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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 742 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 742

  Designating September 2020 as ``National Childhood Cancer Awareness 
                                Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 2020

Mr. Manchin (for himself, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Scott 
of South Carolina, and Mr. Graham) submitted the following resolution; 
                   which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Designating September 2020 as ``National Childhood Cancer Awareness 
                                Month''.

Whereas each year more than 15,700 children in the United States, and more than 
        300,000 children under the age of 19 globally, are diagnosed with 
        cancer;
Whereas every year more than 1,700 children in the United States, and 328,000 
        children under the age of 19 globally, lose their lives to cancer;
Whereas childhood cancer is the leading cause of death from disease and the 
        second overall leading cause of death for children in the United States;
Whereas the 5-year survival rate for children with cancer has increased from 58 
        percent in the mid-1970s to 84 percent in 2020, representing significant 
        improvement from previous decades;
Whereas \2/3\ of children who survive cancer will develop at least 1 chronic 
        health condition, and \1/4\ of all survivors will face a late-effect 
        from treatment that could be considered severe or life-threatening;
Whereas cancer patients face a higher risk of contracting the Coronavirus 
        Disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to a weakened immune system; and
Whereas cancer occurs regularly and randomly and spares no racial or ethnic 
        group, socioeconomic class, or geographic region: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates September 2020 as ``National Childhood 
        Cancer Awareness Month'';
            (2) requests that the Federal Government, States, 
        localities, and nonprofit organizations observe the month with 
        appropriate programs and activities, with the goal of 
        increasing public knowledge of the risks of cancer;
            (3) encourages survivors of childhood cancer to continue to 
        receive ongoing monitoring and physical and psychosocial care 
        throughout their adult lives;
            (4) recognizes the human toll of cancer and pledges to make 
        the prevention and cure of cancer a public health priority; and
            (5) reminds the people of the United States that these 
        children are the definition of bravery, and commends and honors 
        their courage.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31(a)


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                                18 U.S.C. Section 1350

               UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Arnie Geller, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this annual  report on  Amendment  No.1 to Form 10-K of RMS
TITANIC, Inc., the registrant;

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
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. I, along with the CFO, 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 annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;

5. I, along with the CFO, 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 data; 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 4, 2004



/s/ Arnie Geller
-----------------
Arnie Geller,
President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
       (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;
and(c)
    
    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
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affect the
registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date:  February 13, 2009
    /s/ Brendan J. McGillBrendan J. McGillSenior Vice-President and
Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-11324 

Conference Calendar

 

LARRY DEWAYNE YOUNG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BRENDA L. BAXLEY; D. BIERA,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:99-CV-199-R

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

June 14, 2000

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Dewayne Young, Texas inmate #579131, moves for leave

to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP). “To proceed on appeal [IFP],

a litigant must be economically eligible, and his appeal must not

be frivolous.” Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261

(5th Cir. 1986).

The district court did not err in its denial of Young’s

postjudgment motion seeking leave to amend his complaint. A

dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) does

not provide the procedural protection of opportunity to amend
No. 99-11324

-2-

before dismissal. See Graves v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 318 n.12

(5th 1993). 

To the extent that Young challenges the district court’s

dismissal for frivolousness, his notice of appeal is untimely as

to the district court’s judgment. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). 

Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction over the matter. See

Nelson v. Foti, 707 F.2d 170, 171-72 (5th Cir. 1983).

Leave to appeal IFP is DENIED. This appeal is frivolous and

therefore is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of

this appeal and the dismissal of the complaint as frivolous by

the district court each count as a strike for purposes of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88

(5th Cir. 1996). We caution Young that once he accumulates

three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or

appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility

unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

See § 1915(g).

IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### Turner *v.*Citizens’ Bank of Hickory Ridge.

Opinion delivered June 18, 1928.

*588*Cooley, Adams*& *Fuhr,*for appellant.

*Ogam <& Shaver*and *Hawthorne, Hcmthorne*& *Wheatley,*for appellee.

