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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6907 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6907

    To establish a grant program to provide assistance to eligible 
         individuals to cover the costs of childcare services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 29, 2023

 Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To establish a grant program to provide assistance to eligible 
         individuals to cover the costs of childcare services.

    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 ``Parental Workforce Training Act''.

SEC. 2. CHILDCARE GRANT PROGRAM.

    (a) Grants Authorized.--From the amount appropriated under 
subsection (f), and not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall award grants, on a 
competitive basis, to local boards to provide assistance to eligible 
individuals to cover the costs of childcare services as supportive 
services.
    (b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under this Act, 
a local board shall submit an application to the Secretary, at such 
time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary 
may require.
    (c) Uses of Funds.--A local board that receives a grant under this 
Act shall provide funds to eligible individuals who are participating 
in an employment and training activity in the local area served by such 
local board, for such individuals to cover the costs of childcare 
services as supportive services.
    (d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date that the 
Secretary awards the first grant under subsection (a), the Secretary 
shall submit to Congress a report on the effect of the grants on the 
individuals who received assistance, including the enrollment and 
completion rates of such individuals in employment and training 
activities.
    (e) Definitions.--In this Act:
            (1) Eligible individuals.--The term ``eligible individual'' 
        means an individual who--
                    (A) has one or more dependent children; and
                    (B) is participating in an employment and training 
                activity.
            (2) WIOA terms.--The terms ``employment and training 
        activity'', ``local area'', ``local board'', and ``supportive 
        services'' have the meanings given such terms in section 3 of 
        the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102).
    (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Anna S. Gwydir, Jr., et al., Appellants, *v.*Albert Cowdell, Jr., Respondent.

Argued November 22, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*778■ *Frederick N. Van Zandt*for appellants.

*Ignatius M. Wilkinson, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*and *Charles F. Murphy*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Thacher, J.
#### IN RE: Adina I. ZAHARESCU, Debtor. Satish Shetty, Appellant, v. LSI Title Company, Appellee.

No. 14-55403

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 24, 2017

Satish Shetty, Pro Se

Annette Franchelly Mijanovic, Attorney, S. Christian Stouder, Attorney, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. 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 **

Satish Shetty appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing claims against appellee in Shetty’s adversary proceeding. We review de novo our own jurisdiction and whether a bankruptcy court’s decision is final. *Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of Desert Hot Springs),*339 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss.

*826This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because “the bankruptcy court's order did not dispose of all of the issues in the adversary proceeding” or “direct entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) which applies to adversary proceedings in bankruptcy by -virtue of Bankruptcy Rule 7054.” *Walther v. King City Transit Mix, Inc. (In re King City Transit Mix, Inc.),*738 F.2d 1065, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 1984) (appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy extends only to matters appealable to the district court as of right).

Appellee’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied as unnecessary.

DISMISSED.

**

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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 67 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to allow the pooling 

of tips among all employees, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS 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 allow 

the pooling of tips among all 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 ‘‘Small Business Flexi5 bility Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TIP POOLING. 

7 Section 3(m)(2) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 

8 U.S.C. 203(m)(2)) is amended— 

9 (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ‘‘em10 ployees who customarily and regularly receive tips’’ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 67 IH

1 and inserting ‘‘pools of employees described in sub2 paragraph (C)’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(C) The pools of employees described in this sub5 paragraph are as follows: 

6 ‘‘(i) Employees who customarily and regularly 

7 receive tips. 

8 ‘‘(ii) Employees who— 

9 ‘‘(I) customarily and regularly receive tips 

10 and receive a cash wage paid by the employer 

11 that is not less than the wage in effect under 

12 section 6(a)(1); and 

13 ‘‘(II) do not customarily and regularly re14 ceive tips.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### TRIMBLE v. THE STATE.

Appeal from Rains county.

*Indictment*— Robbery.—An indictment alleging “that Bill Trimble did with force and arms, in the county of Rains and State of Texas, on the 26th day of October, 1883, by assault and by violence and by putting in fear of life and bodily injury, unlawfully and fraudulently take.from the person and possession of Henry Ivy, ten dollars in money,” etc.; held bad, because it does not allege that the party alleged to have been robbed was the person assaulted or put in fear by the defendant.

