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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 259 

To require that the Government give priority to payment of all obligations 

on the debt held by the public and payment of Social Security benefits 

in the event that the debt limit is reached. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2011 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To require that the Government give priority to payment 

of all obligations on the debt held by the public and 

payment of Social Security benefits in the event that 

the debt limit is reached. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PRIORITIZE OBLIGATIONS ON THE DEBT HELD 

4 BY THE PUBLIC AND PAYMENT OF SOCIAL SE5 CURITY BENEFITS. 

6 In the event that the debt of the United States Gov7 ernment, as defined in section 3101 of title 31, United 

8 States Code, reaches the statutory limit, the authority of 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 259 IS

1 the Department of the Treasury provided in section 3123 

2 of title 31, United States Code, to pay with legal tender 

3 the principal and interest on debt held by the public and 

4 the authority of the Commissioner of Social Security to 

5 pay monthly old-age, survivors’, and disability insurance 

6 benefits under title II of the Social Security Act shall take 

7 priority over all other obligations incurred by the Govern8 ment of the United States. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert WASHINGTON, Respondent.

Case No. 2D17-2943

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40060

Summary Calendar

 

HAROLD MILAM; JANICE MILAM,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

DR. MARY LOUISE HOLT; DR. CECIL WINGFIELD,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-96-MC-41

- - - - - - - - - -

August 5, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Harold and Janice Milam appeal the dismissal as frivolous of

their civil rights complaint. We have carefully reviewed the

record and the appellate arguments. We conclude, for essentially

the same reasons expressed by the district court, see Milam v.

Holt, No. C-96-41 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 1996), that the district

court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint as

frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
2

This appeal has no arguable merit and is therefore

frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The appeal is DISMISSED. We

caution Harold and Janice Milam that any additional frivolous

appeals filed by either litigant will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Harold and Janice Milam are

further cautioned to review all pending appeals to ensure that

they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have

been previously decided by this court.

The motion for appointed appellate counsel is DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. MOTION DENIED.
PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Appellants, v. Mary HOWLES, Appellee.

No. 4D17-31

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2

CFO CERTIFICATION

I, Jon Correio, as Vice President of Finance and Administration, certify that:- I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Electronic Systems Technology    Inc.;    
- Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;    
- Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information    included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;    
- The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing    and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules    13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:   a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly    report is being prepared;    b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures    as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the    "Evaluation Date"); and    c)presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the    disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 
- The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most    recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditor’s and the audit committee of    registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):        a)all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could    adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report    financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material    weaknesses in internal controls; and        b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have    a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and    
- The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly    report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other    factors that could significantly affect internal control subsequent to the date of our    most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant    deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

Date: August 9, 2004

 
/s/ JON CORREIOJon CorreioVice President of Finance and Administration
Howard Lee SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1905

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO



18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Masakazu Kurushima, in my capacity as the President and Chief Executive Officer of California Steel Industries, Inc., for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:



the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2004, filed by California Steel Industries, Inc., on October 27, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in such quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of California Steel Industries, Inc.



Dated: October 27, 2004



By:

/s/ Masakazu KurushimaMasakazu Kurushima,President and Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, 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

February 24, 2009 

s0217 

Order 

 

February 24, 2009 

137579 

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CRYSTAL 

FALLS, 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/ 

Appellee, 

v SC: 137579 

 COA: 285187 

Iron County CC: 02-002122-CH 

ROBERT G. KOSKI and CAROLYN KOSKI, 

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs/ 

Appellants, 

and 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

TREASURY, 

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/ 

Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 24, 2008 

order 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.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2476 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixture of 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)-ethan-1-one (and isomers). 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixture of 1- 

(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2- 

naphthalenyl)-ethan-1-one (and isomers). 

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

3 SECTION 1. 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-OCTAHYDRO-2,3,8,8- 

4 TETRAMETHYL-2-NAPHTHALENYL)-ETHAN-1- 

5 ONE (AND ISOMERS). 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2476 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Mixture of 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8- 

octahydro-2,3,8,8- 

tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)- 

ethan-1-one (and isomers) 

(CAS Nos. 54464–57–2; 

68155–66–8; 68155–67–9) 

(provided for in subheading 

2914.29.50) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 21.0



List of Subsidiaries



Registrant: BV Financial, Inc.



|                                  |  |                      |  |                                       
|--------------------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Subsidiaries                      |  | Percentage Ownership |  | Jurisdiction or State of Incorporation
|Bay-Vanguard Federal Savings Bank |  | 100%                 |  | United States                         



Bay-Vanguard Federal Savings Bank



|                             |  |                      |  |                                       
|---------------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Subsidiaries                 |  | Percentage Ownership |  | Jurisdiction or State of Incorporation
|Housing Recovery Corporation |  | 100%                 |  | Maryland
#### WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT; Idaho Conservation League, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST; Bill Levere, Sawtooth National Forest Supervisor; United States Forest Service; Fish and Wildlife Service, Defendants-Appellants, and Flying Triangle, Inc.; Faulkner Land & Livestock, Inc., Defendants-Intervenors.

