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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 88 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify 

the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations, limited 

liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws 

of any State, the United States, or any foreign state. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2017 

Mr. MCGOVERN (for himself, Mr. LYNCH, Mr. COHEN, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. 

WELCH, Mr. KEATING, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. TAKANO, Ms. PINGREE, Mr. 

CAPUANO, Mr. COOPER, Mr. GRIJALVA, and Mr. LOEBSACK) submitted 

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 to clarify the authority of Congress and the States 

to regulate corporations, limited liability companies or 

other corporate entities established by the laws of any 

State, the United States, or any foreign state. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 88 IH 

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

2 States: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. We the people who ordain and establish 

5 this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Con6 stitution to be the rights of natural persons. 

7 ‘‘SECTION 2. The words people, person, or citizen as 

8 used in this Constitution do not include corporations, lim9 ited liability companies or other corporate entities estab10 lished by the laws of any State, the United States, or any 

11 foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to 

12 such regulation as the people, through their elected State 

13 and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are oth14 erwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the 

15 States under this Constitution. 

16 ‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing contained herein shall be con17 strued to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, 

18 freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of 

19 association and all such other rights of the people, which 

20 rights are unalienable.’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1219 

To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to expand the investor 

limitation for qualifying venture capital funds under an exemption from 

the definition of an investment company. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2017 

Mr. MCHENRY (for himself and Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to expand 

the investor limitation for qualifying venture capital 

funds under an exemption from the definition of an 

investment company. 

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 ‘‘Supporting America’s 

5 Innovators Act of 2017’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1219 IH

1 SEC. 2. INVESTOR LIMITATION FOR QUALIFYING VENTURE 

2 CAPITAL FUNDS. 

3 Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 

4 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–3(c)(1)) is amended— 

5 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

6 by inserting ‘‘(or, in the case of a qualifying venture 

7 capital fund, 250 persons)’’ after ‘‘one hundred per8 sons’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(C)(i) The term ‘qualifying venture cap11 ital fund’ means a venture capital fund that has 

12 not more than $10,000,000 in aggregate capital 

13 contributions and uncalled committed capital, 

14 with such dollar amount to be indexed for infla15 tion once every 5 years by the Commission, be16 ginning from a measurement made by the Com17 mission on a date selected by the Commission, 

18 rounded to the nearest $1,000,000. 

19 ‘‘(ii) The term ‘venture capital fund’ has 

20 the meaning given the term in section 

21 275.203(l)–1 of title 17, Code of Federal Regu22 lations, or any successor regulation.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Robert Porter v. Mary A. Porter.

1. Solicitor’s Fees—Order *for, Pending an*Appeal.—A court has the right to make an order for the payment of solicitor’s fees, pending an appeal of the main case, and it is only for an abuse of discretion that such an order will be set aside by an Appellate Court,

Bill for Separate Maintenance.—Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Theodore Brentano, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 22, 1896.

*108Thornton & Chancellor, attorneys for appellant.

Thompson *&*McCaslin, attorneys for appellee.

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from an order entered April 11, 1895, for the payment of $175 to the appellee for solicitor’s fee, for services to be rendered in defense of- an appeal which was taken to the last term of the Appellate Court.

A decree for separate maintenance was entered by the Superior Court in favor of the appellee, which was appealed by appellant to the last term of this court. Upon a hearing the decree was reversed and the appeal dismissed. During the pendency of that appeal an order for the payment of $175 as a solicitor’s fee was entered by the Superior Court, from which order the present appeal is prosecuted.

¡Notwithstanding the pendency on appeal of the main case in this court, the order was one which the court had power to make. We do not think that in ordering the payment of $175 as a solicitor’s fee, there was an abuse of discretion. Where the right to make such order exists, it is only for an abuse of discretion that the order will be set aside by an Appellate Court. Johnson v. Johnson, 125 111 150.

The order of the Superior Court is affirmed.
#### Barry Latimer, Respondent, v City of New York, Defendant, and Kesten Plumbing and Heating, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[631 NYS2d 395]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Resten Plumbing & Heating, Inc., and Herbert S. Resten appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated December 21, 1994, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The appellants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appellants established that the plaintiff’s car left its lane of travel, crossed the median into the opposite lanes, and struck the appellants’ vehicle under circumstances precluding any possible negligence by the appellants *(see, Moller v Lieber,*156 AD2d 434; *Tenenbaum v Martin,*131 AD2d 660). Therefore, on *623the merits, the court should have granted the motion. While a trial court possesses great discretion in the management of its own calendar and has appropriate sanctions at its disposal, it was an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion to refuse to entertain the appellants’ motion solely because it was not made within the time constraints imposed by the court’s preliminary conference order *(see,*CPLR 3212 [a]; *Goldheart Intl. v Vulcan Constr. Corp.,*124 AD2d 507). Furthermore, the mere fact that a summary judgment motion is made on the eve of trial is not in and of itself sufficient reason for denying the motion, especially in a case such as this where the motion is so clearly meritorious *(see, Kule Resources v Reliance Group,*49 NY2d 587; *Carvel Corp. v Burstein,*99 AD2d 935, *affd*62 NY2d 638). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
No. 90-102.

#### Liberty County, Florida, et al. *v.*Solomon et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 23
                                                                      ----------







Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
333-141344,  33-67114,  and  333-17695 of AMREP  Corporation  on Form S-8 and in
Registration  Statement No.  333-141861 of AMREP  Corporation on Form S-3 of our
reports dated July 14, 2009 relating to our audits of the consolidated financial
statements,  the  financial  statement  schedule and  internal  control over the
financial  reporting  appearing  in the  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of  AMREP
Corporation for the year ended April 30, 2009.


