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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5060 

To amend the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act 

of 1999 to require data with respect to Federal financial assistance 

to be available for public access in a searchable and user friendly form. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 30, 2006 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself and Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Financial Assistance Management 

Improvement Act of 1999 to require data with respect 

to Federal financial assistance to be available for public 

access in a searchable and user friendly form. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DATA WITH RESPECT TO FEDERAL FINANCIAL 

4 ASSISTANCE REQUIRED TO BE AVAILABLE 

5 FOR PUBLIC ACCESS IN SEARCHABLE AND 

6 USER-FRIENDLY FORM. 

7 (a) DATA REQUIREMENTS.—The Director of the Of8 fice of Management and Budget shall, as part of the imVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Apr 04, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5060.IH H5060

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5060 IH 

1 plementation of the Federal Financial Assistance Manage2 ment Improvement Act of 1999 (Public Law 106–107; 31 

3 U.S.C. 6101 note), work with the Administrator of Gen4 eral Services and other agencies to make available data 

5 with respect to Federal financial assistance in accordance 

6 with this section and section 204 of the E-Government Act 

7 of 2002 (Public Law 107–347; 44 U.S.C. 3501 note). 

8 (b) MATTERS COVERED.—The Director shall ensure 

9 that the data required under subsection (a), at a min10 imum— 

11 (1) are available on the Internet, from a single 

12 website, to the public; 

13 (2) are in a form that allows for searching for 

14 Federal financial assistance awards by recipient 

15 name; 

16 (3) include information about Federal financial 

17 assistance awards within 30 days after award of the 

18 assistance; 

19 (4) identify the Federal financial assistance 

20 that an entity has received during the preceding 10- 

21 year period, including an itemized breakdown of that 

22 assistance by agency and program source; 

23 (5) include lists of Federal financial assistance 

24 awards and the dates and amounts of Federal fund 

25 disbursements; and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5060 IH 

1 (6) identify subgrantees. 

2 (c) PERIOD COVERED.—For purposes of subsection 

3 (b)(4), the first 10-year period to be covered shall begin 

4 with the year 2006. 

5 (d) DEFINITION.—In this Act, the term ‘‘Federal fi6 nancial assistance’’ has the meaning provided in section 

7 4(3) of the Federal Financial Assistance Management Im8 provement Act of 1999 (Public Law 106–107; 31 U.S.C. 

9 6101 note). 

10 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The data shall be available 

11 for public use not later than 1 year after the date of the 

12 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
No. 09-8653.

#### Ronnie Sylvia, Petitioner v. Tommy Maddox, et al.

559 U.S. 1094, 130 S. Ct. 2372,

176 L. Ed. 2d 770,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3529.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 333 Fed. Appx. 756.
**J M** **K** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9 - 0 350 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSEPH MICHAEL CROWELL ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 3 0 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted a n extension of time to and including Septe mber 7 , 2021 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 5 2021

08/05/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0350
STATE v. Scott David ALLEN

115A04-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 21, 2019

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Nicholaos Vlahos, Assistant Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Michael Unti, Attorney at Law, Margaret C. Lumsden, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Allen, Scott David.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of May 2019 by State of NC for Extension of Time to Respond to Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Writ of Mandamus:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of May 2019."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 1 July 2019 to Respond to Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Writ of Mandamus.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29




Kerry R. Yndestad
12816 Falcon Dr
Apple Valley, MN 55124



Dear Kerry:

This letter amends your 11/02/00 Employment Agreement/Offer Letter which set
forth your beginning compensation levels and has been approved by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. Except as expressly, set forth
herein, this letter does not in any way alter or amend the Employee Agreement
signed by you on 11/08/00.

In recognition of your current level of contribution, I am pleased to inform you
that your base salary will be increased to $175,000.00 (the "Base Amount"),
effective February 1, 2002. This base salary may be increased or decreased from
time to time by our Board of Directors, but may not be decreased below the Base
Amount. In addition, the amount of the annual bonus which you will be eligible
to receive if you satisfy your annual performance objectives will be determined
from time to time by the Board of Directors, will not be less than 35% of your
base salary in effect from time to time.

