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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4360 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4360

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs blind rehabilitation 
center in Long Beach, California, as the ``Major Charles Robert Soltes, 
Jr., O.D. Department of Veterans Affairs Blind Rehabilitation Center''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS BLIND REHABILITATION 
              CENTER, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs blind rehabilitation center in 
Long Beach, California, shall after the date of the enactment of this 
Act be known and designated as the ``Major Charles Robert Soltes, Jr., 
O.D. Department of Veterans Affairs Blind Rehabilitation Center''. Any 
reference to such blind rehabilitation center in any law, regulation, 
map, document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be 
considered to be a reference to the ``Major Charles Robert Soltes, Jr., 
O.D. Department of Veterans Affairs Blind Rehabilitation Center''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 25, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4360

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs blind rehabilitation 
center in Long Beach, California, as the ``Major Charles Robert Soltes, 
Jr., O.D. Department of Veterans Affairs Blind Rehabilitation Center''.
```
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-0721 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2010-NM-217-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68-3      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 1 of 6

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68-3      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 2 of 6

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68-3      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 3 of 6

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68-3      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 4 of 6

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68-3      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 5 of 6

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 68-3      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 6 of 6
# Den Europæiske Unions C 436/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0871 |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | C 436 |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Meddelelser og oplysninger | 58. årgang24. december 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0871

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

C 436

Dansk udgave

Meddelelser og oplysninger

58. årgang24. december 2015

---

| Informationsnummer | Indhold | Side |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Oplysninger |
| | OPLYSNINGER FRA DEN EUROPÆISKE UNIONS INSTITUTIONER, ORGANER, KONTORER OG AGENTURER |
| | Europa-ParlamentetRådet |
| 2015/C 436/01 | Erklæring fra Europa-Parlamentet og Rådet vedrørende Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 af 16. december 2015 om ændring af protokol nr. 3 vedrørende statutten for Den Europæiske Unions Domstol | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Indhold

Side

IV   Oplysninger

OPLYSNINGER FRA DEN EUROPÆISKE UNIONS INSTITUTIONER, ORGANER, KONTORER OG AGENTURER

Europa-ParlamentetRådet

2015/C 436/01

Erklæring fra Europa-Parlamentet og Rådet vedrørende Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 af 16. december 2015 om ændring af protokol nr. 3 vedrørende statutten for Den Europæiske Unions Domstol

1

---

| DA | |
| --- | --- |

DA

---

IV Oplysninger

OPLYSNINGER FRA DEN EUROPÆISKE UNIONS INSTITUTIONER, ORGANER, KONTORER OG AGENTURER

Europa-Parlamentet Rådet

| 24.12.2015 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | C 436/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2015

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

C 436/1

---

Erklæring fra Europa-Parlamentet og Rådet vedrørende Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 af 16. december 2015 om ændring af protokol nr. 3 vedrørende statutten for Den Europæiske Unions Domstol (1)

(2015/C 436/01)

Når reformprocessen er tilendebragt, vil Retten bestå af to dommere pr. medlemsstat. For at opnå ligestilling mellem kvinder og mænd, hvilket i henhold til artikel 3 i TEU er et mål for Den Europæiske Union, bør medlemsstaternes regeringer i forbindelse med proceduren for udnævnelse af kandidater til dommere ved Retten i henhold til artikel 254 i TEUF i videst muligt omfang sikre, at mænd og kvinder er ligeligt repræsenteret.

---

(1)  EUT L 341 af 24.12.2015, s. 14.

---
#### James H. Baker v. Amasa Dubois.

*Replevin: Jurisdiction: Affidavit*Tlie jurisdiction to issue the writ of re-plevin in the circuit court does not depend under our statutes upon the affidavit; blit the statute contemplates the issuing of the writ before any affidavit is made, but provides that it ‘shall not be executed till the affidavit is made and annexed to it.

*Replevin: Affidavit: Olerical defects: Waiver: Pleading to the merits.*Mere clerical defects in an affidavit annexed to a writ of replevin are waived by pleading to the merits.

*Submitted on briefs April 27.*

*Decided April 30.*

Error to Ingham Circuit.

*Osborn & Pinckney,*for plaintiff in error.

*Luden Heed,*for defendant in error.

