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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 875 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 875

    To amend section 202 of the Federal Property and Administrative 
Services Act of 1949 to exclude certain property in the State of South 
                                Dakota.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 26 (legislative day, May 15), 1995

 Mr. Pressler introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend section 202 of the Federal Property and Administrative 
Services Act of 1949 to exclude certain property in the State of South 
                                Dakota.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF EXCESS PROPERTY TO SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR 
              THE BENEFIT OF INDIAN TRIBES.

    Section 202(a)(2) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 483(a)(2)) is amended in the first 
sentence by striking ``real property located'' and inserting ``real 
property (not including lands in the State of South Dakota that were 
acquired by the United States for construction and operation of 
reservoirs on the main stem of the Missouri River) that is located''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 35

ITEM 1123 CERTIFICATION

I, Laura Cawley,
Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association (the Servicer), hereby certify that:

(1) A review of the activities of the Servicer during
the fiscal year covered by this annual report on Form 10-K and of the performance of the Servicer under the Standard Terms for Trust Agreement, dated as of November 9, 2006, between the Servicer and the depositor (the Agreement) has
been made under my supervision;

and

(2) To the best of my
knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, I
have specified below each such failure known to me and the nature and status thereof.

Date: March 28, 2014



|                
|----------------
|/s/ Laura Cawley
|                
|Laura Cawley    
|Vice President
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to, and solely for the purposes of, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), each of theundersigned hereby certifies in the capacity and on the date indicated belowthat:

1.             TheAnnual Report of Rafaella Apparel Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the periodending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Rafaella Apparel Group,Inc.

 
| September  28, 2007 | By:    | /s/ Christa Michalaros                                                                  |
|---------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |   | Christa Michalaros  Chief Executive Officer and Director  (Principal Executive Officer) |
|                |   |                                                                                    |
| September 28, 2007  | By:    | /s/ Chad J. Spooner                                                                     |
|                |   | Chad J. Spooner  Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  |

 

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|

 

----
Exhibit 99.3 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Peter Breese, Chief Executive Officer of Asanko Gold Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (i) the Annual Report on Form 40-F/A, Amendment No. 1 of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the Annual Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (ii) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: April 21, 2014/s/ Peter BreesePeter BreeseChief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
#### Nelson GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Florida Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 16-16339 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(November 3, 2017)

Nelson Garcia, Pro Se

Douglas J. Glaid, Pam Bondi, Attorney General’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondents-Appellees

Before MARCUS, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Nelson Garcia, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred at sentencing by not orally pronouncing him guilty of attempted first-degree murder, and, furthermore, that the state failed to prove, at trial, that he acted with intent to commit an offense of burglary within a dwelling.

A state prisoner who wishes to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition must petition us for an order authorizing the district court to consider such a petition. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Absent such an order, the district court is obligated to dismiss a successive petition, as the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the motion. *Hubbard v. Campbell,*379 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).

Both Garcia’s initial § 2254 petition and his current § 2254 petition challenged his June 2000 conviction for first-degree murder, burglary, and attempted first-degree murder. Because he failed to obtain authorization from us to pursue his claims, the district court did not err by dismissing them.

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,188
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,024
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    106,488
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          60,200
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            60,757
<LOANS>                                        151,278
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (1,243)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 343,861
<DEPOSITS>                                     228,642
<SHORT-TERM>                                    69,108
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                751
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 343,861
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,137
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,008
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   101
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,246
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,214
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,293
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,953
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       75
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (37)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,979
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,147
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,147
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       688
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.46
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,076
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    742
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               (1,170)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        6
<RECOVERIES>                                       (4)
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              (1,243)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           (1,243)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 882

To designate the Federal building at 1314 LeMay Boulevard, Ellsworth

Air Force Base, South Dakota, as the ‘‘Cartney Koch McRaven Child

Development Center’’, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 5, 1995

Mr. PRESSLER (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To designate the Federal building at 1314 LeMay Boulevard,

Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, as the

‘‘Cartney Koch McRaven Child Development Center’’,

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. DESIGNATION OF CARTNEY KOCH MCRAVEN

4 CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal building at 1314

6 LeMay Boulevard, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Da7 kota, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Cartney Koch

8 McRaven Child Development Center’’.
2

•S 882 IS

1 (b) REPLACEMENT BUILDING.—If, after the date of

2 enactment of this Act, a new Federal building is built at

3 the location described in subsection (a) to replace the

4 building described in the subsection, the new Federal

5 building shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Cartney

6 Koch McRaven Child Development Center’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to a Federal

10 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

11 a reference to the ‘‘Cartney Koch McRaven Child Develop12 ment Center’’.

Æ
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6370 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for purposes of the tax 

on private foundation excess business holdings to treat as outstanding 

any employee-owned stock purchased by a business enterprise pursuant 

to certain employee stock ownership retirement plans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2016 

Mr. HOLDING (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. SESSIONS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for purposes 

of the tax on private foundation excess business holdings 

to treat as outstanding any employee-owned stock purchased by a business enterprise pursuant to certain employee stock ownership retirement plans. 

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


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6370 IH

1 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PURCHASES OF EMPLOYEE-OWNED 

2 STOCK DISREGARDED FOR PURPOSES OF 

3 FOUNDATION TAX ON EXCESS BUSINESS 

4 HOLDINGS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4943(c)(4)(A) of the In6 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following new clause: 

8 ‘‘(v) CERTAIN PURCHASES OF EM9 PLOYEE-OWNED STOCK DISREGARDED.— 

10 For purposes of clause (i), subparagraph 

11 (D), and paragraph (2), any voting stock 

12 which— 

13 ‘‘(I) is not readily tradable on an 

14 established securities market, 

15 ‘‘(II) is purchased by the busi16 ness enterprise on or after January 1, 

17 2005, from a stock bonus or profit 

18 sharing plan described in section 

19 401(a) in which employees of such 

20 business enterprise participate, in con21 nection with a distribution from such 

22 plan, and 

23 ‘‘(III) is held by the business en24 terprise as treasury stock, cancelled, 

25 or retired, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6370 IH

1 shall be treated as outstanding voting 

2 stock, but only to the extent so treating 

3 such stock would not result in permitted 

4 holdings exceeding 49 percent (determined 

5 without regard to this clause). The pre6 ceding sentence shall not apply with re7 spect to the purchase of stock from a plan 

8 during the 10-year period beginning on the 

9 date the plan is established.’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

11 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after 

13 the date of enactment of this Act and to purchases 

14 by a business enterprise of voting stock in taxable 

15 years beginning before, on, or after the date of en16 actment of this Act. 

17 (2) SPECIAL RULE FOR GRANDFATHERED

18 FOUNDATIONS IN CASE OF DECREASE IN OWNER19 SHIP BY REASON OF PRE-ENACTMENT PUR20 CHASES.—Section 4943(c)(4)(A)(ii) of such Code 

21 shall not apply with respect to any decrease in the 

22 percentage of holdings in a business enterprise by 

23 reason of section 4943(c)(4)(A)(v) of such Code (as 

24 added by this Act). 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE OF VERMONT

 VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT 

In re Appeal of J.D. Associates Docket No: 36-2-00 Vtec 

ENTRY ORDER

This is an appeal on the record, governed by V.R.C.P. 76(e)(3), which refers to 

V.R.C.P. 74(d) for the preparation of the record on appeal. That rule provides that the record 

consists of 

Aall writings and exhibits in the agency proceeding; a transcript of any oral proceedings; and, 

where required by law, a statement of the questions which the appellant desires to have 

determined.@ V.R.C.P. 74(d) adopts portions of the appellate rules, but not V.R.A.P. 10. 

