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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2524 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2524

  To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to exclude certain 
 payments to aged, blind, or disabled Alaska Natives or descendants of 
  Alaska Natives from being used to determine eligibility for certain 
                   programs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 28, 2021

 Ms. Murkowski (for herself and Mr. Sullivan) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to exclude certain 
 payments to aged, blind, or disabled Alaska Natives or descendants of 
  Alaska Natives from being used to determine eligibility for certain 
                   programs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN PROGRAMS.

    Section 29(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 
1626(c)) is amended, in the undesignated matter following paragraph 
(3), by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the following:
            ``(E) an interest in a Settlement Trust or an amount 
        distributed from or benefit provided by a Settlement Trust to a 
        Native or descendant of a Native who is an aged, blind, or 
        disabled individual (as defined in section 1614(a) of the 
        Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)).''.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Denitra Sherrelle Green v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00398-CR

Trial court case number: 1412121

Trial court: 179th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief concluding that the above-referenced 

appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). 

Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a form motion requesting access to a copy of the appellate record 

for use in preparing a response to appointed counsel’s brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 

315, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant further requests a 90-day extension of time to file 

her pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief

Appellant’s request for a copy of the record is dismissed as moot because appellant’s 

appointed counsel averred in her Anders brief that she would serve a “complete copy of the record”

to appellant “on approximately October 14, 2016.”

Appellant’s request for an extension of time to file her pro se response is granted in part. 

Appellant’s brief shall be due within 45 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland_

 Acting individually

Date: December 6, 2016
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

ARTHUR HARDY, ) 

) 

Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) Case No. 2D15-5625 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

) 

Appellee. ) 

___________________________________) 

Opinion filed November 30, 2016. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Polk County; Glenn T. Shelby, Judge. 

Arthur Hardy, pro se. 

SILBERMAN, Judge. 

 Arthur Hardy filed a timely motion for postconviction relief pursuant to 

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raising seven claims. The postconviction 

court found the third claim to be facially insufficient and afforded Mr. Hardy sixty days to 

amend, as required by rule 3.850(e). The postconviction court informed Mr. Hardy that 

the order was nonfinal and that he "may not appeal until such time as a Final Order has 

been rendered." See Havens v. State, 27 So. 3d 803, 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("An 

order dismissing a motion for postconviction relief that also provides leave to amend is 
- 2 -

not a final order for purposes of appeal." (citing Christner v. State, 984 So. 2d 561, 562 

(Fla. 2d DCA 2008))). 

 Mr. Hardy failed to timely amend his third claim. Instead, after more than 

sixty days transpired, he filed a "motion for rehearing/motion for leave to amend 3.850 

motion" attacking the nonfinal order. Following the postconviction court's denial of his 

motion for rehearing/motion to amend, this appeal ensued. 

 Because the postconviction court has not yet entered a final, appealable 

order disposing of each of Mr. Hardy's claims, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the 

court's nonfinal order. See Herron v. State, 34 So. 3d 206, 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) 

(explaining that appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to review nonfinal rule 3.850 

orders). On remand, the court may enter a final order denying Mr. Hardy's third claim 

for failure to timely amend, see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(3), and disposing of the 

remaining six claims on the merits. 

 Dismissed and remanded. 

WALLACE and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
David Simon, certify that:

1.         I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Simon Property Group, L.P.;

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; and

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.

Date: May 8, 2009/s/DAVID SIMON David Simon
Chairman of the Board of Directors and
Chief Executive Officer of
Simon Property Group, Inc., General Partner


75

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2749 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2749

 To prohibit the use of Federal funds to close or relocate the Marine 
             Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego, California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 15, 2021

 Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mr. Padilla) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the use of Federal funds to close or relocate the Marine 
             Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego, California.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CLOSING OR RELOCATING MARINE CORPS RECRUIT DEPOT 
              IN SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA.

    No Federal funds may be used to close or relocate the Marine Corps 
Recruit Depot in San Diego, California, or to conduct any planning or 
other activity related to such closure or relocation.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016350EN.01000101.xml

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 350/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 343, 19.9.2016

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 335, 12.9.2016

OJ C 326, 5.9.2016

OJ C 314, 29.8.2016

OJ C 305, 22.8.2016

OJ C 296, 16.8.2016

OJ C 287, 8.8.2016

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1034

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Mark W. Jones

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

State of Minnesota

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: November 23, 2016

Filed: December 1, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Mark Jones appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in 1

this action brought by the government to obtain a tax-liability judgment and an order

of sale on real property. After carefully reviewing the record, and the parties’

arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court’s decision was proper. See

Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of summary

judgment reviewed de novo); In re Harker, 357 F.3d 846, 848-49 (8th Cir. 2004) (tax

assessments made by IRS are presumed correct and taxpayer bears burden to prove

by preponderance of evidence that assessment is erroneous); States v. Bierbrauer, 936

F.2d 373, 374 (8th Cir. 1991) (26 U.S.C. § 7403 authorizes federal district court to

order sale of property in which delinquent taxpayer has interest in order to satisfy

taxpayer’s debt). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Franklin L.

Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BRIAN MCPHEARSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 292 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
# C_2016096EN.01000601.xml

| 11.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

10 March 2016

(2016/C 96/05)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0857 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,87 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4587 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,76728 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2361 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0941 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2926 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,037 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,01 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2921 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4585 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,1292 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4522 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4424 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4299 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6277 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5013 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 302,89 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,3640 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0787 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5670 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 168,19 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4438 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,581 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 76,4370 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,314 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,9720 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,1827 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,6645 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0857

JPY

Japanese yen

123,87

DKK

Danish krone

7,4587

GBP

Pound sterling

0,76728

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2361

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0941

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2926

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,037

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,01

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2921

RON

Romanian leu

4,4585

TRY

Turkish lira

3,1292

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4522

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4424

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4299

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6277

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5013

KRW

South Korean won

1 302,89

ZAR

South African rand

16,3640

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0787

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5670

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 168,19

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4438

PHP

Philippine peso

50,581

RUB

Russian rouble

76,4370

THB

Thai baht

38,314

BRL

Brazilian real

3,9720

MXN

Mexican peso

19,1827

INR

Indian rupee

72,6645

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2016295EN.01000201.xml

| 13.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 August 2016

(2016/C 295/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1158 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,77 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4398 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86050 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4299 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0888 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,1635 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,018 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,02 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2658 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4590 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2998 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4535 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4478 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6551 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5497 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5023 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 234,19 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,0700 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4173 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4916 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 623,67 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4915 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,963 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,2194 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,815 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5287 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,3881 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,6069 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1158

JPY

Japanese yen

113,77

DKK

Danish krone

7,4398

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86050

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4299

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0888

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,1635

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,018

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,02

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2658

RON

Romanian leu

4,4590

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2998

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4535

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4478

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6551

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5497

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5023

KRW

South Korean won

1 234,19

ZAR

South African rand

15,0700

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4173

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4916

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 623,67

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4915

PHP

Philippine peso

51,963

RUB

Russian rouble

72,2194

THB

Thai baht

38,815

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5287

MXN

Mexican peso

20,3881

INR

Indian rupee

74,6069

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0751 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-051-AD

Helicopter Model: AgustaWestlane S.p.A. Model AB139 qand AW139 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 93 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to detect a crack in a blade to prevent failure of a 

blade and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $35,680 to replace a blade

Labor per Helicopter

(1 work-hour x $85/workhour for the inspection)

$85

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $35,680

Total US Fleet Cost $36,360 if one blade is replaced

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Sharon Miles
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Capella Education
Company;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; andc)
    
    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 controls over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    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/ Lois M. MartinLois M. MartinSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0016

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

DONALD GARZA, 

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until January 13, 2023, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 7 2022

12/07/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0016
s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 6, 2015

No. 04-15-00273-CV

Buddy STEEL and Jaret Casteel,

Appellants

v.

Amelia STAYTON,

Appellee

From the County Court, Real County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-0138CC

Honorable Garry A. Merritt, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In this appeal, the reporter’s record was due on June 29, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1. 

On July 2, 2015, court reporter Lisa C. Greenwalt filed a notification of late reporter’s record. It 

states the reporter is waiting on payment for the record. 

We ORDER Appellant to provide written proof to this court within TEN DAYS of the 

date of this order that (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay 

the reporter’s fee, or (2) Appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. If 

Appellant fails to respond within the time provided, Appellant must file a brief with this court 

within THIRTY DAYS after the clerk’s record is filed, and the court will only “consider and 

decide those issues or points [raised in Appellant’s brief] that do not require a reporter’s record 

for a decision.” See id. R. 37.3(c).

If Appellant timely complies with this order, the reporter’s record will be due not later 

than THIRTY DAYS from the date Appellant files written proof showing compliance with this 

order. See id. R. 35.3(c) (limiting an extension of time to file the record in a regular appeal to 

thirty days). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David L. Osborn, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hudson's Grill International, Inc.;

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.	I am 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 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 as
of the end of the periods presented in this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)	presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

|Date:	August 29, 2008 | /s/David L. Osborn

[Signature]

President
|--------------------- | ------------------------------------------

f\sec\o01.080630