/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP
July 14, 2009
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 4 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E53]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

               CELEBRATING SAN YSIDRO'S CENTENNIAL YEAR!

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BOB FILNER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, January 9, 2009

  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to commemorate 
the Centennial of the great community of San Ysidro--the gateway to 
America. San Ysidro is not only home to the world's busiest land border 
crossing, but is also a multicultural tight-knit community with a rich 
history and culture like no other. As California's Border Congressman, 
I am very proud to represent San Ysidro and will continue to be a vocal 
advocate for our border community. Please join me in this year-long 
celebration. ``Adelante San Ysidro!''

                          ____________________
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K ofAnalogic Corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscalyear ended July 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned, John J. Millerick, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, 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.     /s/ John J. Millerick       John J. Millerick     Chief Financial OfficerDate: October 14, 2005
Exhibit 12.2



RESIN SYSTEMS INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OR 15d-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Keith Gerrard of Resin Systems Inc., certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Resin Systems Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.

The company'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 company 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 company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this annual report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company'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 company's internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: | March 2, 2004                                 
|----- | ----------------------------------------------
|By:   | /s/ Keith Gerrard                             
|      | Name: Keith Gerrard                           
|      | Title:Controller (Principal Financial Officer)
# Official Journal C 219/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 219 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4912 September 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 219

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4912 September 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Council |
| 2006/C 219/1 | Notice concerning the denunciation of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection | 1 |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 219/2 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2006/C 219/3 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Council

2006/C 219/1

Notice concerning the denunciation of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

1

Commission

2006/C 219/2

Euro exchange rates

2

2006/C 219/3

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
No. 90-691.

#### East Prince Frederick Corp. *v.*Board of County Commissioners of Calvert County, Maryland.

Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.
Argued November 1,

affirmed November 13, 1973

#### In the Matter of Jeffrey Owen Warwick, a *minor*child. STATE ex rel JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF Multnomah county, *Respondent, v.*WARWICK (No. *40918),*Appellant.

515 P2d 427

*Lee M. -Zittenfield,*Portland, argued tile canse.'and filed the brief for appellant. - .

*■ Al J. '-Lane,-*Assistant Attorney General,-Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on-the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General; and John W. Osburn, Solicitor General, Salem.

•Before. Schwab, .Chief Judge, and Foley and Thornton, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Dunster,*11 Or App 102, 501 P2d 996 (1972); *State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Johnson,*11 Or App 313, 501 P2d 1011 (1972), Sup Ct *review denied*(1973); and *State v. Weidner,*6 Or App 317, 484 P2d 844, 487 P2d 1385 (1971).
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                            
<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>                          
THIS RESTATED  SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM
ALBERTSON'S  ANNUAL REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS  FOR THE YEAR ENDED FEBRUARY 1, 1996,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIREETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>                         
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
                                  
<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                         FEB-03-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                           FEB-01-1996
<CASH>                                                      69,113
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               99,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 1,250
<INVENTORY>                                              1,030,246
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         1,283,002
<PP&E>                                                   4,063,378
<DEPRECIATION>                                           1,365,896
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           4,135,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1,088,493
<BONDS>                                                    732,258
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                   251,919
<OTHER-SE>                                               1,700,604
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             4,135,911
<SALES>                                                 12,585,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        12,585,034
<CGS>                                                    9,371,736
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            9,371,736
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          55,633
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            758,501
<INCOME-TAX>                                               293,540
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        464,961
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                               464,961
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 1.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 1.83
        

</TABLE>
#### West Chicago Street Railroad Company v. William Wilson.

1. Verdicts— *When Manifestly Against the Weight of the Evidence.*—A judgment founded upon a verdict which is manifestly against the weight of the testimony will be reversed.

Trespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Henry V. Freeman, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed January *22,*1896.

Statement of the Case.

This is an action by William Wilson to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of the negligence of the West Chicago Street Railroad Company.

The declaration charges that the plaintiff “ offered himself as a passenger and got on one of the defendant’s cars, and was accepted by defendant as a passenger for the *130purpose of being carried from a point on defendant’s railroad near the intersection of ¡Halsted street with Maxwell street, to the intersection of Halsted street with Adams street, and while plaintiff was lawfully and rightfully on defendant’s said car, and was behaving himself in a proper and decorous manner, the conductor, defendant’s servant in charge of said car, carelessly, negligently, willfully and wantonly, and without any just cause or provocation, assaulted and beat the plaintiff, and carelessly and negligently and maliciously and wantonly wrongfully ejected plaintiff from said car, at or near the corner of Halsted street and O’Brien street, before the end of plaintiff’s said journey.”

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $4,500, $1,500 of which were stated to be exemplary damages. Plaintiff subsequently remitted $2,000 from the total verdict, and judgment was entered on the verdict for $2,500. From this judgment the defendant appeals.

Egbert Jamieson and John A. Rose, attorneys for appellant.

John F. Waters, attorney for appellee.

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We have examined the record of this case, and can not affirm the judgment rendered. We do not think that the extraordinary story of the appellee is sustained by a preponderance of the evidence; on the contrary, we think the clear weight of all the evidence is so manifestly against the claim he makes that this cause must be remanded for another trial.

As another trial is to be had we do not care to comment further upon the evidence.

The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed and the cause remanded.