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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5596 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5596

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide that an issuer 
 of municipal securities is not required to retain a municipal advisor 
                 prior to issuing any such securities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2016

 Mr. Hultgren introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide that an issuer 
 of municipal securities is not required to retain a municipal advisor 
                 prior to issuing any such securities.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Municipal Advisor Choice Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR MUNICIPAL ADVISOR FOR ISSUERS OF MUNICIPAL 
              SECURITIES.

    Section 15B(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
78o-4(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(3) An issuer of municipal securities shall not be required to 
retain a municipal advisor prior to issuing any such securities.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen Linehan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
report on Form 10-K of Capital One Multi-asset Execution Trust (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on
my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the
distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers
have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance
with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon, TransCentra, Inc., First Data Resources, LLC and its affiliate REMITCO, LLC.

Date: March 29, 2013



By:

/s/ Stephen LinehanName:

Stephen Linehan *Title:

PresidentCapital One Funding, LLC*   Stephen Linehan is the senior officer in charge of securitization of Capital One Funding,
LLC.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Annise D. Parker, Mayor, Anna Russell, City Secretary, and City of

Houston v. David B. Wilson

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 5

- 00 687

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 1 5

- 39706

Trial court: 2 70 th District Court of Harris

Appellee, David B. Wilson, has filed an “Emergency Motion to Dismiss, and Alternatively, to Refer Enforcement of Mandamus to Trial Court.” The motion is DENIED.

On August 7, 2015, appellants, Annise D. Parker, Mayor, Anna Russell, City Secretary, and City of Houston

, filed a notice of interlocutory appeal of a July 28, 2015 trial court order that
grant s appellee David B. Wilson’s “Application for Writ of Mandamus” and orders the City Secretary to “count and certify to the Houston City Council the number of valid signatures contained in the petition submitted by [Wilson] . . . .” This Court generally has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appea l

. See CMH

Homes v. Perez , 340 S.W.3d 444, 447

– 48 (Tex. 2011); Paulsen v. Yarrell , 455 S.W.3d 192 , 195 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (citing Rusk State Hosp. v. Black , 392 S.W.3d 88, 92 (Tex. 2012) ) ; see also, e.g., T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN . § 51.014 (West 2015) (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders).

Accordingly, appellants are hereby notified that the Court may dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellants file a written response to this notice, pro viding a detailed explanation, citing relevant portions of the record, statutes, rules, and case law to show that this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(a). Any response must be filed within 10 days of the date of this notice

. You must respond in writing even if you have previously claimed that this Court has jurisdiction over your app eal

.If a meritorious response is not received in the form described above by the deadline, the

Court may dismiss the appeal for want of jurisd iction without further notice.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes , Massengale, and Lloyd

Date: August 19, 2015
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6019

BOBBY RAY PATTERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER HOFFMAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-96-875-3)

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 30, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Ray Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Ray Patterson appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint.

Patterson's complaint was conditionally docketed by an order which

required Patterson to sign and return a "consent to the collection

of fees." Patterson failed to comply with this instruction. The

district court could properly require such collection under 28

U.S.C.A. § 1915 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). Accordingly, its dismissal of the action, without prejudice, when Patterson failed to

comply with its order was not an abuse of discretion. We therefore

affirm the judgment below.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
|   | 1.     | The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | 2.     | Information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material aspects, The financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                       |

| Dated: March 24, 2010 | /s/ Thomas C. McGraw        |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
|                  | Thomas C. McGraw            |
|                  | Chief Executive Officer     |
|                  |                        |
| Dated: March 24, 2010 | /s/ David A. Curtis         |
|                  | Senior Vice President       |
|                  | and Chief Financial Officer |

----
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_science(4)
              - products_publications(45)
              - (-)multimedia_audio(3)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(3)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)

## By Location

              - florida(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - north carolina(2)
              - oregon(1)
              - south carolina(1)
              - (-)south dakota(3)

## By Year

Podcasts        February 9, 2020        Eyes on Earth Episode 16 – Predictive Modeling

Podcasts        September 25, 2023        Eyes on Earth Episode 104 – EROS 50th: Alumni and Friends, Part 2

Podcasts        March 21, 2022        Eyes on Earth Episode 70 - ECOSTRESS and Aquatic Ecosystems
STATE EX REL. Fermichael HARRISON v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1172

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 8, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF VERMILION**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *1287*Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Relator has now fully litigated two applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Genovese, J., recused.

Hughes, J., and Johnson C.J., would grant.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5802 Introduced in House (IH)]

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.

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

SECTION 1. ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY PAYMENTS.

