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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6458 

To terminate the Office for Elementary and Secondary Education of the 

Department of Education and provide block grants to States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2023 

Mr. BERGMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To terminate the Office for Elementary and Secondary Education of the Department of Education and provide block 

grants to States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Effective Money for 

5 Pupils: Overcoming Washington’s Educational Regulation 

6 Act’’ or the ‘‘EMPOWER Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF THE OFFICE FOR ELEMENTARY 

8 AND SECONDARY EDUCATION. 

9 The Department of Education Organization Act (20 

10 U.S.C. 3401 et seq.) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6458 IH

1 (1) in section 202(b)(1)— 

2 (A) by striking subparagraph (A); and 

3 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) 

4 through (F) as subparagraphs (A) through (E), 

5 respectively; and 

6 (2) by repealing section 204. 

7 SEC. 3. REPEAL AND BLOCK GRANTS. 

8 (a) REPEAL OF APPLICABLE STATUTES AND PRO9 GRAMS.—Each applicable program and each provision in 

10 an applicable statute with respect to an applicable pro11 gram is repealed. 

12 (b) BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES.—Beginning with fis13 cal year 2024 and each succeeding fiscal year, the Sec14 retary of Education shall award block grants to each State 

15 to make allocations to local educational agencies based on 

16 the relative number of children aged 5 to 17, inclusive, 

17 in the school district of each local educational agency. 

18 SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

19 In this Act: 

20 (1) APPLICABLE PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘appli21 cable program’’ any program with respect to elemen22 tary or secondary education which the Secretary or 

23 the Department of Education has administrative re24 sponsibility as provided by law or by delegation of 

25 authority pursuant to law. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6458 IH

1 (2) APPLICABLE STATUTE.—The term ‘‘applica2 ble statute means’’— 

3 (A) the Act or the title, part, section, or 

4 any other subdivision of an Act, as the case 

5 may be, that authorizes the appropriation for 

6 an applicable program; and 

7 (B) any other statute that by its terms ex8 pressly controls the administration of an appli9 cable program. 

10 (3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each of 

11 the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Com12 monwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the 

13 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

14 Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands. 

15 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

16 This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, 

17 shall take effect beginning on October 1, 2023. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Lemphis Jones, Appellant, against Joseph H. Brophy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent.

Submitted April 5, 1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

*Lemphis Jones,*in person, for motion.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (William S. Elder, Jr., of*counsel), opposed.

Motion dismissed on the ground that the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-14-0158

SAT Date: 12/31/2013

Print Date: 1/31/2014

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: Yes

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: IRR/CORR-S,E,L,MM; AQUATOX

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-14-0158-63

FATE: Estimations for typical 

367.62

Liquid with MP < 25 C (E)

log Kow = 5.45 (E) 

S = 0.74 mg/L at 25 C; Disp. (E;ICB)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

log Koc = 5.40 (E)

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 3
log Fish BCF = 1.89 (E)

log Fish BAF = 2.94(E) 

POTW removal (%) = 75-90 via sorption and biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: P1B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is poor from the skin, moderate from the GI 

tract, and good from the lung (analog). Concern for severe irritation and possible corrosion from 

the 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 0.37 amide SAR

daphnid 48-h LC50 0.068

green algal 96-h EC50 0.025

fish _ chronic value 0.005 amide SAR

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.008

algal _ chronic 

value

0.011

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for amides ; 

SAR chemical class = amide, ; MW 368; log Kow 5.45 (EPI); liquid with mp 

unknown (P); S = 0.74 mg/L or dispersible (P); effective concentrations based on 100% active 

ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC 

<2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

1 amide SAR

SARs amides 

SAR Class amide, 

Ecotox Category None

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 3
 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 3
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  March 10, 2011 |   | Natural Gas Services Group, Inc.                                  |
|----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | By:    | /s/ G. Larry Lawrence                                             |   |
|                       |   | G. Larry Lawrence                                                      |
|                       |   | Manager of Accounting(Principal Accounting Officer) and Treasurer |

----
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 29, 2010

y0125 

# Order

January 29, 2010

138762(29)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138762 COA: 288056 Wayne CC: 04-006941 PAUL ANTHONY DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for r econsideration of this Court’s October 26, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              97
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,371
<INVENTORY>                                      9,832
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,031
<PP&E>                                           7,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,861
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,817
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,476
<SALES>                                         11,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,628
<CGS>                                            9,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,494
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   123
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 157
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,437)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,437)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 99.4 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OR 15d-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Richard B. Clark, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Brookfield Properties
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.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and
have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
issuer, 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 issuer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 issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal
control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the issuers auditors and the Audit Committee of issuers board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuer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 issuers
internal control over financial reporting. Dated: May 18, 2004
    
    /s/ Richard B. ClarkRichard B. ClarkPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*ANTHONY RICE

(SC 15672)

Callahan, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer and McDonald, Js.

Argued October 29

officially released December 16, 1997

*Robert G. Golger,*special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

*Michael E. O’Hare,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were *Michael Dearington,*state’s attorney, and *Christopher A. Alexy,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

*392
      *Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

After examining the record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.1

The appeal is dismissed.

We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court; *State*v. *Rice,*44 Conn. App. 919, 690 A.2d 436 (1997); limited to the following issue: “Did the trial court commit harmful error in ruling inadmissable the defendant’s proposed cross-examination of Raymond Turner regarding Turner’s pending charges and whether he had discussed those charges and his testimony with the prosecution prior to taking the witness stand?” *State*v. *Rice,*240 Conn. 931, 693 A.2d 301 (1997).
#### Gaspare Puccio, Appellant, *v.*Metropolitan Jockey Club, Respondent.

