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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5802 

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to permit 

multiemployer plans in critical status to modify plan rules relating to 

withdrawal liability, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 4, 2014 

Mr. SESSIONS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

of 1974 to permit multiemployer plans in critical status 

to modify plan rules relating to withdrawal liability, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF WITHDRAWAL LI4 ABILITY PAYMENTS. 

5 Section 4224 of the Employee Retirement Income Se6 curity Act (29 U.S.C. 1404) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘A multiemployer plan’’ and in8 serting ‘‘(a) A multiemployer plan’’; and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5802 IH

1 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(b) Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of this 

3 part, in the case of a multiemployer plan that is in critical 

4 status within the meaning of section 305(b)(2) and whose 

5 plan sponsor determines that the plan can not be reason6 ably expected to emerge from critical status by the end 

7 of the rehabilitation period, such plan may adopt rules 

8 providing for other terms and conditions for the computa9 tion of an employer’s withdrawal liability. Any such rule 

10 shall become effective at the end of a 90-day period that 

11 begins on the date of adoption of the rule unless the cor12 poration disapproves the rule before the end of the 90- 

13 day period (except that such 90-day period shall be tolled 

14 during any period in which a request by the corporation 

15 for additional information is pending). The corporation 

16 may disapprove a rule under this subsection only if it rea17 sonably determines that the rule creates an unreasonable 

18 risk of loss to plan participants and beneficiaries or to the 

19 corporation.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-60172

____________

Courtney R. Logan, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Mississippi Department of Corrections; Haley Barbour, 

former governor; Nathan Burlcain; John Doe, warden; 

Timothy Jones, assistant district attorney; Ricky Banks, sheriff of 

Leflore County; Trina Burris, Mississippi Department of Corrections; 

John Zimmermann, assistant district attorney Tennessee, 

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:21-CV-35

______________________________

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

For at least the fifth time, Courtney Logan challenges the legality of 

his extraditions between the states of Tennessee and Mississippi. See Logan 

v. State, 311 So. 3d 724 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). This court has twice “warned 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 17, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60172 Document: 00516713833 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2023
No. 22-60172

2

Logan that submitting frivolous or repetitive filings challenging his 

extradition could subject him to sanctions.” In re Logan, No. 21-60156, 3 (5th 

Cir. May 5, 2021) (citing In re Logan, No. 15-60658, 1-2 (5th Cir. Nov. 20, 

2015)). In fact, in order to get around his three strikes which would otherwise 

have prevented him from raising this claim, Logan paid the filing fee for this 

case. 

Like his previous attempts to challenge his extraditions in state and 

federal court, Courtney’s present filing is frivolous and wholly without merit.

This appeal shall be dismissed and Logan is again WARNED that any future 

frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings in this court or any court 

subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him to additional and 

progressively more severe sanctions, including monetary sanctions and 

further restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court 

subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.

Case: 22-60172 Document: 00516713833 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2023
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - products_publications(1)
              - (-)multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)

## By Location

              - alaska(16)
              - american samoa(3)
              - arizona(19)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(15)
              - colorado(2)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - (-)connecticut(1)
              - florida(2)
              - georgia(2)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(180)
              - idaho(4)
              - kansas(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(2)
              - maryland(2)
              - minnesota(1)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(4)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(3)
              - new york(2)
              - north carolina(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - pennsylvania(2)
              - south carolina(3)
              - south dakota(112)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(3)
              - virginia(6)
              - washington(1)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wyoming(4)

## By Year

Photography        July 7, 2020        USGS intern prepares geophysical equipment
FORM CERTIFICATION TO BE PROVIDED
BY THE DEPOSITOR WITH FORM 10-K


Re: Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2003-1


We, David L. Dill, Executive Vice President and Joan Dolce,
Vice President, certify that:
1. We have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K , and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this Annual Report, of Saxon Asset
 Securities Company;

2. Based on our knowledge, the information in the Reports, taken as a
whole, 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
 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, servicing information required to be provided
 to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing agreement
 is included in the reports;

4. We are responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
servicer under the pooling and serving agreement and based upon the review
 required under the pooling and servicing agreement, and except as disclosed
 in the report, the servicer had fulfilled its obligations under the
servicing agreement; and

5. We have disclosed to Saxon Asset Securities Company's certified public
accountants all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's
compliance with minimum servicing standards in accordance with a review
conducted in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers or similar standards as set forth in the pooling and
servicing agreement


/s/: David L Dill
David L Dill
Executive Vice President
Date: 3/19/04


/s/: Joan Dolce
Joan Dolce
Vice President
Date: 3/19/04
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_education(4)
              - science_science(20)
              - products_data(34)
              - products_maps(3)
              - products_publications(71)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_audio(3)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(3)
              - multimedia_image(16)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(6)
              - multimedia_image-141775(1)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_image-204460(6)
              - multimedia_video(26)
              - multimedia_video-149194(11)
              - multimedia_video-149195(12)
              - multimedia_video-149197(1)
              - documents_file(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149245(4)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149248(4)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - (-)news_news-149250(1)
              - news_newsletters(2)
              - news_other_news(4)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - (-)alaska(1)
              - california(4)
              - colorado(2)
              - florida(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - mississippi(1)
              - montana(1)
              - ohio(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - south dakota(1)
              - utah(1)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

Featured Story        April 18, 2022        From the Seafloor to Outer Space, USGS is on the Case
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


1) SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of SearchHelp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey Greene, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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:
      April 14, 2009
                
                /s/
      Jeffrey GreeneJeffrey
      GreeneChief
      Executive Officer





The
foregoing certification accompanied the Annual Report on Form 10-K filing
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350.  It is being reproduced herein for
information only.  It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.  A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
**Exhibit 31.3**
**Certification**
I, Richard C.E. Durrant, Executive Vice President, certify that:
     1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of StratosInternational, Inc.;
     2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
     5.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report 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.
1

 
     Date: December 14, 2004 /s/  Richard C.E. Durrant     Richard C.E. Durrant  Executive Vice President
2
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.                  

###### Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board

          - [Agency Docket Number: CRCCRRB-2025-0005-N]

# AGENCY:

Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board received 14 pages of records from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) related to a civil rights cold case incident to which the Review Board assigned the unique identifier 2024-003-027. NARA did not propose any postponements of disclosure. On November 1, 2024, the Review Board determined that the records should be publicly disclosed in the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection. By issuing this notice, the Review Board complies with section 7(c)(4) of the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 2018 that requires the Review Board to publish in the                         **Federal Register**                         its determinations on the disclosure or postponement of records in the Collection no more than 14 days after the date of its decision.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Stephannie Oriabure, Chief of Staff, Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, (771) 221-0014,                         *info@coldcaserecords.gov.*

*Authority:*Pub. L. 115-426, 132 Stat. 5489 (44 U.S.C. 2107).                    

Dated: December 3, 2024.

Stephannie Oriabure,

Chief of Staff.

[FR Doc. 2024-28744 Filed 12-5-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-SY-P
Ketty P. GONZALEZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. STEPPING STONE TUTORING & MEMORY CENTER, INC., etc., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2678

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

APRIL 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted. Dismissed.
Herman BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida and Department of Corrections, Appellees.

Case No. 5D18-1573

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1054

___________ Burlington Industries, Inc., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Maples Industries, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 21, 1997 Filed: August 4, 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
In 1996, Maples Industries, Inc. (Maples) appealed the district court’ s conclusion that it had personal jurisdiction over Maples in a diversity action brought by Burlington Industries, Inc. (Burlington). We reversed, remanded fo r dismissal of the action, and ordered the district court to conduct proceedings consistent with ou r opini on. See Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Maples Indus., Inc. , 97 F.3d 1100 (8th Cir
. 1996). Subsequen t to our decision, Burlington moved in the district court for transfer-2-

of its case to the Northern District of Alabama, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Th e district court denied Burlington’s motion and dismissed the case, concluding that i t lacked aut hority to transfer the case based upon the language of our mandate. Thi s appeal followed. We ha ve the authority to review the district court’s action for compliance with our mandate, and we note that a district court is bound to strictly obey appellat e mandates o n remand. See Bethea v. Levi Strauss & Co. , 916 F.2d 453, 456 (8th Cir. 1990). As we did not

address the issue of transfer, however, the district court did not lack authority to order transfer based upon our mandate. We therefore remand thi s case to the district court for consideration of Burlington’s motion. The district court’s judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION 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 Merci, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010(the Report), I, Jose Acevedo, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations. Date: October 21, 2010 /s/ Jose Acevedo Principal Financial Officer
Lashay WILLIAMS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. In re: Ayelet EDELSTEIN vs. Eric Ohnona, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 3D18-1731

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

August 28, 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. 99-40147

Summary Calendar

 

LEROY ADAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN LAYNE; CRAIG J. BARTON; THOMAS W. WARDELL;

ROBERT HERRERA; CHRISTINA MOORE; JAMES PATE;

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of

Criminal Justice, Institutional Division;

JOHN F. MCAULIFFE; CHET A. THOMAS; BRENT J. GRIGSBY;

DENNIS BLEVINS; PAUL PACE; RICKY DAVIS; GARLAND PACK,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CV-1085

- - - - - - - - - -

September 27, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leroy Adams, Jr., Texas prisoner # 397222, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

complaint. In his complaint, Adams alleged that corrections

officer John K. Layne, and other prison officials, violated his

constitutional right to be free from excessive force when Officer

Layne allegedly kicked a food slot onto his finger, resulting in 
No. 99-40147

-2-

an injury that required stitches. 

On appeal, Adams argues that the magistrate judge

impermissibly conducted a bench trial, pursuant to Flowers v.

Phelps, 956 F.2d 488, modified on other grounds, 964 F.2d 400

(5th Cir. 1992), despite Adams’ timely request for a jury trial.

Because Adams made a timely request for a jury trial, and

because it does not appear that Adams waived his right to a jury

trial, the magistrate judge erred when he disregarded or

overlooked Adams’ jury trial demand. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 38;

Jennings v. McCormick, 154 F.3d 542, 544-46 (5th Cir. 1998);

McAfee v. Martin, 63 F.3d 436, 437-38 (5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, 

the error was not harmless, because the magistrate judge weighed

the credibility of witnesses to reach his decision. See

Jennings, 154 F.3d at 546. 

Accordingly, the district court’s order is VACATED and the

case REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

VACATE AND REMAND.
Gregory L. WILSON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Brittany M. WILLIAMS, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1827

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.