Pbb Cueiast :

Baker, being sued by Dubois in replevin, pleaded to the merits, and a jury being sworn to try the issue, he moyed for a non-suit and that the cause be dismissed, and assigned for cause, that the court had no jurisdiction, for the reason that the affidavit “upon which,” in the language of the motion, “the writ was issued was an insufficient affidavit, and gaye no authority whatever to this court to issue the writ; that said affidavit was not in accordance with the requirements of the statute.” The court held that the defendant’s pleading the general issue to the declaration was a waiver of the informality of the affidavit, and overruled the motion. This ruling is the only thing objected to, and we think the court decided correctly. The jurisdiction to issue the writ of replevin in the circuit court does not depend upon the affidavit. The statute contemplates the issuing of the writ before any affidavit is made, but provides that it shall not be *executed*until the plaintiff in the action, or some other person having a knowledge of the facts, shall *93make *and annex to the writ*an affidavit stating that the-plaintiff in such action is then lawfully entitled to the possession of the property *described in the*writ; that the same has not been taken for any tax, assessment or fine, levied by virtue of any law of this state, nor seized under any execution or attachment against the goods and chattels of such *plaintiff*liable to execution, and that such goods and chattels are unlawfully detained by the defendant in such writ.— § *6732, G. L.*

The affidavit here was made by the plaintiff’s attorney, and he stated that he made it in behalf of the plaintiff. But in that portion of it intended to show that the property was liable to be seized in replevin it set forth “that the' same” had “not been taken for any tax,” etc., “nor seized under execution *in*attachment against tho goods and chattels of this *deponent*liable to execution,” etc. The word “in” was used after the word “execution” instead of “or;”, and the words “this deponent” were used instead of words describing the plaintiff, as should have been done, inasmuch as the deponent was not the plaintiff. But these defects were merely clerical, and were undoubtedly waived, as suggested by the court.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 32.2



STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF PTEK HOLDINGS, INC.

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with Amendment No. 1 to the the Quarterly Report of PTEK Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned William E. Franklin, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ William E. FranklinWilliam E. Franklin Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer PTEK Holdings, Inc. January 27, 2004




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to PTEK Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by PTEK Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
Case: 1:18-cv-00302-SJD-KLL Doc #: 37-1 Filed: 08/07/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 89

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DISVISION
Brendon Schoonover, : Case No. 1:18 cv 00302
Plaintiff, © Judge Susan J. Diott

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz
VS.

Sheriff Rogers, et al.
Defendants.
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Depose Third-Party
Witness Kelly Mason (ECF No. 37). For the reasons stated in the Motion, and for good cause
shown, Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Depose Third-Party Witness Kelly Mason is hereby
GRANTED. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B), the Court grants Defendants leave to
depose Mr. Mason at Allen Correctional Institution on August 20, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_ eee FQur, Kecthout.

Date KAREN L. LITKOVITZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE see
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 2:17-CR-164(20)

Plaintiff, CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

v.

ERASMO HUMBERTO LIMA-MARTINEZ,
a/k/a, Tun Tun, Azul, and Chino,

Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the request of Tim Merkle, appointed counsel for
Defendant Erasmo Humberto Lima-Martinez, for appointment of Brian Riggs as co-counsel. See
18 U.S.C. § 3005 (providing for two attorneys in capital cases, one of which is “learned in the
law applicable to capital cases”). The Court has considered the request and finds both Messrs.
Merkle and Rigg are learned in the law applicable to capital cases. Mr. Riggs has “distinguished
prior experience in state death penalty trials, appeals, or post-conviction review that, in
combination with co-counsel, will assure high-quality representation.” Guide to Judicial
Policies and Procedure, Vol. 7, Ch. 6, Federal Death Penalty and Capital Habeas Corpus
Representations, at § 620.30(e). The Court therefore APPOINTS Mr. Riggs as co-counsel for
Defendant Erasmo Humberto Lima-Martinez.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

U-AT-JO18 LS
DATE EDMUND@,SARGUS, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Attachment A: November 29, 2006 letter from Carlos W. Lopez Freytes, Esq., Executive 

Director, PREQB, to Alan Stemberg, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 2 for 1997 Ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS I-SIP submittals and the actual Infrastructure SIP submittal.

Attachment B1 and B2: January 22, 2013 letter from Laura Velez Velez, Esq., Chairwoman, 

PREQB, to Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 2 for 2008 Ozone and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS I-SIP submittals and the actual Infrastructure SIP submittal.

Attachment C: January 31, 2013 letter from Laura Velez Velez, Esq., Chairwoman, PREQB, to 

Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 2 for 2008 Lead NAAQS I-SIP submittal 

and the actual Infrastructure SIP submittal.

