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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6359 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to remove the overtime 

wages exemption for certain employees, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2023 

Mr. VAN DREW (for himself and Mr. TAKANO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to remove 

the overtime wages exemption for certain employees, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Guaranteeing Overtime 

5 for Truckers Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6359 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 

2 OF 1938. 

3 Section 13(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 

4 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(b)) is amended by striking para5 graph (1). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
bosm_ex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 


 





 




  





1











  






 






 




  





2











  








 






 




  





3











  








 






 




  





4











  








 






 




  





5











  








 






 




  





6











  








 






 


 



 


7
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 19, 2014

t1112

Order 

Clerk

November 19, 2014

149599

BANK OF AMERICA, NA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 149599

COA: 307756

Oakland CC: 2010-112606-CK

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE

COMPANY, PATRIOT TITLE AGENCY, KIRK

D. SCHIEB, WESTMINSTER ABSTRACT

COMPANY, WESTMINSTER TITLE AGENCY,

INC., PRIME FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.,

VALENTINO M. TRABUCCHI, PAMELA S.

NOTTURNO, f/k/a PAMELA S. SIIRA, 

DOUGLAS K. SMITH, JOSHUA J. GRIGGS,

STATE VALUE APPRAISALS, LLC, NATHAN

B. HOGAN, and CHRISTINE D. MAYS,

Defendants-Appellees, 

and

FRED MATSON, MICHAEL LYNETT, JO KAY

JAMES, and PAUL SMITH,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 27, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether a separate contract between the 

lender and the closing agent existed outside of the closing protection letters; (2) whether 

there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the closing agent’s violation of the 

terms of the lender’s written closing instructions; and (3) whether the full credit bid rule 

of New Freedom Mortgage Corp v Globe Mortgage Corp, 281 Mich App 63 (2008), is a 

correct rule of law and, if so, whether it applies to this case.

Persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this 

case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
ex101.htm












RELEASE


 


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Fabio Alexandre Narita, (“Narita”), for good and valuable consideration, including but not limited to the consummation of a share purchase agreement between Narita and Rick Walchuk of shares of Green & Quality Home Life, Inc. (“G&Q”), the receipt and sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, agrees as follows:


 


1. Narita hereby remises, releases and forever discharges G&Q and its assigns, employees and servants, and, where applicable, the executors, administrators, successors and assigns from any and all manner of action and actions, cause and causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, claims, demands and obligations whatsoever, at law or in equity, which Narita may have had or now have or which her assigns, receivers, receiver-managers, trustees, affiliates, and, where applicable, the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of her hereafter can, shall or may have existing up to the present time by reason of any matter cause or thing whatsoever relating to or arising out of the relationship between the Narita and G&Q relating to, arising out of or in connection with any and all dealings between the parties to the date hereof.


 


2. Notwithstanding the above provision and for greater clarification, this Release does not apply to any claims that may arise after the date of this Release.


 


3. It is understood and agreed that Narita shall not commence or continue any claims or proceedings against anyone in respect of anything hereby released which may result in a claim or proceedings against G&Q.  If any such claim or proceeding results in any claim or proceeding against G&Q, then the party bringing such claim or proceeding shall indemnify and save harmless the other party from all resulting liabilities, obligations and costs.


 


4. Narita hereby represents that he is the only party entitled to the consideration expressed in this Release, and has not assigned any right of action released hereby to any other firm, corporation or person.


 


5. Narita acknowledges that he has read this document and fully understands the terms of this Release, and acknowledges that this Release has been executed voluntarily after either receiving independent legal advice, or having been advised to obtain independent legal advice and having elected not to do so.


 


6. This Release is governed by the laws of Nevada, and the parties attorn to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Nevada with regard to any dispute arising out of this Release.


 


7. Execution and delivery of this document by fax shall constitute effective execution and delivery. Execution of this document by a corporation shall be effective notwithstanding that its corporate seal is not affixed hereto.







DATED for reference this 23rd day of May, 2012.

