*Evidence.*— Eor the purpose of showing the *animus*ofthewitness Ivy, the prosecutor, defendants counsel should have been allowed to ask him if he had not, just before instituting this prosecution, had a conversation with defendant about defendant’s knowlege of an alleged incestuous intercourse between witness and his niece.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion by

Willson, J.
##### 



Exhibit 11.1
 
 GRUPO AEROPORTUARIO DEL CENTRO NORTE, S.A. DE C.V.
SUBSIDIARIA DE EMPRESAS ICA, S.A. DE C.V.
 BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODE
 Introduction
    1




---



##### 



(OMA LOGO)
    
    BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODE
   BUSINESS ETHICAL AND CONDUCT STANDARDS
  Observance of the Laws
  Conflict of Interests
  2




---



##### 



(OMA LOGO)
    
    BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODE
      Conflict of interests with third parties derived from professional services
  3




---



##### 



(OMA LOGO)
    
    BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODE
  Conflict of interests derived from investments.
  Conflict of interests derived from the use of Company time and assets in their own benefit
  Conflict of interests due to loans granted to employees
  Conflict of interests derived from third parties courtesies and gifts
  4




---



##### 



(OMA LOGO)
    
    BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODE
  Conflict of interests derived from relations with family members and friends.
   Conflict of interests derived from public activities
  5




---



##### 



(OMA LOGO)
    
    BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODE
   Use of position and relations in their own benefit
  Abuse of Privileged Information
   6




---



##### 



(OMA LOGO)
    
    BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODE
   Confidential Information and Patents.
    Fair treatment
  7




---



##### 



(OMA LOGO)
    
    BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODE
 Fair treatment to Clients
   Fair treatment to Suppliers
  Fair treatment to Competitors
  8




---



##### 



(OMA LOGO)
    
    BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODE
   Limitations to Competitiveness
   9




---



##### 



(OMA LOGO)
    
    BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODE
 Fair treatment to Employees
  Austerity
  Protection and Proper Use of OMAs assets and other resources
  Adequate books and records
  10




---



##### 



(OMA LOGO)
    
    BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODE
   Access to OMAs Assets, transactions under approval and their recording
  Adequate Books and Records
  Justification of Payments
  Adequate Internal Control
  11




---



##### 



(OMA LOGO)
    
    BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODE
 Complete, Accurate and Timely Disclosure
  Discrimination and Harassment
   Safety and Hygiene
  12




---



##### 



(OMA LOGO)
    
    BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODE
 Environment
  Bribery of Public Officers
    Exemptions to the Business Ethics and Conduct Code
  13




---



##### 



(OMA LOGO)
    
    BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODE
  Government Investigations
   Audits, investigations, disciplinary action
   14




---



##### 



(OMA LOGO)
    
    BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODE
    Where to obtain advice
  15
#### Kierian Nwugwo, Appellant, v Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Center et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[769 NYS2d 898]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered October 2, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendants Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Center, Yonkers Community Health Center, Carole Morris and Healthcare Underwriters Mutual Insurance Company for summary judgment dismissing *365plaintiffs sixth cause of action for breach of contract, unanimously reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion denied and partial summary judgment on liability granted to plaintiff on his sixth cause of action, and the matter remanded for further proceedings, including a determination of damages.

Endorsements Nos. 4 (“Additional Insured [Employees]”) and 7 (“Additional Interest Endorsement—Liability of Employees”) of the professional liability policy in issue respectively provide that “the ‘Persons Insured’ provision is amended to include any employee of the named insured” and that “the unqualified word ‘insured’ includes (1) any employee ... of the named insured while acting within the scope of his duties as such.”

Endorsement No. 7 specifically added plaintiff, a physician employed by the named insured, defendant Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Center, to the policy as an additional insured. Thus, as an “insured” as defined by the policy, any settlement of the underlying claim against plaintiff was subject to his written approval pursuant to paragraph I of the policy, which authorizes the settlement of any claim by the company “with the written consent of the insured.”

