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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 46 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 46

Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on March 13, 
                                 2020.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2021

Mr. Gosar (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Massie, Mr. Roy, Mr. Norman, 
    Mr. Mast, and Mr. Weber of Texas) submitted the following joint 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on March 13, 
                                 2020.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, pursuant to section 202 
of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national 
emergency declared by the finding of the President on March 13, 2020, 
in Proclamation 9994 (85 Fed. Reg. 15337) is hereby terminated.
                                 <all>
```
IA 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 42 

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

that a new State may only be admitted into the Union upon a vote 

of two-thirds of each House of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2021 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK (for himself, Mrs. HINSON, Mr. MOORE of Alabama, Mr. 

RICE of South Carolina, and Mr. DUNCAN) 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 provide that a new State may only be admitted 

into the Union upon a vote of two-thirds of each House 

of Congress. 

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 

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

2 

•HJ 42 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘A new State may only be admitted into the Union 

5 upon a vote of two-thirds of each House of Congress.’’. 

Æ
#### Martin v. Pope.

5-966

290 S. W. 2d 849

Opinion delivered June 4, 1956.

*Paul K. Roberts,*for appellant.

*Martin*& *Haley,*for appellee.

Pee Curiam.

Appellees, Carl Pope and wife and Bradley Lumber Company, instituted this suit to quiet title to two adjacent 20-acre tracts of land. Appellants, Lummie Martin arid Obilee Thomas, intervened in the suit which culminated in-a decree -quieting appellees’ *523title and dismissing the intervention of appellants on the ground that they, had disposed of and. no longer claimed any interest in the lands in controversy and had. so testified at the trial.

At the outset, we are confronted with appellees ’ mo-' tion to dismiss the appeal supported by the affidavit of both appellants, which states: “That they are one and the same Obilee Thomas and Lnmmie Martin named in [the instant snit]; that they have never employed an attorney to represent them in said case and are not now represented by any attorney; that they sold the land in' question and are not now and never have since said sale claimed any interest in said land; that they have not authorized any person to file an appeal with the Arkansas Supreme Court in connection with said case and that they do not desire said Court to consider any appeal in connection with said case; that they have not been in contact with any attorney in connection with perfecting an appeal and the first knowledge affiants had that an appeal had been taken was accidentally acquired from outside sources.” The motion also sets forth the testimony of appellants at the trial to the effect that they had sold their interest in the lands in question.

“It is settled law that an attorney cannot compel his client to continue litigation, and that the client may dismiss or settle the cause of action without consulting his attorney. *Davies*v. *Patterson,*135 Ark. 22, 205 S. W. 118. Of course, in ordinary litigation such settlement would be subject to the contractual rights of the attorney in the proceeds of the settlement. *St. L., I. M.*& *S. R. Co.*v. *Blaylock,*117 Ark. 504, 175 S. W. 1170, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 563; *St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co.*v. *Kirtley*& *Gulley,*120 Ark. 389, 179 S. W. 648; *Davis*v. *Webber,*66 Ark. 190, 49 S. W. 822, 45 L. R. A. 196, 74 Am. St. Rep. 81.” *Purvis*v. *Walls,*184 Ark. 887, 44 S. W. 2d 353. A client’s action in settling or dismissing his claim or cause of action without consulting his. attorney may also entitle the latter to a lien for his fee under Ark. Stats., Sec. 25-301.

*524Since appellants liad the right to discontinue or settle any cause of action they had against appellees, the motion to dismiss is sustained, hut without prejudice to counsel’s right to pursue any right of action or lien he may have for his services.
Francisco PEREIRA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-2836

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION *v.*Henry W. LILES et ux

74-48

510 S.W. 2d 275

Opinion delivered June 10, 1974

*Thomas B. Keys*and *Billy Pease,*for appellant.

*Boyett & Morgan,*P.A., for appellees.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

The highway department, in appealing from a verdict and judgment fixing the landowners’ compensation in a condemnation case, makes two arguments for reversal.

First, the landowners’ attorney, in his opening statement to the jury, apparently made some reference to the fact that a prospective purchaser of the land might consider the noise and fumes emanating from the highway. The court overruled opposing counsel’s objection to the statement. We find no error, for a number of reasons: It is not clear from the record just what was said. There was no request that the jury be admonished not to consider the remark. The court instructed the jury, in AMI 101, that the opening statements of counsel were not evidence. The court also explained the measure of damages to the jury, in instructions which could not be construed to include the matters that may have been touched upon in the remark now complained of.

*716Secondly, the jury’s verdict for $2,501 was in the precise amount fixed by the landowners’ expert witness. That witness cited two comparable sales, one at $300 an acre and the other at $225 an acre. He used only the higher figure in arriving at his assessment of the damages. The appellant argues that the witness should have selected some intermediate point between the two figures in reaching his conclusion. No doubt that argument was made to the jury, but we certainly cannot say that an opinion based upon one comparable sale falls short of being substantial evidence. *Ark. State Highway Commn.*v. *Alvin Samuel Gin Co.,*256 Ark. 669, 510 S.W. 2d 65 (1974).

