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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 21 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 21

              Providing for an adjournment of both Houses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 1997

   Mr. Goss submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
              Providing for an adjournment of both Houses.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, 
February 13, 1997, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, 
February 25, 1997, or until noon on the second day after Members are 
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate adjourns 
or recesses at the close of business on Thursday, February 13, 1997, 
pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader, or his designee, in 
accordance with this concurrent resolution, it stand recessed or 
adjourned until 11:30 a.m. on Monday, February 24, 1997, or such time 
on that day as may be specified by the Majority Leader or his designee 
in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day 
after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                 <all>
```
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 22, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1919

Lower Tribunal Nos. F10-36830C and F11-15037A

________________

Zevin Mitchell,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) 

from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ramiro C. Areces, Judge.

Zevin Mitchell, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Spencer v. State, 842 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 

2003)("[S]ubstantive claims of prosecutorial misconduct could and should 

have been raised on direct appeal and thus are procedurally barred from 

consideration in a postconviction motion."); and Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 

726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)("A sentence is illegal for purposes of rule 3.800(a) 

if it imposes punishment that no judge could possibly impose for the 

charged crime under the entire body of sentencing statutes without regard 

to the underlying factual circumstances.").
February 12 , 2010

BY EMAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Honorable Lisa P. Jackson

Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1101A)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Re: Petition for Reconsideration and Administrative Stay

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources; Fin al Rule

Dear Administrator Jackson:

Enclosed is a Petition for Reconsideration and Administrative Stay regarding the

above

‐ captioned final rule (the “CMAS Rule”), published at 74 Fed. Reg. 56008 (Oct.

29, 2009) and to be codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Su bpart VVVVVV.  This petition is

respectfully submitted by the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates

(SOCMA) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

As the Petition explains, the CMAS Rule requires republication in the Federal

Register because i t contains a variety of requirements that were not described in,

nor a logical outgrowth of, the proposed rule.  Such a notice would also enable EPA

to collect comments on several approaches that would greatly reduce the burdens of

the final rule

.

The Pet ition also requests EPA to issue an administrative stay of the CMAS Rule’s

requirements for ninety days.  Because two of the problematic aspects of the rule, if

altered or reinterpreted

, w ould change the number and configurations of chemical

manufacturing process units subject to the rule, such a stay could save the owners

and operators of many facilities from having to file two initial noti fi c ations, one on

February 26 and another after the relevant issues have been resolved.

SOCMA and ACC have filed a p rotective petition for review of the CMAS Rule in the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ( American Chemistry Council v. EPA , No. 09

‐ 1324, filed December 23, 2009).  EPA, SOCMA and ACC then filed a joint motion to

hold the case in abeyance while EPA considered the issues to be raised in this

petition.  The court granted that motion on January 26.  Under the court’s order,

EPA’s first status report is due on May 26. SOCMA and ACC are confident and

hopeful that we can resolve the issues discussed belo w by that date.Honorable Lisa P. Jackson

February 12 , 2010

Page 2

Thank you for your consideration of this petition.  The undersigned counsel look

forward to discussing it with your staff.

Sincerely,

/s/

_________________________________ _________________________________ James W. Conrad, Jr. Leslie A. Hulse

Conrad Law & Policy Counsel American Chemistry Council

1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 1350 1300 Wilson Blvd.

Washington, DC 20036 Arlington, VA 22209

202

‐ 822

‐ 1970 703

‐ 741

‐ 5165

jamie@conradcounsel.com leslie_hulse@americanchemistry.com

Counsel for SOCMA Counsel for ACC

Encl s

.

ccs (w/ encls): M. Mia

R. McDonald

P. Versace

L. Bedig
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kunta Kenta REDD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7464

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 22, 2017

Kunta Kenta Redd, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Scott Andrew Lemmon, Timothy Severo, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kunta Kenta Redd appeals the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motion seeking appointment of counsel. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Redd’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, Redd has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### Brian E. HANCOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry BROWN, Chief of Police; Captain Bobby Melton, Defendants-Appellees, and Pageland Police Department, Pageland, South Carolina; Unnamed Magistrate Judge, Defendants.

No. 17-7057

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 15, 2017

Decided: January 5, 2018

Brian E. Hancock, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Spreeuwers, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian E. Hancock appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granting summary judgment to Larry Brown and Bobby Melton on his malicious prosecution claims. In his notice of appeal, Hancock contended that he did not receive timely notice of the magistrate judge’s report and requested that the district court extend the time for him to file his objections to the report. The district court transmitted the record to this court and has not acted on Hancock’s request. Brown and Melton have moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction in light *of*Hancock’s failure to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report.

The timely filing of specific objections is necessary to preserve appellate review of a district court’s order adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). However, the timely filing of specific objections to the report is not a jurisdictional requirement. *See Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 144-45, 155, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); *United States v. Schronce,*727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we deny the motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

*789If Hancock did not timely receive the report and recommendation, he was prevented from obtaining de novo review of the recommendation by an Article III judge. *See Arn,*474 U.S. at 153-54, 106 S.Ct. 466. In light of Hancock’s assertion that he did not timely receive the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we vacate the dismissal and remand this case to the district court for consideration of Hancock’s request for an extension of time to file objections. If the district court determines that Hancock was deprived of his right to file objections, the court should permit Hancock to file objections and should proceed accordingly. We deny Hancock’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*VACATED AND REMANDED*
10.1 Time-Vested Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement










Fulton Financial
CORPORATION




Time-Vested Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement
[Date]
[Name]
[Address]
[Address]


		
	Re:
	Time-Vested Restricted Stock Unit Award under the Fulton Financial Corporation (the “Company”) Amended and Restated Equity and Cash Incentive Compensation Plan, as may be further amended (the “2013 Plan”)                                        


Dear _________:
Congratulations.  You are the recipient of a Time-Vested Restricted Stock Unit Award under the 2013 Plan.  The Award has the following terms and conditions.  Unless specifically mentioned below, the Award has the terms set forth in the 2013 Plan as of the Award Date.
	
		
	Award Provision
	Description

	Awarded to:
	 

	Award Date:
	 

	No. of Shares:
	 

	Exercise Price:
	$0.00 per share

	Schedule for lapse of forfeiture restrictions:
	 

	  Lapse on death, Disability or Retirement?:
	____ Yes____ No

	  Retirement payment six-month delay?:
	____ Yes____ No

	Right to Dividend Equivalents?:
	____ Yes____ No

	  Dividend Equivalent Restrictions:
	 

	Other Terms authorized under 2013 Plan:
	 






Upon lapse of forfeiture restrictions on all or a portion of this Award, you are authorized to tender back to the Company shares under the Award in payment of applicable taxes.


Very Truly Yours,
 
[Signatory]


By my signature below, I hereby acknowledge receipt of this Award, which was made to me on the Award Date shown above under, and subject to the terms and conditions of the 2013 Plan.  I further acknowledge having received a copy of the 2013 Plan and the prospectus describing the 2013 Plan.


Signature:  ________________________________        Date:  ____________________
### NOV. 23. 2010 9: 24AM

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration F A 

## 8 REGIONAL COUNSEL, 

### AEA-7 (

Eastern Region

CertifiedMail- Return Receipt Requested, Telephone Facsimile



### . NOV 2 3 2010 The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder CWefAdministrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M·20 Room E12·320 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 Tel: 202-366"2142 Fax: 202-366-7536 

### NQ 2737 P. 2/2 

### d(f If'

## /1;;fV~**"~~**

Office of Regional Counsel 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, New York 11434 F**~x:** 118-995-5699 Tel: 718·553·3273

N W 

### J>

Re: Inthe Matter ofColgan Air, lnc., CP09EA0017. Judge Yoder: TIns is to confinn that the parties have settled this matter with the payment ofa civil penalty and the issuallce of an order assessing civil penalty, and as a result Respondent withdraws its request for hearing. Sincerely, Alfred 

### R. Johl1.son

# :~ lS1fallLeWe AttOl'l1.ey
cc: Charles W, Ryru1, III, Fax: 703-336-8750 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.0

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-39308) of Friede Goldman Halter, Inc., the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-87853) pertaining to the 1997 Equity Incentive Plan of Friede
Goldman Halter, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-92237)
pertaining to the 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan of Friede Goldman Halter, Inc., and
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-92051) pertaining to the Amended
and Restated 1997 Equity Incentive Plan of Friede Goldman Halter, Inc. of our
report dated March 22, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Friede Goldman Halter, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New Orleans, Louisiana
April 12, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 17 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 17

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
relative to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections 
                     for Federal and State office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 1997

Ms. Kaptur (for herself, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Minge, Mr. English 
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Poshard, Mr. 
  Markey, and Mr. Pomeroy) introduced the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
relative to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections 
                     for Federal and State office.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1. Congress shall have power to set reasonable limits on 
expenditures made in support of or in opposition to the nomination or 
election of any person to Federal office.
    ``Section 2. Each State shall have power to set reasonable limits 
on expenditures made in support of or in opposition to the nomination 
or election of any person to State office.
    ``Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by 
appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
/**
 * @file
 * Invokes the TimelineJS library for each timeline listed in drupalSettings.
 */

(function () {
  drupalSettings.TimelineJS.forEach(function(timeline, key) {
    if (timeline['processed'] != true) {
      window.timeline = new TL.Timeline(timeline['embed_id'], timeline['source'], timeline['options']);
    }
    timeline['processed'] = true;
  });
})();
Exhibit 4.4


 


English Language Summary


 


Authorization Agreement for Personal Mobile Service - Termo de Autorização do Serviço Móvel Pessoal No06/2010/PVCP/SPV-ANATEL


 



	
Parties:

	
Telefônica Brasil S.A., as authorizee, and Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (ANATEL), as grantor.


	 	 
	
Date:

	
January 18, 2010.


	 	 
	
Term:

	
Indefinite


	 	 
	
Purpose:

	
Authorization to provide Personal Mobile Service in accordance with regulations set forth by ANATEL.  This Authorization Agreement consolidates the following prior authorization agreements:  No. 018/2002/PVCP/SPV-ANATEL, dated 12/10/2002; No. 019/2002/PVCP/SPV-ANATEL, dated 12/10/2002; and No. 020/2007/PVCP/SPV-ANATEL, dated 12/7/2007.


	 	 
	
Area:

	
Region III of the General Plan of Personal Mobile Service Authorization, which includes the state of São Paulo.


	 	 
	
Amount:

	
The amount owed under the grant is R$9,000.00, which was paid at the time of execution of the Authorization Agreement.


	 	 
	
Penalty:

	
Breach of the Authorization Agreement and applicable regulations to Multimedia Communication Services may result in administrative proceedings by ANATEL, the application of warning sanctions, fines, temporary suspension or revocation of licenses.
### WATERSIDE VILLAGE LLC VERSUS 

### UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON ( LLOYD' S OF LONDON); 

### CONVEX INSURANCE UK LIMITED INSURANCE COMPANY NO. 

### 2023 CW 0428 

### JULY 28, 

### 2023 In Re: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and Convex Insurance UK Limited Insurance 

### Company, applying for 

### supervisory writs, 

### 21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa, No. 

### 2022-2769. BEFORE: HOLDRIDGE, CHUTZ, AND PENZATO, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. 

# wHoldridge, J., concurs 

## and would denythe writ application 

## onthe showingmade.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

A t'" a\ 

### DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Applied Imaging Corp. (the
Company) on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robin Stracey, President, Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(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: February 25, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ ROBIN STRACEY                                      
|                        |  |     |  | Robin Stracey                                          
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer



This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 67 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con. Res.67
                                          Agreed to May 21, 1997        

                       One Hundred Fifth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

                          Concurrent Resolution

 
Authorizing the 1997 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the 
                            Capitol Grounds.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF SPECIAL OLYMPICS TORCH RELAY 
              THROUGH CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    On June 13, 1997, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate may 
jointly designate, the 1997 Special Olympics Torch Relay may be run 
through the Capitol Grounds, as part of the journey of the Special 
Olympics torch to the District of Columbia Special Olympics summer 
games at Gallaudet University in the District of Columbia.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out section 1.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event authorized by section 1.
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
#### Jimmy KUANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEL AIR MART, a California corporation and Does, 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16956

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted December 4, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed December 08, 2017

Douglas A. Applegate, Attorney, George M. Lee, Seiler Epstein Ziegler *&*Apple-gate, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Lindsay Goulding, Derek Haynes, Colleen Howard, Attorney, Porter Scott, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: M, SMITH and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BATES,* Senior District Judge.

*

 The Honorable John D. Bates, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Jimmy Kuang appeals the district court’s order granting Bel Air Mart’s motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Even if Huang’s declaration and attachments were admissible, the district court did not err in dismissing Kuang’s claim for breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), because Kuang failed to exhaust the grievance procedures required by the CBA. *See Vaca v. Sipes,*386 U.S. 171, 184, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967). Because Kuang informed the district court, both orally and in his written submissions, that he waived the argument that his failure to exhaust was excused due to the union’s breach of its duty of fair representation, this argument is waived on appeal and we do not reach it. *See Blaisdell v. Frappiea,*729 F.3d 1237, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2013). Because Kuang waived his hybrid claim, we do not reach his remaining arguments.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 136

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1999, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 16, 1998

Mr. LIVINGSTON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Appropriations

OCTOBER 16, 1998

The Committee on Appropriations discharged; considered and passed

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

1999, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 106(c) of Public Law 105–240 is further

4 amended by striking ‘‘October 16, 1998’’ and inserting in

5 lieu thereof ‘‘October 20, 1998’’.

Æ