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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1002 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1002

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 19, 2021

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Controlled Substances Act to authorize the debarment of 
              certain registrants, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Debarment Enforcement of Bad Actor 
Registrants Act of 2021'' or the ``DEBAR Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. DEBARMENT OF CERTAIN REGISTRANTS.

    Section 304 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 824) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) The Attorney General may issue an order to prohibit, 
conditionally or unconditionally, and permanently or for such period as 
the Attorney General may determine, any person from being registered 
under this title to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled 
substance or a list I chemical, if the Attorney General finds that--
            ``(1) such person meets or has met any of the conditions 
        for suspension or revocation of registration under subsection 
        (a); and
            ``(2) such person has a history of prior suspensions or 
        revocations of registration.''.

SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that 
such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 15, 2021.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**I, Phillip J. Smith, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A of Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 30, 2007/s/ Phillip J. Smith
Randolph ROSS III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5017

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 2018 Rehearing Denied March 20, 2018

Randolph Ross III, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Roberts, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Eric D. SAUERS, Appellant, v. Donald H. SAUERS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of William F. Sauers, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2341

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 2, 2018

Mary R. Hawk of Porges Hamlin, Knowles & Hawk, P.A., Bradenton, for Appellant

Douglas R. Bald of Fergeson Skipper, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Julius T. SLEDGE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-3010

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 26, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 1, 2018

Julius T. Sledge, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition seeking belated appeal is denied on the merits.

Wetherell, Makar, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
EX PARTE Edward FEARS

CR-16-0336

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Ct. of Civ. App.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 103 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 103

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
 relating to ``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and 
                    Exercising Shareholder Rights''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 15, 2022

  Mr. Barr (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Murphy of North 
Carolina, Mr. Steil, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Finstad) submitted the following 
joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                                 Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
 relating to ``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and 
                    Exercising Shareholder Rights''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to ``Prudence and 
Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder 
Rights'' (87 Fed. Reg. 73822 (December 1, 2022)), and such rule shall 
have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
Justin BELZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 2D17-3141

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 24, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EX PARTE Henry MARSHALL II

CR-15-1500

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 10.33

                                                  THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK

TO:                                               Chaseside, Bournemouth BH7 7DB
THE SOCIETY AND CORPORATION OF                    Telex: 8954681 CMB G
LLOYD'S OF LONDON, c/o THE LLOYD'S                Cables:  Chamanbank London EC2
CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP UNIT, ONE                    Swift Address:  CHASGB2L
LIME STREET, LONDON                               Fax Group 3:  01202 342349
EC3M 7HA                                          Telephone:  01202 343941/7

                                                        :  0171-962-3931
                                                  Date  :  22 Nov 1996

Dear Sirs,                                         Re Our Ref  :  4674122

WE ARE PLEASE TO INFORM YOU THAT BY ORDER OF PXRE REINSURANCE COMPANY FOR THE
ACCOUNT OF PXRE LIMITED WE, THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, HAVE OPENED OUR CLEAN
IRREVOCABLE CREDIT NO 4674122/P-362390 DATED 22 NOVEMBER 1996 IN YOUR FAVOR FOR
A SUM NOT TO EXCEED THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF USD 15,355,000.00 EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY AND EXPIRING AT OUR OFFICE WITH THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON DECEMBER
31, 2001.

THIS CREDIT IS TO BE AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED FOR A FUTURE YEARS WITHOUT WRITTEN
AMENDMENT, ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY OF EVERY FUTURE YEAR FROM THE
COMMENCEMENT DATE SO THAT IT IS ALWAYS VALID FOR A MINIMUM PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS
UNLESS, AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE 31ST OF DECEMBER OF THE FINAL YEAR OF
THE CURRENT VALIDITY PERIOD, NOTICE IS GIVEN IN WRITING, SENT BY REGISTERED MAIL
AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS, THAT THIS LETTER OF CREDIT WILL NOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE
CURRENT EXPIRY DATE.

FUNDS UNDER THIS LETTER OF CREDIT ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU AGAINST YOUR SIGHT
DRAFT(S) DRAWN ON US MENTIONING, THEREON CREDIT NO. 4674122/P-362390.