V.R.C.P. 74(d) also provides that A[a]ny party desiring a transcript of any portion of the 

proceedings to be included in the record on appeal shall notify all other parties thereof, [and] 

shall procure such portion at that party's own expense. . . .@ The Municipal Administrative 

Procedure Act, 24 V.S.A. '1201 et seq., provides in '1209(f) that A[t]ranscriptions of the 

proceedings of contested hearings shall be made upon the request and upon payment of the 

reasonable costs of transcription by any party.@

Reading V.R.C.P. 74(d) as a whole, together with 24 V.S.A. '1209(f), we conclude that 

it does not require the entire proceedings to be transcribed. Rather, the appeal may be on the 

record if the DRB has produced an Aadequate record@ of the proceedings, which we have 

interpreted as any method that produces a record, such as an audio or video tape, capable of 

being transcribed. Only the party wishing a specific portion of the proceedings to be included 

in the record is responsible for the costs of having that portion transcribed. If more than one 

party wishes any specific portion to be included in the record, the Court will allocate the costs if 

the parties cannot agree. 

Accordingly, the Town=s motion is denied. 

____________________________________ _______________ 

Merideth Wright Date 

Environmental Judge 

Date _________copies sent to: Clerk=s Initials:______
#### Barbara STENNES-COX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35251

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*723Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed November 1, 2017

• Jill J. Smith, Esquire, Attorney, Natural Resource Law Group, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

David J. Elkanich, Attorney, Holland & Knight LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees NationStar Mortgage, LLC, HSBC Bank, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Joseph W.' McIntosh, McCarthy & Hol-thus LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington

Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Barbara Stennes-Cox appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging a Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim for rescission. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Serra v. Lappin,*600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stennes-Cox’s action as time-barred because Stennes-Cox did not send a notice of rescission to defendants within three years of consummation of the loan. *See*15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) (providing a right of rescission within three years of the date of the consummation of a loan if the lender fails to make required disclosures to the borrower); *Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 790, 792, 190 L.Ed.2d 650 (2015) (a borrower may exercise right of rescission by notifying the lender of borrower’s intent to rescind within three years after the transaction is consummated); *Miguel v. Country Funding Corp.,*309 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[Section] 1635(f) is a statute of repose, depriving the courts of subject matter jurisdiction when a § 1635 claim is brought outside the three-year limitation period.”). Wé reject as without merit Sten-nes-Cox’s contention that the subject loan transaction was not consummated.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit 35.2**

** **

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

            I, Barbara Campbell, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (the “AdministrativeAgent”), do hereby certify to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”) and Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Administrative Agent Agreement dated as of February 1, 2005 (the“Servicing Agreement”) by and between Washington Mutual Bank, as servicer, and the Administrative Agent the following with respect to WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR16 for the 2006 fiscal year (the “RelevantYear”):

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the ServicingAgreement has been made under my supervision.

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theServicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.

 

Dated as of February 22, 2007.

 
| __/s/ Barbara Campbell________________

Name:  Barbara Campbell

Title:    First Vice President |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6932 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6932

 To amend the National Dam Safety Program Act to require the inclusion 
of low-head dams in the national dam inventory, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2024

 Mr. Edwards (for himself and Mr. Ryan) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Dam Safety Program Act to require the inclusion 
of low-head dams in the national dam inventory, 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 ``Low-Head Dam Inventory Act''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL DAM INVENTORY.

    The National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467d) is amended--
            (1) in section 6--
                    (A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``and low-
                head dams (as defined in section 15(a))'' before ``in 
                the United States''; and
                    (B) in the second sentence--
                            (i) by inserting ``and low-head dams'' 
                        after ``Such inventory of dams'';
                            (ii) by inserting ``and low-head dam'' 
                        after ``each dam''; and
                            (iii) by striking ``or a State dam safety 
                        agency'' and inserting ``, a State dam safety 
                        agency, or another relevant entity''; and
            (2) in section 15(b)(2)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the 
                end;
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at 
                the end and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) incorporate the data collected on low-head 
                dams into the National Dam Inventory described in 
                section 6.''.
                                 <all>
```