Affirmed.
**MEMORANDUM**

Subject: Summary

of Meeting with Aluminum Association Representatives on December 21 , 2011 From: Mark Bahner , RTI, International To: Rochelle Bo yd, EPA/OAQPS **I. Purpose**  The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Aluminum Association Repr esentatives’ comments on testing of uncontrolled furnaces. The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) is considering a requirement that capture requirements similar to those that current ly exist for controlled furnaces ( which must have hood ing that meets Am erican Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists [ ACGIH ] guidelines ) appl y to compliance testing of uncontrolled furnaces. **II .**  **P lace and Date**  The teleconference meeting was held between the EPA and aluminum industry respresentatives between 1 0:00 AM and approximately 11:30 AM on December 21, 2011. **III .**  **Attendees** Name Affiliation Rochelle Bo yd * EPA/Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Chuck Johnnson * Aluminum Association Mike Palazzolo * Alcoa Lee Califf

* Alcoa Denis Fitz g ibbons* Novelis Jason Perdion * Baker Hostetler Mike Laney * RTI , International Mark Bahner * RTI , International Scott Throwe * EPA/Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assessment (OECA) Mark Kataoka* EPA/Office of General Counsel (OGC) Jeff Gahris * EPA/Region 5 * Attendance via teleconference.**IV .**  **Meeting Summary**

Industry representatives presented information on the ty pes of furnaces that are uncontrolled, such as side well, reverberatory round top, reverberatory

box , reverberatory

spout, induct ion, and holding furnaces. The typical charging capture techniques, charging practices, furnace feeds, and furnace dwell times (amount of time from initial charge to tapping) were described for each furnace. The EPA concluded the meeting b y requesting further information, such as: a) the types of furnaces for which the industry thought it would not be possible to provide capture during performance testing similar to the capture achieved by controlled furnaces, b) the t ype of monitoring currently in place an d that could be developed for uncontrolled furnaces, and c) the type of work standards that are currentl y in place or could be developed for these uncontrolled furnaces.
Mark Stuart BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3000

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

EDWARD McLAIN,
Plaintiff, : Case No, 3:18cv00257

vs. : District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ENTRY

This case is before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Motion For An Award Of
Attorney’s Fees Under The Equal Access To Justice Act (EAJA). (Doc. #13). The parties
have stipulated to an award of attorney fees to Plaintiff under the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412,
in the amount of $4,600.00. The parties have further agreed this award will settle any and
all claims for fees, costs, and expenses that Plaintiff may have under the EAJA in the
present case.

Under the parties’ agreement, any fees paid belong to Plaintiff, and not his attorney,
and can be offset to satisfy pre-existing debt that he owes the United States under Astrue v.
Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If counsel for the parties can verify that Plaintiff owes no pre-
existing debt subject to offset, Defendant shall direct that this EAJA award be made payable

to Plaintiff's attorney pursuant to an assignment duly signed by Plaintiff and counsel.


Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that:

1,

The Parties’ Joint Motion For An Award Of Attorney’s Fees Under The Equal
Access To Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (Doc. #13) is GRANTED, and the
Commissioner shall pay Plaintiff's attorney fees, costs, and expenses in the
total amount of $4,600,00;

Counsel for the parties shall verify, within thirty days of this Decision and
Order, whether or not Plaintiff owes a pre-existing debt to the United States

that is subject to offset. If no such pre-existing debt exists, the Commissioner
shall direct that this EAJA award is made payable to Plaintiff's attorney; and

The case remains terminated on the docket of this Court.
Qi wa.

Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with
this annual report on Form 10K, that:

     -    the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     -    the information contained in the report fairly presents, on all
          material respects, the Company's financial condition and results of
          operations.


/s/ Kevin A. Schmidt
---------------------------------------------
Kevin A. Schmidt, Principal Financial Officer

Dated: March 28, 2005
Theron SPEIGHTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3955

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Speights v. State*, 202 So. 3d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (table decision); *McDonald v. State*, 133 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ; *Doby v. State*, 25 So. 3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ; *Hughes v. State*, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ; *Speights v. State*, 11 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (table decision); *Valdez-Garcia v. State*, 965 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ; *Henry v. State*, 933 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ; *Steward v. State*, 931 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ; *Shortridge v. State*, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ; *Speights v. State*, 875 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (table decision); *Brown v. State*, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ; *Harris v. State*, 777 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ; *Harris v. State*, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

KHOUZAM, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

RICO ISAIH HAIRSTON, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 2:18-cv-952 

 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Deavers 

MR. DAILY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER 

On January 14, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

(See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 11). This Court previously adopted the Magistrate 

Judge’s November 5, 2018 Report and Recommendation denying Plaintiff leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and ordering Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within 30 days. Plaintiff was advised 

that the failure to pay the fee would result in dismissal of his case. More than 30 days have 

passed since this Court issued its Order and Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee. 