THIS CREDIT IS SUBJECT TO THE UNIFORM CUSTOMS AND PRACTICE FOR DOCUMENTARY
CREDITS (1993 REVISION) INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PUBLICATION NO. 500.

THIS LETTER OF CREDIT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ENGLISH LAW AND WE HEREBY IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH
COURT OF JUSTICE IN ENGLAND.

YOUR FAITHFULLY,

AUTHORISED SIGNATURE
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK
LONDON BRANCH

<PAGE>
Order entered December 4, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 01747
- CV CHELSEA L. DAVIS, Appellant
V. MCKOOL SMITH P.C., Appellee On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No. DC
- 13
- 14215 

### O RDER
W e DENY appellant’s November 27, 2014 “emergency motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration en banc” to the extent appellant seeks an extension until September 30, 2015

. Any motion for reconsideration e n banc shall be filed no later than January 5, 2015. No further extension motions will be entertained.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      234,832
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               9,321,832
<ALLOWANCES>                                83,182
<INVENTORY>                                 517,586
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,334,952
<PP&E>                                      74,298,476
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,098,373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,535,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,490,681
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    18,527
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,045,170
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,535,055
<SALES>                                     39,252,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,252,385
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            36,942,936
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            3,474
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1,721,570
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             584,405
<INCOME-TAX>                                222,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         362,405
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                362,405
<EPS-BASIC>                               0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.20

</TABLE>
COASTAL CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. WIND CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1249

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2017

Upon consideration, petitioner's motion to strike respondent's position statement on the issues of jurisdiction and consolidated is hereby denied.

This Court's consideration regarding consolidation of this petition and the petition in case no. 3D17-1248 is moot based upon the dismissal of case no. 3D17-1248.

Following review of the petition for writ of common law certiorari, and the response and reply thereto, it is ordered that said petition is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner has failed to establish irreparable harm.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and LUCK, JJ., concur.
#### Bailey *v.*Runyan.

Opinion delivered May 12, 1930.

*757
      *McConnell é Jackson,*for appellant.

*Feazel é Steel,*for appellee.

Hart, C. J.

(After stating the facts). It is first sought to reverse the judgment on the ground that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to try the case. This court has held that an infant’s contract for the purchase of an automobile is void and unenforceable, but that relief may be had at-law as well as in equity. *Commercial Credit Co.*v. *Blanks Motor Co.,*174 Ark. 274, 294 S. W. 999.

In the second place, the plaintiff consented to the circuit court trying the case by not moving to retrans-fer it to the chancery court. *Gilbert*v. *Shaver,*91 Ark. 231, 120 S. W. 833.

*758The circuit court recognized that the contract of a minor for the purchase of an automobile was void and unenforceable, and so instructed the jury. The right of the defendant to a verdict was predicated upon a finding by the jury that the contract of purchase and sale of the automobile was made by the defendant with the mother of Chester Bailey. The jury was expressly instructed that, if it should find that the contract of sale for the ear was made by the defendant with Chester Bailey, it should find for the plaintiff. The evidence in behalf of the defendant warranted the jury in finding that the contract was made by Runyan with the mother of Chester Bailey, and not with him. Hence the evidence was legally sufficient to support the verdict.

It is next insisted that the judgment should be reversed because the court erred in not allowing- Mrs. Sallie Young, the sister and guardian of Chester Bailey, to testify that the money with which he paid for the automobile carne from their father’s estate. The court held that this evidence was immaterial. We think the court was right in its ruling for two reasons. In the first place, according to the testimony of Mrs. Young-, her mother had received a part of the money left by their father, and it may he that the money with which she furnished her son to purchase the automobile was her part of the estate. In any event, she was liable to her son for any misappropriation of the funds belonging to her husband’s estate by herself. It was not attempted to show that Runyan knew that the money used in paying for the automobile did not belong to Mrs. Bailey. According to his testimony, he made the contract with Mrs. Bailey, and his agent testified that Mrs. Bailey told him when she bought the car from him that she would send her son with the money to pay the balance of the purchase price the next morning. The right of the defendant to a verdict was predicated solely upon a finding- by the jury that Runyan had sold the automobile to Mrs. Bailey, and not to her minor son. In this view *759of the matter, the court correctly held that it is immaterial where Mrs. Bailey got the money with which she paid for the automobile.