No. 03-35478.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 5, 2003.

Submission Withdrawn Dec. 16, 2003.

Resubmitted May 21, 2004.

Decided May 21, 2004.

*794William M. Eddie, Laurence J. Lucas, Esw., Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, Boise, ID, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

James Kilbourne, Alice M. Thurston, Esq., Andrew C. Mergen, Esq., Barclay T. Samford, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Deborah A. Ferguson, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Defendants-Appellants.

W. Alan Schroeder, Esq., Boise, ID, C. Thomas Arkoosh, Esq., Gooding, ID, for Defendant-Intervenors.

Lorna Jorgensen, Esq., Steven W. Strack, DAG, Office of Attorney General, Boise, ID, for Amicus.

Before: KLEINFELD, GOULD, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER *

This case is hereby resubmitted for decision.

Plaintiff-Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED. We approve the district court’s May 4, 2004 Order dissolving its April 2, 2003 injunction, and REMAND this case in its entirely to the district court with instructions to take whatever additional action it deems necessary.

All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Brianna MAHON, Appellant, v. Kevin J. LEHMAN, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-2999

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; “Comparative Evaluation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Birth Outcomes”.                    

*Date:*                         May 6, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To provide concept review of proposed concept review.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5b01, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, (301) 435-6680,                         *skandasa@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

      ( print page 17202)    
Dated: April 7, 2009.

Anna Snouffer,

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-8479 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2496 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures of zinc dicyanato 

diamine with an elastomer binder of ethylene-propylene-diene monomer 

and ethyl vinyl acetate, and dispersing agents. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures 

of zinc dicyanato diamine with an elastomer binder of 

ethylene-propylene-diene monomer and ethyl vinyl acetate, and dispersing agents. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF ZINC DICYANATO DIAMINE WITH 

4 AN ELASTOMER BINDER OF ETHYLENE-PRO5 PYLENE-DIENE MONOMER AND ETHYL VINYL 

6 ACETATE, AND DISPERSING AGENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.76 of the Har8 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2496 IS

1 mixtures of zinc dicyanato diamine with an elastomer 

2 binder of ethylene-propylene-diene monomer and ethyl 

3 vinyl acetate, and dispersing agents) is amended by strik4 ing the date in the effective period column and inserting 

5 ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

8 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

9 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
John Lester DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-587

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-21-0000358

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

EM, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant-Appellant, v.

SM, Defendant/Cross Plaintiff-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

(FC-D NO. 14-1-0192)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Fujise, JJ.) 

Upon review of Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant-Appellant EM's

September 27, 2021 Motion to Dismiss Appeal (Motion), the papers

in support, and the record, it appears that (1) the appeal has

been docketed; (2) EM seeks to dismiss the appeal; (3) and

dismissal is authorized by Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure

Rule 42(b).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is

granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are

dismissed.1

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 29, 2021.

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Presiding Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

/s/ Alexa D.M. Fujise

Associate Judge

1 EM's counsel, Jacob G. Delaplane, is cautioned to timely file

documents. Future violations may result in sanctions.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-21-0000358

29-SEP-2021

08:31 AM

Dkt. 38 OGMD
Joshua R. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2081

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Henry L. CURRELLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3327

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 22, 2018 Rehearing Denied March 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 21** **Subsidiaries of    Horizon Lines, Inc.**     Set forth is a list of the subsidiaries of Horizon Lines, Inc.    as of December 23, 2007 and their respective jurisdictions    of organization.    **Name of Subsidiary** **Jurisdiction**     Horizon Lines Holding Corp.      Delaware    Hawaii Stevedores, Inc.      Hawaii    Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC     Delaware    Horizon Lines, LLC     Delaware    Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc.      Delaware    Horizon Lines of Alaska, LLC     Delaware    Horizon Lines of Guam, LLC     Delaware    Horizon Lines Vessels, LLC     Delaware    S-L Distribution Service, LLC     Delaware    Horizon Logistics, LLC     Delaware    Aero Logistics, LLC     Delaware    Sea-Logix, LLC     Delaware    Horizon Services Group, LLC     Delaware    Chenega Logistics, LLC     Alaska
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 3.0 $ 255.00 $ 255.00 26 $6,630.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $6,630

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: