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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2845 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2845

To suspend temporarily the duty on metal screw type bases designed for 
                 high intensity discharge (HID) lamps.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2012

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on metal screw type bases designed for 
                 high intensity discharge (HID) lamps.

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

SECTION 1. METAL SCREW TYPE BASES DESIGNED FOR HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE 
              (HID) LAMPS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Metal screw type    Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          bases designed                                                    12/31/2015
                          for high
                          intensity
                          discharge (HID)
                          lamps (provided
                          for in subheading
                          8539.90.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

H ILARY ROSELLI , Appellant,

v.

JASON ALEXANDRE , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 3004

[ April 28, 2022 ]

Appeal of a non

- final order from the C ircuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach Co unty ; Renatha Francis

, Judge; L.T. Case
No. 502021DR007872

.

Jane Kreusler

- Walsh, Rebecca Mercier Vargas and Stephanie L. Serafin of Kreusler

- Walsh, Vargas & Serafin, P.A., West Palm Beach

, for appellant

.
Christopher Bruce a nd Sarina M. Alba of Bruce Law Firm, P.A., West Palm Beach, fo r appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C IKLIN , G ERBER and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
December 9, 2015

Dear Mr. Price:

This letter is to inform you th at the following information is missing from your petition (Docket

No. FAA

− 2015

− 3525). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture a nd Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove clos ed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information has b een submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary in formation), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exe mptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by 12/23/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,
/S/
Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
ACTIO N 

## Swann , Joean n (OST) 

# A SlO- l 10119-02 4 From : Sent : To : Subject : Richar d Collin s [rcollins@ctcak.net ] Saturday , Januar y15 , 201 1 10:3 3 A M LaHood , Ray(OST ) Essentia l ai rservic e CONTRO L N O

TO : Th e Honorabl e Ra yLaHoo d

Secretary Departmen t ofTransportatio n Pleas e rene wAlask a Airlines agreemen t t o provid e essentia l ai rservice s t o communitie s i n Southeas t Alaska . M yfamil y live s i n Cordova , on e of th e stop s Alask a Airlines make s daily . Thi s allow s u s t o trave l fo rmedical , purchas e food , an d othe rneede d items . Thi s servic e provide s Cordov a student s th e opportunit yt o participat e i n sports , studen t governmen t an d othe rschoo l relate d activities . Thi s servic e keep s ou rcommunit yo fconnecte d t o th e world . Than k yo u fo ryou rconsideratio n of thi s issue . Debbi e Collin s Cordov a

L. O



## ' 0
* Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 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 Fifth

Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

 

1Pollard contends that the district court abused its

discretion by allowing the City to file a second motion for summary

judgment, subsequently granted, within 45 days of trial. Local

Rule 56.1, however, provides that “[u]nless otherwise directed by

the presiding judge, no motion for summary judgment shall be filed

within 45 days of trial.” Thus, the district court acted well

within its discretion.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10863

Summary Calendar

 

AMOS POLLARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, doing business as Dallas Convention Center,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CV-7-D

 

February 12, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, AND DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Amos Pollard, an electrician whom the City of Dallas

dismissed, appeals the entry of summary judgment against him.1 The
2

only claim Pollard seeks to resuscitate on this appeal alleges that

the City violated his due process rights, cognizable under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. A municipality cannot be liable for § 1983

violations under a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious

liability. See, e.g., Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 122

(1992). Pollard must thus establish that this deprivation occurred

pursuant to an official municipal policy or as a result of a

persistent, widespread practice. See Webster v. City of Houston,

735 F.2d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 1984). He has offered no evidence to

support this contention, and summary judgment was thus proper on

the § 1983 claim. Any remaining claims are waived by Pollard’s

failure to brief them.

AFFIRMED.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 16, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-10889

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00040-CR-4-RH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

HENRY SUTTON, 

a.k.a. Shampoo, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(July 16, 2008)

Before CARNES, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Ross, appointed counsel for Henry Sutton in this direct criminal
2

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Sutton’s convictions and

sentences are AFFIRMED.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3049 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the definition of homeless 

veteran for purposes of benefits under the laws administered by the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 9, 2012 

Mr. BEGICH (for himself and Mr. BOOZMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the definition of homeless veteran for purposes of benefits under 

the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF HOMELESS 

4 VETERAN FOR PURPOSES OF BENEFITS 

5 UNDER THE LAWS ADMINISTERED BY THE 

6 SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

7 Section 2002(1) of title 38, United States Code, is 

8 amended striking ‘‘in section 103(a) of the McKinney– 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3049 IS