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). Counsel for the defendant Turner earnestly insist that the circuit court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss the complaint. Counsel for defendant contend that the answer of the defendant to the suit instituted against him in the circuit court of Craighead County was also a counterclaim, and that the court erred in dismissing the cause of action. Counsel contend that, although the matter set up in his counterclaim constituted a defense to plaintiff’s cause of action, it was also of a nature that entitled defendant to affirmative relief, and that the plaintiff could not affect the right of the defendant to a trial on his counterclaim by a dismissal of its complaint. They rely upon the principles decided in *Lay*v. *Collins,*74 Ark. 536, 86 S. W. 281, and *Church*v. *Jones,*167 Ark. 326, 268 S. *W.*7, and other cases of like import.

Conceding that counsel for the defendant is right as to the law on this 'branch of the case, still the court did not err in refusing to sustain his motion to dismiss the complaint. It appears from the record that the circuit court of Craighead County for the Jonesboro District dismissed the whole cause of action in that court, and this included what the defendant Turner called his counterclaim. If the court erred in dismissing the cause o’f action, the remedy of the defendant Turner was to appeal from the judgment. He could not allow a judgment to be entered dismissing’ the cause without prejudice, and then plead it in bar of a subsequent action. The judgment of the circuit court was that the cause of action should be dismissed without prejudice, and this was tantamount to holding that the plaintiff could take *589a nonsuit, and that he had the right to bring a subsequent suit on the same cause of action.

At most, it could only be said that the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the cause of action *in toto*was erroneous. In doing this the court did not regard the plea of the defendant Turner as a counterclaim. To be .such, it must amount to an independent cause of action which the defendant, if he had not been sued, might have enforced as plaintiff against the bank. The circuit court had jurisdiction to determine that the plea of the defendant Turner was not a counterclaim by allowing the cause of action to be dismissed; and, as above stated, if Turner thought the judgment was erroneous, he shouid have appealed from it. Not having done so, he is bound by the terms of the judgment, and cannot in a subsequent action have it reviewed. It follows that the judgment of the circuit court in refusing to dismiss the complaint of the plaintiff was correct.

The notes sued on were introduced in evidence, and the record shows that they were duly transferred to the plaintiff bank. Hence the court correctly rendered judgment in favor of the bank against Turner on the notes. Therefore the judgment will be affirmed.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2016-4226 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-095-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Modification 3.0 $ 255.00 $0 $ 255.00 940 $239,700.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $239,700

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
United States District Court 

Southern District of Ohio 

__________________

Related Case Memorandum 

Civil Cases 

TO: Judge Michael R. Barrett and Judge Timothy S. Black 

FROM: Emily Hiltz , Case Administrator 

DATE: 5/22/2018 

SUBJECT: Case Caption: SKAT v. The Sinclair Pension Plan, et al. 

CASE: Case Number: 1:18cv351 

DISTRICT JUDGE: Susan J. Dlott 

File Date: 5/22/2018 

 

This memorandum is to notify you that the civil cover sheet in the above referenced case reflects 

the following alleged related case: 

Related Case: 

Case Caption: SKAT v. The Bella Consultants Pension Plan, et al. 

Case Number: 1:18cv309 District Judge: Michael R. Barrett 

File Date: 5/4/2018 Magistrate Judge:

Related Case(s): 

Case Caption: SKAT v. The Mueller Investments Pension Plan, et al. 

Case Number: 1:18cv310 District Judge: Timothy S. Black 

File Date: 5/4/2018 Magistrate Judge:

Case: 1:18-cv-00310-MRB Doc #: 7 Filed: 06/08/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 31
Memo Re: Related Civil Cases 

Page 2 

Revised 7/19/2012 

Related Case(s): 

Case Caption: SKAT v. The Green Group Site Pension Plan, et al. 

Case Number: 1:18cv311 District Judge: Michael R. Barrett 

File Date: 5/4/2018 Magistrate Judge:

The District Judges having conferred, we respond to Case Administrator Emily Hiltz 

as follows:

Judges’ Response: 

 

 

We agree that the cases are not related and that the subject case should remain 

with the Judge to whom it is assigned. 

 

We agree that the cases are related and that the subject case should be

transferred to the docket of Judge

 

We agree that although the cases are related, the subject case nevertheless should 

remain with the Judge to whom it was assigned. 

 

We are unable to agree and will accept any decision made by the Chief Judge. 

 

I am the Judge on both/all of the listed cases and have determined that the cases 

are not related. 

 

I am the Judge on both/all of the listed cases and have determined that the cases 

are related and they shall both/all remain on my docket. 