Argued January 7, 1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*Harry Fieldsteel, Vincent P. Rao*and *Anthony J. Siminerio*for appellant.

*Olin S. Nye*and *Reginald V. Spell*for respondent.

*566Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
EXHIBIT 99.2

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

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, John D. Thompson, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, certify
that:

Date:
March 27, 2003

| |  | /s/JOHN D. THOMPSONJohn D. Thompson
Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Nextel Partners, Inc. and will be retained by Nextel Partners, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
#### BUCHANAN & WIFE *vs*BIGLER.

SUPREME COURT,

TYLER TERM, 1883.

*Practice — Appeal Bond.*— Where the appeal bond fails to describe the judgment appealed from, so as to clearly identify it, a motion to dismiss the appeal will prevail. See the opinion in illustration.

Appeal from Marion County.

*Geo. T. Todd*for appellants.

*JET. McKay*for appellee.

Opinion by

Willie, C. J.

A motion is made to dismiss this cause for want of a sufficient appeal bond. The objections taken to the bond are, in effect, that it does not describe the judgment from which the appeal is taken with sufficient certainty to identify it.

Upon an examination of the bond we find that the name of the caseds stated imperfectly,the names of the contracting parties being omitted.

The number of the case is not given, nor the date of the judgment, nor the name of the court in which it was rendered.

We are not informed who recorded the judgment, nor against whom it was rendered, nor is the nature of the recovery stated. Every appeal or writ of error bond should so describe the judgment sought to be revised that it can be identified.

Hollis vs. Borden 10 Tex. 277. Smith vs. Cheatam 12 Tex. 37. Herndon vs. Bremond 17 Tex. 432.

It is clear that the present bond does not so identify the judgment appealed from. Considered alone we could not tell from reading it where to look forsuch judgment, nor anything concerning its nature. We are left to conjecture from the fact that it is contained in the transcript with a judgment rendered in the District Court of Marion county in a cause similar in name to the one which appears in the preamble of the bond that it belongs to that case. In fact the bond does not purport to give us any description whatever of the judgment complained of, much less one by which it could be certainly identified.

The motion is sustained and the appeal dismissed.
#### Francisco Manuel OLVERA-BARBOSA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73129

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*427Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 3, 2017

Thomas A. Lappin, Esq., Law Office of Thomas A. Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner

M. JocelynLopez Wright, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Francisco Manuel Olvera-Barbosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings and ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress and claims of constitutional violations. *Martinez-Medina v. Holder,*673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey,*534 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

To the extent Olvera-Barbosa contends the agency erred by holding the Department of Homeland Security to an incorrect burden of proof, this contention lacks merit. *See Mondaca-Vega v. Lynch,*808 F.3d 413, 420 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that the phrase “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” does not signify a higher burden of proof than “clear and convincing”).

The agency did not err by admitting into evidence the Form 1-213, Record of Deportable/lnadmissible Alien, where Olvera-Barbosa did not show it contained inaccurate information or was otherwise unreliable. *See Espinoza v. INS,*45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (information on an authenticated immigration form is presumed to be reliable in the absence of evidence to the contrary presented by the alien).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Olvera-Barbosa is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(E)®, where he knowingly assisted another alien in seeking entry into the United States in violation of the law. *See Sanchez v. Holder,*704 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012) (knowingly participating in and aiding the attempted illegal entry is an affirmative act constituting alien smuggling); *cf. Aguilar Gonzalez*534 F.3d at 1209 (no affirmative act of alien smuggling where petitioner did not provide her daughter’s birth certificate for use by another to enter the United States, but merely acquiesced to its use).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Olvera-Barbosa’s unexhausted contention that the IJ failed to conduct a full and complete credibility analysis. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
COTELLIGENT,  INC.  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE  QUARTER  ENDED
DECEMBER  31,  1999,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001004963
<NAME>                                         COTELLIGENT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1675
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  67170
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1890
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               72168
<PP&E>                                         23400
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 179219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          89689
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       152
<OTHER-SE>                                     89305
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   179219
<SALES>                                        255579
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               255579
<CGS>                                          184619
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  184619
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               95502
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2535
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (27077)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (9477)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (17600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (17600)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (1.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.25)



</TABLE>
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 

March 1, 2019 
 Life Storage, Inc. 

Life Storage LP 
 6467 Main Street 

Williamsville, New York 14221 
 Attn: Joseph V. Saffire 

 

	 	Re:	 Employment Agreement by and among Life Storage, Inc. (the “Corporation”), Life Storage LP (the
“Partnership”) and Joseph Saffire (the “Executive”) dated as of November 1, 2017 (the “Employment Agreement”) 



Dear Joe: 
 Reference is hereby made to the
Employment Agreement. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have such meanings as set forth in the Employment Agreement. 
 This letter
will confirm that as of March 1, 2019, your employment position with the Company shall be changed from Chief Investment Officer to Chief Executive Officer. Also, effective on March 1, 2019, your annual salary will be changed to $525,000.
The other terms of your Employment Agreement remain unchanged. 
  

			
	LIFE STORAGE, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Mark G. Barberio

		 	Mark G. Barberio, Chairman


  

	
	Acknowledged and Agreed:
	
	 /s/ Joseph V. Saffire

	Joseph V. Saffire
Shedrick JENRETTE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3265

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.