/s/ Fabio Alexandre Narita___________________


FABIO ALEXANDRE NARITA
E.O. 12866 Meeting on EPA's Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance

Standard for Electric Generating Units Rule Wed 02/01/2012 3:00 PM - 3:30 PM Attendance is for RobertJ Wayland Chair: Mabel_E._Echols@omb.eop.gov Location: Room 10103 NEOB This entry has an alarm. The alarm will go off before the entry starts. Required: wayland.robertj@epa.gov This meeting was requested by Pat Quinn, The Accord Group on behalf of Southern Company. Call -in number: 202 - 395 - 6392; code 3862485.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6729 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6729

 To permit the use of NATO and major non-NATO ally dredge ships in the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2023

  Mr. Moylan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To permit the use of NATO and major non-NATO ally dredge ships in the 
                             United States.

    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 ``Allied Partnership and Port 
Modernization Act''.

SEC. 2. DREDGING; DREDGED MATERIAL.

    (a) Dredging.--Section 55109 of title 46, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or (c)'' after 
        ``subsection (b)'';
            (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
            (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
    ``(c) Dredging by NATO-Affiliated Vessels.--
            ``(1) In general.--A vessel described in paragraph (2) may 
        engage in dredging in the navigable waters of the United 
        States.
            ``(2) Vessels.--A vessel described in this paragraph is a 
        vessel--
                    ``(A) documented under the laws of a country that 
                is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization;
                    ``(B) built by a country that is a member of the 
                North Atlantic Treaty Organization or a major non-NATO 
                ally (as defined in section 2350a(i) of title 10); and
                    ``(C) for which a majority of the owners and 
                operators of the vessel are entities incorporated in a 
                country that is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty 
                Organization.''.
    (b) Excluding Dredged Material From Transportation Requirements.--
            (1) In general.--Section 55110 of title 46, United States 
        Code, is amended--
                    (A) in the section heading, by striking ``or 
                dredged material'' and inserting ``(excluding dredged 
                material)''; and
                    (B) by striking ``or dredged material'' and 
                inserting ``(excluding dredged material)''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 551 of 
        title 46, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
        relating to section 55110 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 55110. Transportation of valueless material (excluding dredged 
                            material).''.
                                 <all>
```
Filed June 9, 1891.

#### John J. P. Read, Resp’t, *v.*The Bank of Attica, App’lt.

See 36 N. Y. State Rep., 894.

Motion to correct remittitur.

No papers.

The remittitur should be amended by changing the amount directed to be deducted from the judgment, in the event of the plaintiff consenting thereto, from $1,345.54 to $829.23, with ten dollars costs of this motion. All concur.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B I J AI C HA ND , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 72791 A ge nc yN o. A 044- 955- 792 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T R O T T , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tC o u rtJu d g es. B i j a i C hand, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of F i j i , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen rem ov al proceedi ng s bas ed on i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to 

# FI LED NO V 16 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 72791 2 r e o p e n . A vagyan v. H

older , 646 F . 3d 672, 674 ( 9th C i r . 2011) . W e de nythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng C hand ’ s m ot i on t o reopen as unt i m e l yw he r e he f

i l e d the m ot i on m or e than s i x y e ar s a f t e rhi s f i na lor de rof r e m o v a l, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) ( m ot i on t o r e ope n m us tbe f i l e d w i thi n 90 days of fi nal order) , and fai l ed al l ege i neff ec t i ve as si st ance agai nsthi s thi rd a tto rn e yw h o r e p r e s e n te dh im b e tw e e n Ju ly2 0 0 9 an dN o v e m b e r2 0 1 0 , se e A v agy an , 6 4 6 F .3 da t 6 7 9 - 8 0 ( e qu itab le to llin g is av a ilab le to ap e titio n e rw h o is pr e ve nt e d f

r om f i l i ng be c aus e of

de c e pt i on, f

r aud ore rr or , and e xe r c i s e d due di l i gence i n d i sc ov er i ng such ci rc um st ance s) . P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D .
**Exhibit 23.1**

[Letterhead of Commerce & Finance Law Offices] 

June 20, 2007 

Home Inns & Hotels Management Inc. 

Lane No. 421 Chang Ping Road