The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation and 

of the consequences of their failure to do so. There has nevertheless been no objection to the 

Report and Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED and 

AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s claims are hereby dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

 Further, any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore 

Plaintiff’s request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis would be denied. 
2 

The Clerk shall remove Document 11 from the Court’s pending motions list and close 

this case. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

 GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
<PAGE>   1

              REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



Michael Anthony Jewelers, Inc.
New York, New York



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting a part of the Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed June 12,
1997 of our report dated March 31, 2000, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Michael Anthony Jewelers, Inc. appearing in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 29, 2000.





                                                        BDO Seidman, LLP


New York, New York
March 31, 2000
**Exhibit 23.2**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-121940, 333-102765, 333-102764 and 333-85194) of Carmike Cinemas, Inc. of our report dated August 3, 2006, except for the effects of the discontinued operations as described in Note 11 to thefinancial statements to which the date is March 17, 2008 relating to the consolidated statements of operations and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2005, which appears in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 17, 2008
Joseph J. DEMTY, Appellant, v. PENTIUM CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellee.

Nos. 3D17-1419 3D17-1098

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Current as of December 2017

Learn more at www.nationalguard.mil

Point of Contact: NGB Public Affairs at (703) 601-6767

Highlights

CIP-MAA Teams: 

• Assess and protect Defense

Critical Infrastructure utilizing

Defense Critical Infrastructure

Program (DCIP) benchmarks

and standards

• Conduct all-hazard risk

assessments on critical DIB

assets deemed vital to national

security and homeland

defense missions

• Consist of eight National

Guard personnel (six Army and

two Air) trained in DCIP risk

assessment methodology

DHS VATs:

• Conduct site assistance visits

on DHS identified Critical

Infrastructure and Key

Resource assets

• The NGB provides program

management oversight for

19 DHS teams that conduct

more than 200

assessments per

calendar year

• Authorities: Homeland Security

Presidential Directive 7 and

National Infrastructure

Protection Plan

Providing for our national defense

DOD Mission: The National Guard Bureau (NGB) currently fields and provides 

program management oversight for three CIP-MAA teams. Each eight-person 

team 

is comprised of six Army National Guard members and two Air National Guard 

members. Each CIP-MAA team conducts all-hazards risk assessments on critical 

Defense Industrial Base (DIB) assets for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense (OASD). Conducting risk assessments on critical DIB assets is a key 

component to OASD’s overall responsibility set forth in Department of Defense 

Directive 3020.40, DoD Policy and Responsibilities for Critical Infrastructure. The 

Chief of the National Guard Bureau is tasked with maintaining a Defense Critical 

Infrastructure Program (DCIP) office of primary responsibility and with providing 

strategic program management oversight for DIB operations. The NGB works in 

unison with the Defense Contract Management Agency to schedule and conduct 

risk assessments on behalf of OASD.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Mission: In addition to the CIPMAA teams, the NGB also fields 19 DHS Vulnerability Assessment Teams 

(VATs) that conduct three-day assessments of prioritized critical infrastructure 

and key resource assets. Teams are situated in thirteen states and provide 

coverage for all ten Federal Emergency Management Agency regions. 

Personnel utilize a vulnerability assessment methodology that fully covers 

antiterrorism/force protection (AT/FP) benchmarks and standards, while fully 

taking into account both the mission and the facility.

Critical Infrastructure Protection 

Mission Assurance 

Assessments (CIP-MAA)
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 19 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 19

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
repeal the twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2021

  Mr. Johnson of South Dakota (for himself, Mr. Pfluger, Mr. Rice of 
  South Carolina, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Fallon, and Mr. Baird) 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 
repeal the twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the 
                             United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The twenty-third article of amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
    ``Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article 
by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered January 15, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00434-CR

ARTURO ARREOLA GAMIZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. M14-18190-M

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s January 14, 2020 first motion for extension of time to file 

its tendered brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief filed as of the date of this 

order. 

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/RULE
          15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED


I, Peter Gyenes, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Ascential Software
       Corporation;

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.     [Intentionally omitted since the information to which this paragraph
       relates is not included in this annual report on Form 10-K/A];

4.     [Intentionally omitted since the information to which this paragraph
       relates is not included in this annual report on Form 10-K/A]; and

5.     [Intentionally omitted since the information to which this paragraph
       relates is not included in this annual report on Form 10-K/A].


Date:  March 16, 2004                   /s/  Peter Gyenes
                                        -------------------------------

                                        Peter Gyenes
                                        Chief Executive Officer and
                                        Chairman of the Board of Directors
                                        (Principal Executive Officer)