1 Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302(a))’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘in subsection (a) or (b) of section 103 of 

3 the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

4 11302)’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10735 Summary Calendar

**Lew S. McGinnis,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company; James A. Mueller; Agency Services of Arkansas Incorporated,**  doing business as **The ASA Group,**

Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:20

- CV

- 3138

Before **Wiener, Dennis,** and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Plaintiff

– Appellant Lew McGinnis filed suit against Defendant s

– Appellees Nationwide , James Mueller , and T he ASA Group in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas based on diversity

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published a nd is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 7, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10735 Document: 00516227136 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2022No. 21

- 10735

2 jurisdiction. Nationwide moved to dismiss, asserting that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because McGinnis and Mueller were both cit izens
of Oklahom a . Concluding that McGinnis was unable to adduce sufficient
evidence demonstrat ing diverse citizenship , the district court dismissed the

case. McGinnis timely appealed.
Following the dismissal, however, McGinnis also filed a nearly identical complaint against the same defendants in Texas state court in the same county as this case . Nationwide removed that action to the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas based on diversity jurisdiction. 1 We so ught supplemental briefing to address whether this appeal was mooted by the pendency of the second action ( i.e., the same lawsuit pending in the same federal district court division )

. Nationwide has explicitly stated that th is appeal is now moot since
ther e is no relevant difference between the more recently filed case and this

case . Given Nationwide’s express admission to the lack of any claimed different defenses based upon the timing of the second case compared to the first case (such that there would b e express judicial estoppel as to the same), we agree that this appeal is moot, and therefore, **DISMISSED** . All pending
motions are **DENIED** as moot.

1 Nationwide asserted that McGinnis had become a citizen of Texas in the nine months between the filing of this action and the filing of the s tate court action. We take judicial notice of the second action filed in state court and its remov al to the Norther n District of Texas. See Taylor v. Charter Med. Corp. , 162 F.3d 827, 830

– 31 (5th Cir. 1998)

. The second action is currently stayed pending the resolution of this appeal

. Order, McGinnis v. Nationwide Life & Annuity Ins. Co. , No. 3:21

- CV

- 1988 ( Dkt. No. 3 3 , 1 ). Case: 21-10735 Document: 00516227136 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2022
EXHIBIT 31.3

                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT


 Freedom Depository, LLC., as Depositor
 c/o Amherst Securities Group, L.P.
 7801 N. Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 300
 Austin, TX 78731

 U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee
 Corporate Trust Department
 100 Wall Street
 New York, NY 10005

 Re: FREEDOM CERTIFICATES, USAUTOS SERIES 2004-1 TRUST
     (THE "TRUST")

 Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have examined assertions of Freedom Depository, LLC. (the "Depositor") and
U.S. Bank Trust National Association, (the "Trustee" and, together with the
Depositor, the "Management") that the Depositor and the Trustee have complied,
in all material respects, with the provisions of the Standard Terms for Trust
Agreements dated as of October 1, 2004, as supplemented by a series supplement
dated as of October 28, 2004 (together, the "Trust Agreement") in respect of the
Freedom Certificates, USAutos Series 2004-1 Trust (the "Trust"), during the
period covered by the annual report on Form 10-K filed by the Depositor on
behalf of the Trust for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Annual Report").
Management is responsible for compliance with the Trust Agreement. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on Management's assertions based on our
examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Depositor's and the
Trustee's compliance with the Trust Agreement and performing such other
procedures as considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material
respects, with the Trust Agreement during the period covered by the Annual
Report and Management's assertions with respect to such compliance are fairly
stated, in all material respects, for the year ended December 31, 2007.


/s/ Aston Bell, CPA

New York, New York
March 17, 2008
exv4w11w4






Exhibit 4.11.4




The taking of this document or any certified copy of it or any other document which
constitutes substitute documentation for it, or any document which includes written confirmations
or references to it, into Austria as well as printing out any e-mail communication which refers to
this document in Austria or sending any e-mail communication to which a pdf scan of this document
is attached to an Austrian addressee or sending any e-mail communication carrying an electronic or
digital signature which refers to this document to an Austrian addressee may cause the imposition
of Austrian stamp duty. Accordingly, keep the original document as well as all certified copies
thereof and written and signed references to it outside of Austria and avoid printing out any
e-mail communication which refers to this document in Austria or sending any e-mail communication
to which a pdf scan of this document is attached to an Austrian addressee or sending any e-mail
communication carrying an electronic or digital signature which refers to this document to an
Austrian addressee.




FOURTH SENIOR SECURED NOTES REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT JOINDER




     With respect to the Senior Secured Notes Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of February
1, 2011, among Reynolds Group Issuer Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware (the
“US Corporate Issuer”), Reynolds Group Issuer LLC, a limited liability company organized under the
laws of Delaware (the “US LLC Issuer”), Reynolds Group Issuer (Luxembourg) S.A., a société anonyme
(public limited liability company) incorporated under the laws of Luxembourg (the “Lux Issuer” and,
together with the US Corporate Issuer and the US LLC Issuer, the “ Issuers”), certain Guarantors
(as defined therein) and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, as representative of the Initial
Purchasers (as defined therein and, such agreement, the “Registration Rights Agreement”), for good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
signatory hereto (a “Guarantor”) assumes all of the rights and obligations as Guarantors under the
Registration Rights Agreement, in each case, as of the date of this Fourth Senior Secured Notes
Registration Rights Agreement Joinder and as though it had entered into the Registration Rights
Agreement on February 1, 2011. The obligations assumed by the Guarantor under this Fourth Senior
Secured Notes Registration Rights Agreement Joinder, dated August 5, 2011, shall be joint and
several obligations. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Fourth Senior Secured Notes
Registration Rights Agreement Joinder shall have the meanings given to such terms in the
Registration Rights Agreement.



[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]






 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party hereto has executed this agreement this 5th day of
August, 2011.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 	SIG COMBIBLOC LTD.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:

Name:
	 	/s/ Chiara Brophy
 

Chiara Brophy
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Authorized Signatory	 	 






Joinder to Registration Rights Agreement 

(Senior Secured Notes — 2011)
Exhibit 32.2

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned, David D. Clark, the Chief Financial Officer of NutriSystem, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that based on the undersigneds knowledge:



| | 1) | The Companys Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended March 31, 2008 (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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                                                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 7, 2008 |  | /S/ DAVID D. CLARK                                                     
|                   |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
|                   |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135918 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. _________________________________________ Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

IN RE DALTON DEANDRE JACKSON, Minor. 

_________________________________________ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 135918 

 COA: 281594

 Macomb CC: 2004-056305-NA 

DALTON D. JACKSON,

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the November 21, 2007 and January 31, 2008 

orders of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

reconsideration of whether the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the respondent’s 

claim of appeal. On remand, the Court of Appeals shall address the Macomb Circuit 

Court’s decision to mail notice of the termination of the respondent’s parental rights and 

the advice of appellate rights form to respondent’s attorney, rather than to respondent, as 

required by MCR 3.977(I)(1). 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

KELLY, J., would reverse and remand to reinstate the appeal because MCR 

3.997(I)(1) was violated. 

s0319 

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. 

March 26, 2008 

 Clerk
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3095 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on acrylic staple fibers, dyed 

but not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning, with a 

cut fiber length of 100 mm to 135 mm and a target length of 120 

mm. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 10, 2012 

Mrs. HAGAN 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 acrylic staple 

fibers, dyed but not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning, with a cut fiber length of 100 mm 

to 135 mm and a target length of 120 mm. 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3095 IS

1 SECTION 1. ACRYLIC STAPLE FIBERS, DYED BUT NOT 

2 CARDED, COMBED, OR OTHERWISE PROC3 ESSED FOR SPINNING, WITH A CUT FIBER 

4 LENGTH OF 100 MM TO 135 MM AND A TARGET 

5 LENGTH OF 120 MM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.40.23 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 acrylic staple fibers, dyed but not carded, combed, or oth9 erwise processed for spinning, with a cut fiber length of 

10 100 mm to 135 mm and a target length of 120 mm) is 

11 amended by striking the date in the effective period col12 umn and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

14 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

15 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Fourth Amendment to the 1991 Stock Option Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 FOURTH AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION 
 1991 STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 The State Auto Financial Corporation 1991 Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”), as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended in the following
particulars: 
  

	§1.	Definitions  

 All capitalized terms used in this
amendment which are not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings given such terms in the Plan. 
  

	§2.	No Stock Option Repricing without Shareholder Approval 

 The exercise price per Share of any Option granted under the Plan shall not be changed or modified after the time such Option has been granted unless such change or modification is made with a the prior approval of the Company’s
shareholders. 
  

	§3.	Effective Date; Construction 

 The effective date of
this amendment is March 7, 2008, and this amendment shall be deemed to be a part of the Plan as of such date. In the event of any inconsistencies between the provisions of the Plan and this amendment, the provisions of this amendment shall
control. Except as modified by this amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect without change.