Jing An District 

Shanghai 200041, People’s Republic ofChina 

Dear Sirs, 

We consent to the referenceto our firm under the heading “Key Information — Risk Factors” in Home Inns & Hotels Management Inc. ’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006, which will be filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission in the month of June 2007. 

Yours faithfully, 

/s/Commerce & Finance Law Offices
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6719 

To provide for the conveyance of certain land, Dillard Road, Patoka Lake, 

Indiana, to the State of Indiana, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2023 

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To provide for the conveyance of certain land, Dillard Road, 

Patoka Lake, Indiana, to the State of Indiana, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DISPOSITION OF DILLARD ROAD, PATOKA 

4 LAKE, INDIANA. 

5 (a) DISPOSITION.—The Secretary of the Army (re6 ferred to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall convey 

7 to the State of Indiana, all right, title, and interest of the 

8 United States in and to road easements associated with 

9 Dillard Road, totaling approximately 11.85 acres, located 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6719 IH

1 in Patoka Township, Crawford County, Indiana, including 

2 any improvements on the land. 

3 (b) QUITCLAIM DEED.—A conveyance under this sec4 tion shall be by quitclaim deed and without consideration. 

5 (c) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—The Secretary shall be 

6 responsible for all administrative costs associated with a 

7 conveyance under this section. 

8 (d) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—A conveyance under 

9 this section shall be subject to such additional terms and 

10 conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 

11 protect the interests of the United States. 

12 (e) LIABILITY.—A conveyance under this section 

13 shall require the State of Indiana to hold the United 

14 States harmless from any and all liability with respect to 

15 activities carried out on the land described in subsection 

16 (a) on or after the date of the conveyance. 

17 (f) APPLICATION OF PROPERTY SCREENING PROVI18 SIONS.—Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, 

19 shall not apply to a conveyance under this section. 

20 (g) DISPOSAL.—If the State of Indiana does not ac21 cept conveyance of the land described in subsection (a), 

22 the Secretary may dispose of the land in accordance with 

23 subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 40, United States 

24 Code. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
September 28, 2011 

MEMORANDUM 

From: William H. Maxwell 

EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01) 

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 

Subject: Meeting with Clean Air Task Force (CATF) 

Attendees: 

Kevin Culligan, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD 

Ellen Kurlansky, EPA/OAR/OAA/OPAR 

William Meroney, EPA/OAR/OAP/CAMD 

Conrad Schneider, Clean Air Task Force 

Joel Chasen, Clean Air Task Force 

Bruce Phillips, Executive Director, NorthBridge Group 

Steven Brick, independent consultant on the Board of Directors of the Clean Air Task Force

Discussion: 

A general discussion was held of the comments submitted by Clean Air Task Force on the 

proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivan SPEED, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10056

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 19, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed October 24, 2017

Jonas Lerman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

*693David Annicchiarico, Law Office of David L. Annicchiarico, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and HOYT,** District Judge.

*

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

**

**The Honorable Kenneth M. Hoyt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Ivan Speed was convicted of selling cocaine base within 1,000 feet of a school and now appeals several conditions of supervised release imposed by the district court. When a defendant does not object to conditions of supervised release in the district court, we review the imposition of conditions for plain error. *United States v. Jeremiah,*493 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2007). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.

On appeal, Speed challenges the payment provision of his treatment requirements, a prohibition on alcohol consumption, and a ban on frequenting gambling establishments. We hold that the district court did not commit plain error by requiring Speed to contribute to the cost of treatment, subject to the discretion of his probation officer. *See United States v. Soltero,*510 F.3d 858, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, based on Speed’s history of drug use and drug-related offenses, the district court’s imposition of alcohol-related conditions was not plain error. *United States v. Sales,*476 F.3d 732, 735-36 (9th Cir. 2007); *see also United States v. Vega,*545 F.3d 743, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[I]t is hardly a secret that there is a tie between drug abuse and alcohol abuse.”). Lastly, the condition relating to frequenting gambling establishments is not vague or over-broad, and directly relates to Speed’s rehabilitation. *United States v. Phillips,*704 F.3d 754, 767-68 (9th Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00348

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D .E.R., K.A.R., AND M.A.R., CHILDREN

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

FROM THE 233RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

On September 19, 2011

, October 4, 2011, and October 19, 2011 , we

notified appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we

would dismiss this appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.3(c). Appel lant has not paid the $175 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5,

12.1(b).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court ’s order of August 28, 2007, 2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 1 7 , 2011

2 See Supreme Co urt of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation , Misc. Docket No. 07

- 9138 (Aug. 28, 2007) (listing fees in courts of appeals).
#### Mary A. McMurray, Adm’rx, Resp’t, *v.*Teresa Ennis, App’lt.

*(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term,*

*Filed May 25, 1891.)*

Evidence—Code Crv. Peo., § 829—Waiver.

In an action by an administrator to recover moneys paid after the death of Ms intestate to the latter’s daughter on checks drawn by him, a question put to the defendant as to whether her father ever promised to repay certain money to her is inadmissible under § 829 of the Code, and the plaintiff’s .right to object thereto is not waived by failing to object to her testimony that her father owed her such money.

Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon verdict, and from order denying motion for a new trial on the minutes, on the exceptions taken, and on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and contrary to law.

Action to recover moneys paid to defendant after the death of plaintiff’s intestate on checks drawn by him in favor of defendant, who was his daughter.

Defendant was called as a witness by plaintiff, and testified that she received the checks about two weeks before her father’s death, and further stated that she did not know the checks were in existence till she got them, and that she gave her father nothing for the checks, and had never asked him for them. On cross-examination by her counsel, she testified that at the time the checks were delivered to her her father owed her $2,500. Plaintiff then examined her as to the transaction out of which this debt arose, and she was then asked by her counsel: “ Did your father ever promise to repay that money to you ?” This was objected to and excluded.

*L. B. Bunnell,*for resp’t; *Stimson & Williams,*for app’lt.

Van Wyck, J.

This case has been before us on appeal twice heretofore, and reported in 10 N. Y. Supp, 698; 81 N. Y. State Rep., 976, and 12 N. Y. Supp., 904; 86 N. Y. State Rep., 93. The only question requiring our special consideration on this appeal, not disposed of on the former ones, is that raised by the exception to the exclusion of the question: “Did your father ever promise to repay that money to you?” The objection to its admission was that it called for a conversation with a de*490ceased party. It was not admissible unless the plaintiff’s right to such objection had been waived. The defendant had brought out that the deceased owed her $2,500. The plaintiff’s failure to object to this did not constitute a waiver of her right to object to further or other conversations between defendant and the deceased.

Judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.-

Osborne, J., concurs.
#### Apollos R. Wetmore et al., Appellants, *v.*Julius Candee et al., Respondents.

(Argued April 24, 1872;

decided April 30, 1872.)

Action in the nature of a creditor’s bill by plaintiffs as judgment creditors of the firm of Stafford *&*Candee, composed of Julius 0. Candee and John W. Stafford, two of the defendants. The firm had assigned to defendant, Julius Candee, a quantity of notes and accounts as collateral security for a claim against them. The latter placed them in the hands of Julius O. for collection. A portion of the accounts were sold at auction and bid in by defendant, William B. Candee, nominally, but merely for the purpose of compromising. William obtained judgments in his name upon some of the accounts. A sufficient sum having been realized to pay the claim of Julius, he and William united in a transfer back to the firm of the balance of the *“*notes and accounts,” and neither claimed any interest in the property thereafter. *Held,*the complaint was properly dismissed, as to Julius Candee, but that as the transfer back did not specify the judgments which were *prima facie*the property of William, the latter was a proper party in order to determine his rights thereto.

*T. G. Campbell*for the appellants.

*H. Sheldon*for the respondents.

Grover, J.,

reads opinion for affirmance as to Julius Candee, and reversal and new trial as to William B. Candee.

All concur.

Judgment accordingly.