Accordingly, since it is conceded that plaintiff’s written consent was neither sought nor obtained for the settlement of the underlying claim against him, plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for breach of contract under his sixth cause of action. The matter is remanded for further proceedings on the remaining causes of action, including an assessment of damages on the sixth cause of action. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
Certification of Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


and
Securities and Exchange Commission Release 34-46427





I, Reid
H. Drescher, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Reidco Acquisition I Inc.;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;





4. I am
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:





a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;





b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the small business 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;





c)
disclosed in this report any change in registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
and





5. I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





a) all
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and





b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:
      January 28, 2009
            /s/
      Reid H. DrescherReid
      H. Drescher
              Principal
      Executive Officer
              Principal
      Financial Officer
# RECE\VED APR 0820\5 

# u.s.

# nEPART~~~o~:**i~NsPoRTAnoN** HEARiNG ooc\\<JEET OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the matter of AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Respondent
NOTICE OF APPEAL DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 FAA Case No. 2011 S0290032

Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan

On March 30,2015, the Honorable J.E. Sullivan served inthe above-captioned
case an Order Denying Respondent's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (the "March 30,2015 Order"). Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.233, Respondent Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services ("AMES") hereby files with the FAA Decisionmakerthis Notice ofAppeal ofthe March 30,2015 Order. Also in connection with this matter, Judge Sullivan served on April!, 2015 an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment (the "April!, 2015 Order"). By a separate notice ofappeal, AMES is seeking review of the April!, 2015 Order. As the Judge's Orders arise out ofthe same proceeding, AMES requests that the appeals be consolidated for consideration by the FAA Decisionmaker.Dated: April 7, 2015 Respectfully submitted, SILVERBERG GOLDMAN, L.L.P. Attorneys for AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

### F.N'2RINGSERVICES



# By~z:r~£~ 1101 301 h Street, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20007 Tel: (202) 944-3304 Fax: (202) 944-3306 Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com

2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifythat on this 

### 7'h day ofApril2015, I caused a true copy ofthe foregoing Respondent's Notice ofAppeal to be served upon the following: Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur Wright Building Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591 (Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) Tel: (202) 267-0377 (original and one copy by FedEx) The Hon. J.E. Sullivan Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Fax: (202) 366-7536 (one copy by First Class Mail and facsimile) ChristopherR. Stevenson, Attorney Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ASO-7 SouthernRegion P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, Georgia 30320 Fax: (404) 305-5223 (one copy by First Class Mail and e-mail)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jaime Orlando CRUZ-BENITEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41106 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 25, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Jaime Orlando Cruz-Benitez, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jaime Orlando Cruz-Benitez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cruz-Benitez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave .to withdraw is GRANT*379ED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
American Wagering, Inc.
Financial Data Schedule Required under:
Appendix A to Item 601(c) of Regulation S-B
Commercial and Industrial Companies
Article 5 of Regulation S-X
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,841,150
<SECURITIES>                                 7,321,393
<RECEIVABLES>                                  463,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (127,945)
<INVENTORY>                                    385,019
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               442,755
<PP&E>                                       9,131,580
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,824,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,287,532
<BONDS>                                      6,830,390
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,375
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,706,190
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,824,112
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,399,106
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,393,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (210,589)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             341,325 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,125,114)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,125,114)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,125,114)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### David C. PATKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. K. HOLLAND, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14-15818

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 30, 2017

Erin Jolene Radekin, Attorney, Law Office of Erin Radekin, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant

Krista Leigh Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner David C. Pat-kins appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ha-beas petition for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *see Bailey v. Hill,*599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

In his petition, Patkins challenges the outcome of a 2012 disciplinary hearing that resulted in a 30-day credit forfeiture, arguing that the hearing officer’s finding that Patkins committed a violation was not supported by “some evidence.” Because Pat-kins is serving an indeterminate sentence of 59 years to life, he will not be released until the Board of Parole Hearings determines that he is suitable for parole. *See*Cal. Penal Code § 3041. Moreover, because he was convicted of second-degree murder, he is not entitled to accrue credits against his sentence. *See*Cal. Penal Code § 2933.2. Therefore, success on his habeas claim would not necessarily lead to Pat-kins’s immediate or earlier release from confinement and the district court correctly concluded that it lacked habeas jurisdiction. *See Nettles v. Grounds,*830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that claims fall outside “the core of habeas corpus” if success will not necessarily lead *495to immediate or earlier release from confinement), cer*t. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 645, 196 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
­2

0

2

4

6

8

Heat Flow (W/g)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Temperature (°C)

DSC

Exo Down Universal V4.3A TA Instruments