We find no prejudicial error in the record, and the judgment will he affirmed.
3/16/2011 Page 1 of 8



### POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT This report based on Post-Focus Draft Revi sion 1 of the Initial Review Engineering Report dated 3/15/11. Chemical ID: P-10-0571 Reviewer: Flessner/BC

Results Table: Dose, Concentration, and Days Exceeded Results Summary

Exposure Scenario 1 Water Landfill Stack Air Fugitive Air Drinking Water Fish Ingestion ADR LADD ADR LADD 7Q10 4 CC = 47 PDM Days Exceede d LADD ADR LADD ADR LADD

Release activity(ies) 2 ; exposure calculation(s) 3 mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day μg/l # Days mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day

USE: max acute eco USE: PDM1 PROC: Max LADD

1 Exposure scenario titles consist of release activity followed by exposure calculation abbreviation. 2 Release activities are from engineering report's Manufact uring (Mfg), Processing (Proc) and Use release activity labels. Multiple release activities are combined in one exposu re scenario if their releases occur at same location. 3 Exposure calculations are Acute Dose Rate (ADR), Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD), and Probabilistic Dilution Model (PDM). There may be one, two, or all three exposure calculations per exposure scenario. CC is the aquatic concentration of concern. 4 This column displays concentration values for the 7Q10 streamflow, which is defined as the average daily streamflow of the seven consecutive days of lowest flow within a ten year period.
Remarks:3/16/2011 Page 2 of 8

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P-10-0571 Assessor: Flessner/BC
ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES
Scenario#:3 Number of Release Sites Release Activity: PROC: Max LADD Release Description: WATER LANDFILL Non-sludge/Sludge STACK FUGITIVE

Total Releases: (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

Non-sludge/Sludge Release Days/yr:
Per Site Release: (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day)

Rem a rks:3/16/2011 Page 3 of 8

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT Chemical ID: P-10-05713/16/2011 Page 4 of 8

Stack Parameter Data Fugitive Parameter Data3/16/2011 Page 5 of 8

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P-10-0571 Assessor: Flessner/BC
ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES
Scenario#:1 Number of Release Sites: Release Activity: USE: Max ADR Release Description: WATER LANDFILL Non-sludge/Sludge STACK FUGITIVE

Total Releases: (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

Non-sludge/Sludge Release Days/yr:
Per Site Release: (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day)

Remarks:3/16/2011 Page 6 of 8

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT3/16/2011 Page 7 of 8

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P-10-0571 Assessor: Flessner/BC
ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES
Scenario#:2 Number of Release Sites: Release Activity: USE: PDM1 Release Description: WATER LANDFILL Non-sludge/Sludge STACK FUGITIVE

Total Releases: (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

No n-sludge/Sludge Release Days/yr:
Per Site Release: (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day)

Remarks:3/16/2011 Page 8 of 8

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT Chemical ID: P-10-0571
Michael C. MARSH, Appellant, v. Latoyia MARSH, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2844

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 19, 2018]

Michael C. Marsh, Vero Beach, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., May and Damoorgian, JJ., concur.
M.B. v. WE.B. and Wa.B.

2160011

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 17, 2017 Reh. denied March 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly appointed and acting
Chief Executive Officer of Park Pharmacy Corporation, a privately-held Texas
corporation (the "Company"), and hereby further certifies as follows.

         1. The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2002, as amended, which this certificate accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

2. The information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2002, as amended, which this certificate accompanies, fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

     In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this
certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below.

                                       /s/ Craig Mackey
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                       Craig Mackey
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  9/30/02

                                       ***
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. ACM S32486

_______ _______ __________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Alexander B. BERRY Airman First Class (E

- 3 ) , U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________ Appeal from the United S tates Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 15 May 2018

________________________ Military Judge: Brian D. Teter

. Approved sentence: Bad

- conduct discharge and r eduction to E

- 1 . Sentenc e adjudged 20 September 2017 by SpCM convened at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona

. For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Garrett M. Condon , USAF ; Captain Meghan R. Glines

- Barney, USAF

. For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne , Esquire

. Before HARDING, SPERANZA, and HUYGEN , Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

_______ _______ __________
PE R CURIA M :The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant ’ s substantial rights occurred. Arti cles 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice , 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c).United States v. Berry , No. ACM S32486

2 Accordingly, the ap proved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court