In addition, the total amount of severance benefits which will be paid to you if
you meet the terms and conditions set forth in your 11/02/00 offer letter is a
lump sum equal to such amount as is determined from time to time by the Board of
Directors, which shall not be an amount less than the amount equal to 9 months
of your then current base salary. This offer is in lieu of, and not in addition
to, any severance offers previously extended to you by Tricord, including but
not limited to, the severance offer extended in your 11/02/00 offer letter.

Nothing in this letter should be construed to create any contract rights to
continued employment, or to any set level of compensation. Your employment
status continues to be as an "at will" employee. Further, in addition to
permitted changes to your salary as set forth above, the percentage used to
calculate your bonus amount and the number of months of severance you may
receive may be increased or decreased by Tricord from time to time in its sole
discretion, but never below 35% and 9 months, respectively.

The terms of your Offer Letter/Employment Agreement and this letter amendment
shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Minnesota, without regard to conflict of law provisions that would defer to the
laws of another jurisdiction. The rights and obligations of you and Tricord
shall be governed by and determined in accordance with such laws.


<PAGE>


We are confident that you will make a significant contribution to the success
and growth of Tricord in the coming year.

Sincerely,


/s/ Keith Thorndyke
Keith Thorndyke
President and CEO

Acknowledged and Agreed:


/s/ Kerry R. Yndestad
------------------------------
Kerry R. Yndestad
STATE v. Kenneth Vernon GOLDER

79PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 11, 2019

Anne Bleyman, Attorney at Law, for Golder, Kenneth Vernon.

Michael T. Henry, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

John F. Carella, Staff Attorney, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Ivy Johnson, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for the State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of July 2019 by North Carolina Advocates for Justice for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of July 2019."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

F.D. MITCHELL, J. MCFARLANE, K.J. BRUBAKER

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

BRADLEY Q. NGUYEN

GUNNER’S MATE FIRST CLASS (E-6), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201400429

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 5 August 2014.

Military Judge: LtCol David M. Jones, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Naval Support 

Activity Charleston, Goose Creek, SC.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LT Doug Ottenwess, 

JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Maj Emmett S. Collazo, USMCR.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller, Esq.

26 February 2015

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Mary Jane Robertson, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Crum &Forster Holdings Corp., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date:  August 21, 2006 By:  /s/ *Mary Jane Robertson*   Mary Jane Robertson   Executive Vice President,
EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



     We  hereby  consent  to  the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements  on  Form  S-8 (No. 333-29999, 333-70815, 333-84837 and 333-40332) of
Genus,  Inc.  of  our  report  dated  February 12, 2001, except as to the second
paragraph  of  Note  6,  which  is  as  of March 28, 2001, relating to financial
statements,  which  appears  in  this  Form  10-K/A2.  We  also  consent  to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated February 12, 2001 relating to the
financial  statement  schedule,  which  appears  in  this  Form  10-K/A2.



/s/  PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS  LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers  LLP

San  Jose,  California
August 6,  2001
No. 09-766.

#### Palmyra Pacific Seafoods, L.L.C., et al., Petitioners v. United States.

559 U.S. 1106, 130 S. Ct. 2402,

176 L. Ed. 2d 922,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3693.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 561 F.3d 1361.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 29, 2022

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20

- 45 Lower Tribunal No. F 16

- 6366

________________ 

### Jorge Fabian Feliciano Ramos , Appellant,

vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Andrea R. Wolfson , Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Andrew Stanton, Assistant Public Defender , for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine , Chief Assistant Attorney General , and Brian H. Zack, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, MILLER and LOBREE , JJ. PER CURIAM. Jorge Fabian Feliciano Ramos appeals a final judgment of conviction2 and sentence for attempted second

- degree murder with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. We affirm the judgment withou t discussion and write only to address a scrivener’s error within it. See Ashley v. State , 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 n.3 (Fla. 2003) ( defining scrivener’s error as written clerical error that is not “ the result of a judicial determination or error”).
T he judgment erroneously lists the attempted second

- degree murder with a firearm conviction as a life felony when it is a felony of the first degree. 1 The state properly concedes error. We therefore remand for the correction of the scrivener’s error and affirm in all other respects. The defendant need not be present for this ministerial correction of the judgment. See Lowery v. State , 294 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). Affirmed; Remanded with instructions

.

1 Attempted second degree murder is a second

- degree felony. § 782.04(2), Fla. Stat.; § 777.04 (4) (c), Fla. Stat . (2016). The use of a firearm reclassifies this offense to a first

- degree felony. § 775.087(1) (b) , Fla. Stat. (2016).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM
NIGHTINGALE,  INC.'S  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     233,015

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         233,015
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               233,015
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 233,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          392,267
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (160,252)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   233,015
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,615
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (30,974)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (20,359)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (20,359)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (20,359)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.02)



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF      2002**

 

| Date:                August 14, 2008 |                                                 |
|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |                                                 |
|                                 | /s/                Jinyuan Li         |
|                                 |                                                 |
|                                 | Jinyuan                Li                            |
|                                 | Chief                Executive Officer and President |
|                                 | (Principal                Executive Officer)         |
|                                 |                                                 |
| Date:                August 14, 2008 |                                                 |
|                                 |                                                 |
|                                 | /s/                Wenjun Jiao        |
|                                 |                                                 |
|                                 | Wenjun                Jiao                           |
|                                 | Chief                Financial Officer               |
|                                 | (Principal                Accounting Officer)        |

----
#### Norman Golden, Appellant, v Charles Stiso et al., Respondents.

[720 NYS2d 164]

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated March 17, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered June 19, 2000, which, upon the order, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

*608The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

“A qualified privilege extends to a communication made by one person to another upon a subject in which both have an interest *(see, Liberman v Gelstein,*80 NY2d 429, 437). However, the shield provided by a qualified privilege can be pierced by a showing that the defendant acted with malice *(see, Liberman v Gelstein, supra,*at 437). Once a qualified privilege is shown to exist, the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the communication was not made in good faith but was motivated solely by malice *(see, Liberman v Gelstein, supra).*Mere conclusory allegations, or charges based upon surmise, conjecture, and suspicion are insufficient to defeat the claim of qualified privilege *(see, Hollander v Cayton,*145 AD2d 605, 606; *Garson v Hendlin,*141 AD2d 55, 63-64)” *(Kamerman v Kolt,*210 AD2d 454, 455). The communications at issue were entitled to a qualified privilege, and that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the communications were motivated solely by malice. Thus, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the defendants. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
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, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk March 20, 2013

h0313 

# Order

March 20, 2013

145363

CAMP RETREATS FOUNDATION, INC.,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 145363

COA: 304179

MTT: 00

- 346969

TOWNSHIP OF MARATHON,

Respondent

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Joris HAARHUIS, Administrator of the Estate of Julie Haarhuis (Deceased) v. Emily CHEEK

No. 332P17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2019

Stephanie W. Anderson, Cam Bordman, Attorneys at Law, Walter K. Burton, Charles M. Ivey, III, Charles M. Ivey, IV, Darren A. McDonough, Attorneys at Law, Greensboro, for Cheek, Emily.

J. David Stradley, Robert P. Holmes, IV, Attorneys at Law, Raleigh, Leto Copeley, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Haarhuis, Joris (Administrator), et al.

Meghan Wray Deutsch-Blanco, Attorney at Law.

Cynthia L. Van Horne, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Burton, Sue & Anderson, LLP.

John P. Barringer, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Jeffrey B. Kuykendal, Attorney at Law, for Universal Insurance Company.

Maynard M. Brown, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Stephen C. Baynard, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys.

Edward C. Boltz, Attorney at Law, Durham, for National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center, et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of October 2018 by Universal Insurance in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."

Davis, J. recused