Attachment D: April 16, 2015 letter from Weldin F. Ortiz Franco, Chairman, PREQB, to 

Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 2 to supplement the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

I-SIP submittal and actual documents to supplement Infrastructure SIP submittals.

Attachment E1: February 1, 2016 letter from Weldin F. Ortiz Franco, Chairman, PREQB, to 

Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 2 to supplement the Ozone, Lead and 

PM2.5 NAAQS I-SIP submittals.

Attachments E1A and E1B: Resolution Numbers 12-22-12 for Ozone and PM2.5 I-SIPs and 

12-22-13 for Lead I-SIP which shows all three SIPs were adopted on December 12, 2012.

Attachment E1C: PR Act No. 416 of September 22, 2004, as amended. Rule was adopted on 

September 22, 2004. This for incorporation into the SIP.

Attachment E1D: Ethics Law of 2012, Section 5, for incorporation into the SIP. EPA is 

proposing to approve these submissions as meeting CAA obligations under section 128, as well 

as 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 Ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 lead, and 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS.

Attachment E1E and E1F: Examiner Reports for the 2008 Lead and Ozone and 2006 PM2.5 

NAAQS I-SIP submittals.

Attachment F: 

1. Public hearing for 2008 Ozone and and 2006 PM2.5 I-SIPs was published and announced 

in El Vocero and Primer Ocero newspapers on November 18, 2011; public hearing was 

held on December 19, 2011.

2. Public hearing for 2008 Lead I-SIP was published and announced in El Vocero and 

Puerto Rico Daily Sun newspapers on September 8, 2011; public hearing was held on 

October 10, 2011.

Attachment G: EPA’s TSD technical evaluation for the Infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Lead, 

1997 and 2008 Ozone, 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Attachment H1: Approval Letter for 2015 Five Year Assessment and Annual Monitoring 

Network Review Plan

Attachment H2: 2015 Five Year Assessment and Annual Monitoring Network Review Plan
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Everick L. Monk, Appellant

No. 06-23-00019-CV v.

Officer Massey, et al., Appellees

Appeal from the 202nd District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

22C0548-202). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Rambin, Chief Justice 

Stevens and Justice van Cleef participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Everick L. Monk, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JUNE 6, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000881788
<NAME>                        ICON Cash Flow Partners, L.P., Series E


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          1,780,785
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  55,506,017
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,310,628
<INVENTORY>                                       510,807
<CURRENT-ASSETS> *                                      0
<PP&E>                                         20,707,984
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,703,578
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 75,235,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES> **                                0
<BONDS>                                        55,311,401
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,982,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   75,235,533
<SALES>                                         4,808,306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                4,927,655
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,605,134
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  100,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,224,685
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      997,836
<EPS-BASIC>                                        1.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        1.63
<FN>
*    The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.

**   The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.
</FN>




</TABLE>
#### Bird *v.*Swearingen.

Opinion delivered April 15, 1929.

*E. D. Chastain,*for appellant.

*C. M. Wofford,*for appellee.

McHaNey, J.

By this appeal we are called upon to construe the second paragraph of the will of Samuel Kimbler, late of Crawford County, Arkansas, which is as follows:

> “2. I bequeath all my property, personal and real, to my wife, Elizabeth, for her support and maintenance, during her life, and at her death I desire that my sons, Andrew and William, shall have all my real estate jointly, share and share, during their natural lives, and at their deaths to descend absolutely to their heirs. I make this bequest to my sons, Andrew and William, for the reason that they have remained with me and assisted me in purchasing my real estate and keeping it in repair. ’ ’

The testator’s wife, Elizabeth, predeceased him, which caused the legacy in her behalf, consisting of a life estate in his property, to lapse. At the death of the testator, October 12,1885, the will was probated, and the two sons, Andrew and William, entered into possession of the real estate owned by the testator, and held same under claim of ownership of the fee until their *403deaths — that of William occurring on October 21, 1900, and that of Andrew on May 11, 1925.

The question for our determination is, did the will, by paragraph 2 thereof above quoted, convey to Andrew and William a fee simple title to the land, or only a life estate? If a fee simple title was conveyed, then the ap-pellee is rightfully in possession of the small portion of said land in controversy, and the complaint, to which a demurrer was interposed and sustained, did not state a cause of action.

We think the court correctly held that the fee was conveyed, and that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. This case is ruled by the recent case of *Shields*v. *Shields, ante,*p. 167, and the eases therein cited.

We find no error, and the judgment is affirmed.