zhang  Title: Vice President Date: September
29, 2015
Case 2:22-cr-00088-Z-BR Document 34 Filed 12/07/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 85
P.1 

OAR Box 1827 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

124) IV-E-01 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 11/19/2008 12:40:48 PM Sheet 124 of 147 
^

P Sr"rf

. 

•or sr UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office uf Aii Quality Planning and Siandaids 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

A-^o-oto 

P.2 

MEMORANDUM i 

SUBJECT: Meeting with the Industrial Boiler Owners 

C* I r I 

FROM: Chebryll C. Edwards, Project Manager (W^y^tTO: Docket A-90-06 

On August 23, 1991, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

representatives met with members of the Industrial Boiler Owners 

Association!(IBO) to discuss, among other issues, EPA's proposed 

"WEPCO" rulemaking. The members of the IBO provided EPA with a 

brief overview of their comments on the proposed rulemaking. 

They stated that they will be drafting their comments and 

formally submitting them to the docket in the near future. 

The IBO representatives mentioned that the major focus of 

their comments is related to the issue of expanding the rule to 

include industrial sources. The IBO believes that industrial 

sources, along with other sources that "opt-in" to the acid rain 

program, should be given the same privileges and exemptions that 

the utilityjsources will receive. An EPA representative 

responded by stating that there are several reasons this 

rulemaking is limited to utility sources (information on 

utilities is available through filings with the PUC; EPA is more 

familiar with modifications at utility sources; and, utilities 

are to play'a key role in the acid rain program). The EPA also 

stated that it may further explore this issue in a separate 

rulemaking (CMA Exhibit B); however, it was mentioned that all 

comments on jthis issue will be thoroughly considered before the 

WEPCO rulemaking is finalized.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-3031

___________________________ 

Elizabeth J. Ziegler, an individual; Nichole L. Dietel

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

3M Company

 Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

____________ 

Submitted: May 7, 2024

Filed: May 28, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, SHEPHERD and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Elizabeth Ziegler and Nichole Dietel sued 3M, their employer, for pushing 

them to get vaccinated. The district court1 dismissed on multiple grounds: filing too 

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District 

of Minnesota.
-2- 

late, failing to exhaust, and not stating a claim. They argue on appeal that they have

stated a claim, but that still allows us to affirm on one of the other grounds.

One path is particularly clear. The plaintiffs’ complaint raises two claims, the 

first under Title VII and another under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, both of 

which set a filing deadline. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (300 days); Minn. Stat. 

§ 363A.28, subd. 3 (one year). The plaintiffs did not file in time under either one, 

so the district court dismissed the case. See Hutson v. Wells Dairy, Inc., 578 F.3d 

823, 825–27 (8th Cir. 2009) (affirming the dismissal of an untimely Title VII claim). 

The plaintiffs have waived any argument otherwise by failing to brief the issue 

on appeal. See Far E. Aluminium Works Co. v. Viracon, Inc., 27 F.4th 1361, 1367

n.2 (8th Cir. 2022) (“Claims not raised in an opening brief are deemed waived.”

(citation omitted)). In these circumstances, we affirm on this “independent

ground[].” United States v. May, 70 F.4th 1064, 1074 (8th Cir. 2023); see Rivero v. 

Bd. of Regents of Univ. of N.M., 950 F.3d 754, 763 (10th Cir. 2020) (“If the district 

court states multiple alternative grounds for its ruling and the appellant does not 

challenge all those grounds in the opening brief, then we may affirm the ruling.”). 

_____________________________
(December 20, 1990)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clifford Bell, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas B. Galligan, J.), rendered October 17, 1988, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an indefinite term of eight years’ to life imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s conviction arises out of his arrest for removal of a stained-glass window from a residential building at 461 Ft. Washington Avenue, Manhattan. The superintendent and a tenant of the building testified to observing defendant, over an *359extended period of time, working with tools to remove the window from its frame. The building superintendent called the police and defendant was apprehended near the scene, in possession of two screwdrivers and a pair of pliers.

Defendant’s *pro se*claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is unpersuasive. Counsel, in his opening statement, indicated that defendant had not removed the window, but that if the jury should believe the prosecution’s witnesses, the conduct attributed to defendant would constitute, at most, a criminal trespass or an attempted petit larceny, but not the crime of burglary. We do not think this strategy amounted to a "concession” of guilt, nor does mere dissatisfaction with a losing strategy establish ineffectiveness.

The prosecutor’s unobjected-to remarks in summation regarding a police "frame up” did not exceed the bounds of legitimate advocacy. The prosecutor’s remarks referred to defendant’s testimony, contrary to that of a police officer, that he did not possess the tools used to remove the window, but that the tools were in fact possessed by an unidentified police officer, and thus were fair comment on matters brought into evidence by defendant himself. *(See, e.g., People v Fielding,*158 NY 542.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
Government’s Motion to Dismiss - Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. No. 4:22-CR-253-P

LAUREN WHITNEY MOORE (01)

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

TO THE HONORABLE MARK T. PITTMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

JUDGE:

The United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, by and through the 

undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, files this Government’s Motion to Dismiss 

the Indictment filed on August 24, 2022, as to defendant LAUREN WHITNEY MOORE.

In the interest of justice, the government moves to dismiss the indictment without 

prejudice as to defendant LAUREN WHITNEY MOORE. 

Respectfully submitted,

CHAD E. MEACHAM

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

s/ Alex C. Lewis s/ Shawn Smith

ALEX C. LEWIS SHAWN SMITH 

Assistant United States Attorney Assistant United States Attorney

Deputy Criminal Chief Texas State Bar No. 24033206

801 Cherry Street, Suite 1700 

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Telephone: 817-252-5200

Email: Shawn.Smith2@usdoj.gov

Case 4:22-cr-00253-P Document 20 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 41
Government’s Motion to Dismiss - Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that I have conferred with Curt Crum, counsel for the defendant, and 

he does not oppose the granting of this motion. 

s/ Shawn Smith 

SHAWN SMITH

Assistant United States Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 17, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the clerk for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the 

electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a Notice of 

Electronic Filing to the following attorneys of record who has consented in writing to

accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means.

s/ Shawn Smith 

SHAWN SMITH

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 4:22-cr-00253-P Document 20 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 42
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *580Shirley Rosado, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.), rendered April 27, 1989, convicting her of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and driving while intoxicated, upon her plea of guilty, and sentencing her to an indeterminate term of 2 to 6 years’ imprisonment for vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, to run concurrently to the determinate term of six months’ imprisonment for driving while intoxicated, and payment of a $100 fine and stated surcharges.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating so much of the sentence as imposed a $100 fine upon the conviction for driving while intoxicated; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

While driving her vehicle in an intoxicated condition, the defendant struck and killed a cyclist on a Suffolk County roadway and was thereafter convicted of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]) and vehicular manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.12). We agree with the defendant that the court erred in imposing a fine upon her conviction of driving while intoxicated. Because that offense is a material element of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and the court had imposed a sentence of imprisonment for vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, it was a violation of Penal Law § 80.15 to impose a fine upon the conviction of driving while intoxicated. We therefore modify the sentence by vacating the fine (see, *People v Magistro,*156 AD2d 1029; *People v Bakos,*149 AD2d 906).

However, contrary to the defendant’s further contention, we do not find that the 2-to-6-year term of imprisonment imposed upon the conviction for vehicular manslaughter in the second degree was harsh or excessive under the circumstances of this case *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Hooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.
----

Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-259/05)

(2005/C 217/109)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by the Kingdom of Spain, having its seat in Madrid, represented by its Agent, Miguel Muñoz Pérez.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Commission Decision 2005/354/EC of 29 April 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). The aspects of that decision which are specifically challenged are as follows:

----

(1)OJ L 112 of 3.5.2005, p. 14

----
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1163 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1163

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow employers a tax 
                credit for hiring displaced homemakers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 1993

  Mr. Bilirakis (for himself and Mr. Shays) 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 allow employers a tax 
                credit for hiring displaced homemakers.

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

SECTION 1. DISPLACED HOMEMAKERS ESTABLISHED AS A TARGETED GROUP FOR 
              PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE CREDIT FOR EMPLOYMENT OF 
              CERTAIN NEW EMPLOYEES.

    (a) General Rule.--Paragraph (1) of section 51(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to members of targeted groups) is 
amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (I), by striking 
the period at the end of subparagraph (J) and inserting ``, or'', and 
by adding at the end thereof the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(K) a displaced homemaker.''
    (b) Displaced Homemaker Defined.--Section 51(d) of such Code 
(relating to members of targeted groups) is amended by redesignating 
paragraphs (13), (14), (15), and (16) as paragraphs (14), (15), (16), 
and (17), respectively, and by adding after paragraph (12) the 
following new paragraph:
            ``(13) Displaced homemaker.--The term `displaced homemaker' 
        means an individual who--
                    ``(A) has not worked in the labor force for a 
                substantial number of years but has, during those 
                years, worked in the home providing unpaid services for 
                family members, and
                    ``(B)(i) has been dependent on public assistance or 
                on the income of another family member but is no longer 
                supported by that income, or (ii) is receiving public 
                assistance on account of dependent children in the 
                home.''
    (c) Termination Not To Apply.--Paragraph (4) of section 51(c) of 
such Code (relating to termination) is amended by adding at the end 
thereof the following new sentence: ``The preceding sentence shall not 
apply in the case of any displaced homemaker.''
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of enactment of this 
Act to individuals who have begun to work for the employer after such 
date.

                                 <all>
```
Case 1:22-cr-00058-H-BU Document 34 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 63
Case 1:22-cr-00058-H-BU Document 34 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 64
Case 1:22-cr-00058-H-BU Document 34 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 65
Case 4:22-cr-00326-O Document 19 Filed 11/30/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 34
Case 4:22-cr-00326-O Document 19 Filed 11/30/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 35
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 134513 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 134513 COA: 276460 Jackson CC: 04-000204-FH RANIS TAWON HILL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 17, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1022 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2007

Clerk