 

Other Direction of Judge: _____________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________ 

United States District Judge 

United States District Judge 

United States District Judge 

Case: 1:18-cv-00310-MRB Doc #: 7 Filed: 06/08/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 32
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

KYLE DANIELSON,
Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-84
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF District Judge Walter H. Rice
SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Michael J. Newman (Doc. #13), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such
objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and
Recommendation.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #13) is ADOPTED in full;

2. The Commissioner’s non-disability determination is REVERSED;

3. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner under the Fourth Sentence
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings; and

4. This case is terminated on the docket of this Court.

Date: 59> 7-17 rm

WALTER HERBERT RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Kirby Developments LLC, 

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:18-cv-500

v. Judge Sarah D. Morrison

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

XPO Global Forwarding, Inc., et al., 

Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

Defendant XPO Global Forwarding, Inc. and XPO Logistics, Inc. (collectively “XPO”) 

presently move to strike and dismiss portions of Defendant Afif Baltagi’s Answer (ECF No. 92) 

to XPO’s cross-claim against him pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 128.) 

The motion is unopposed.

XPO filed its original Answer in this matter in July 2018. (ECF No. 27.) Nearly one year 

later, on June 17, 2019, XPO moved the Court for leave to amend its Answer to assert crossclaims against Defendant Afif Baltagi. (ECF No. 80.) That same day, Plaintiff Kirby 

Developments LLC also moved for leave to amend its Complaint. (ECF No. 81.) The Court’s 

July 11, 2019 Order granted both motions. (ECF No. 90.) That Order further provided that XPO 

“may file its cross-claim against Defendant Baltagi in its answer to the First Amended 

Complaint.” (ECF No. 90 at 2.)

Plaintiff Kirby’s First Amended Complaint was filed on July 11, 2019. (ECF No. 91.) 

Defendant Baltagi filed his Answer (ECF No. 92) to XPO’s Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s 

Original Complaint and Cross Claim (ECF No. 80-1) against him on July 12, 2019. However, 

XPO’s Amended Answer (ECF No. 80-1) was superseded by XPO’s subsequent Answer to 
2

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and Cross-Claim Against Afif Baltagi (ECF No. 109), thus 

rendering Baltagi’s July 12, 2019 Answer superfluous. Accordingly, XPO’s Motion to Strike 

Portions of Baltagi’s Answer and to Dismiss his Prayer for Relief (ECF No. 128) is MOOT. 

The Court’s holding means that Mr. Baltagi has not answered or responded to XPO’s 

governing cross-claims (ECF No. 109) against him. Accordingly, Mr. Baltagi may have until 

December 2, 2019 to file his Answer or other document responsive to XPO’s August 2, 2019 

Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and Cross-Claims against him (ECF No. 109).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sarah D. Morrison

SARAH D. MORRISON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
# Official Journal L 96/2017

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 96 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 607 April 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 96

English edition

Legislation

Volume 607 April 2017

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/626 of 31 March 2017 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acetamiprid, cyantraniliprole, cypermethrin, cyprodinil, difenoconazole, ethephon, fluopyram, flutriafol, fluxapyroxad, imazapic, imazapyr, lambda-cyhalothrin, mesotrione, profenofos, propiconazole, pyrimethanil, spirotetramat, tebuconazole, triazophos and trifloxystrobin in or on certain products (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/627 of 3 April 2017 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for fenpyroximate, triadimenol and triadimefon in or on certain products (
  1
  ) | 44 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/626 of 31 March 2017 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acetamiprid, cyantraniliprole, cypermethrin, cyprodinil, difenoconazole, ethephon, fluopyram, flutriafol, fluxapyroxad, imazapic, imazapyr, lambda-cyhalothrin, mesotrione, profenofos, propiconazole, pyrimethanil, spirotetramat, tebuconazole, triazophos and trifloxystrobin in or on certain products (
  1
  )

1

1

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/627 of 3 April 2017 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for fenpyroximate, triadimenol and triadimefon in or on certain products (
  1
  )

1

44

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

James D. Schneller, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 1316 C.D. 2016

:

Prothonotary of Montgomery :

County, individually, and in his :

official capacity, and his employees, :

in their individual and official :

capacities :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, Novemb er 8, 2017

, having considered appellant’s application

for reargument, the application is denied.