    Section 4224 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (29 
U.S.C. 1404) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``A multiemployer plan'' and inserting 
        ``(a) A multiemployer plan''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of this part, in the 
case of a multiemployer plan that is in critical status within the 
meaning of section 305(b)(2) and whose plan sponsor determines that the 
plan can not be reasonably expected to emerge from critical status by 
the end of the rehabilitation period, such plan may adopt rules 
providing for other terms and conditions for the computation of an 
employer's withdrawal liability. Any such rule shall become effective 
at the end of a 90-day period that begins on the date of adoption of 
the rule unless the corporation disapproves the rule before the end of 
the 90-day period (except that such 90-day period shall be tolled 
during any period in which a request by the corporation for additional 
information is pending). The corporation may disapprove a rule under 
this subsection only if it reasonably determines that the rule creates 
an unreasonable risk of loss to plan participants and beneficiaries or 
to the corporation.''.
                                 <all>
```
In the Senate of the United States, 

June 3, 2013. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 588) entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for donor contribution acknowledgments to be displayed at the Vietnam 

Veterans Memorial Visitor Center, and for other purposes.’’, 

do pass with the following 

AMENDMENT: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 

following: 

1 SECTION 1. DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS. 

2 Section 8905(b) of title 40, United States Code is 

3 amended by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(7) DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS.— 

6 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise 

7 provided in this paragraph, the Secretary or Ad8 ministrator, as applicable, may permit a spon-
2 

† HR 588 EAS 

1 sor described in subsection (a) to acknowledge 

2 donor contributions at the commemorative work. 

3 ‘‘(B) REQUIREMENTS.—Acknowledgments 

4 shall— 

5 ‘‘(i) be displayed inside a visitor center 

6 or other ancillary structure associated with 

7 the commemorative work; and 

8 ‘‘(ii) conform to applicable National 

9 Park Service or General Services Adminis10 tration guidelines for donor recognition, as 

11 applicable. 

12 ‘‘(C) LIMITATIONS.—Acknowledgments 

13 shall— 

14 ‘‘(i) be limited to an appropriate state15 ment or credit recognizing the contribution; 

16 ‘‘(ii) be displayed in a form approved 

17 by the Secretary or Administrator; 

18 ‘‘(iii) be displayed for a period of time 

19 determined by the Secretary or Adminis20 trator to be appropriate, commensurate 

21 with the level of the contribution; 

22 ‘‘(iv) be limited to short, discrete, and 

23 unobtrusive acknowledgments or credits; 

24 and 
3 

† HR 588 EAS 

1 ‘‘(v) not include any advertising slo2 gans or company logos. 

3 ‘‘(D) SUBMITTAL OF PLAN.— 

4 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Prior to the dis5 play of donor acknowledgments, the sponsor 

6 shall submit to the Secretary or Adminis7 trator, as applicable, for approval a plan 

8 for displaying the donor acknowledgments, 

9 including— 

10 ‘‘(I) the sample text and types of 

11 acknowledgments to be displayed; and 

12 ‘‘(II) the form and location of all 

13 displays. 

14 ‘‘(ii) NOTIFICATION AND RESUB15 MITTAL.—If the Secretary or Administrator 

16 does not approve the plan submitted under 

17 clause (i), the Secretary or Administrator 

18 shall— 

19 ‘‘(I) not later than 60 days after 

20 the date on which the plan is received, 

21 notify the sponsor of the reasons the 

22 plan is not approved; and 

23 ‘‘(II) allow the sponsor to resub24 mit a revised donor acknowledgment 

25 plan. 
4 

† HR 588 EAS 

1 ‘‘(E) COST.—The sponsor shall bear all ex2 penses related to the display of donor acknowl3 edgments. 

4 ‘‘(F) APPLICABILITY.—This paragraph shall 

5 apply to any commemorative work dedicated 

6 after January 1, 2010.’’. 

7 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR VIET8 NAM MEMORIAL VISITOR CENTER. 

9 Section 6(b)(5) of Public Law 96-297 (16 U.S.C. 431 

10 note; 124 Stat. 2851) is amended by striking ‘‘2014’’ and 

11 inserting ‘‘2018’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H.R. 588 

AMENDMENT
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Dinosaurs and Fossils

Filters

              - science_faqs(7)
              - products_publications(9)
              - multimedia_audio(6)
              - (-)multimedia_audio-141766(5)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)

## By Location

              - south dakota(1)

## By Year

Podcasts        February 11, 2024        Eyes on Earth Episode 112 - Landsat in Popular Media

Podcasts        July 22, 2008        What colors were dinosaurs?

Podcasts        April 28, 2009        Were dinosaurs social animals?

Podcasts        December 7, 2010        Fossil Discovery Makes History: Studying a Prehistoric Climate and Ecosystem in Colorado

Podcasts        October 17, 2007        Earth Science Week, Continued: Geologic Maps--The World Beneath Your Feet
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 659 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to reform the provisions of law 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘Hatch Act’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

Mr. LATTA (for himself and Mr. PASCRELL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to reform the 

provisions of law commonly referred to as the ‘‘Hatch Act’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State and Local Law 

5 Enforcement Hatch Act Reform Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES. 

7 Section 1502 of title 5, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 659 IH

1 ‘‘(d) Subsection (a)(1) does not prohibit a sheriff 

2 from participating in political campaigns for, or endorsing, 

3 political candidates running for elective office by— 

4 ‘‘(1) attending or speaking at political cam5 paign rallies or events; 

6 ‘‘(2) holding or sponsoring political fundraisers; 

7 or 

8 ‘‘(3) appearing on political advertisements, in9 cluding print, radio, television, or any other form of 

10 advertising.’’. 

11 SEC. 3. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

12 Section 1504 of title 5, United States Code, is 

13 amended— 

14 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before 

15 ‘‘When’’; and 

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

17 ‘‘(b) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR LAW ENFORCE18 MENT OFFICERS.—With respect to paragraphs (1) and 

19 (3) of section 1502(a), the Special Counsel may not 

20 present any charges against a law enforcement officer 

21 under subsection (a) after the end of the 6-month period 

22 beginning on the later of— 

23 ‘‘(1) the date of the alleged violation of para24 graph (1) or (3) of section 1502(a), as the case may 

25 be; or 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 659 IH

1 ‘‘(2) the date of the enactment of the State and 

2 Local Law Enforcement Hatch Act Reform Act of 

3 2013.’’. 

4 SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

5 Section 1501 of title 5, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ after 

8 the semicolon; 

9 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and 

10 inserting a semicolon; and 

11 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(5) ‘sheriff’ means an individual who holds the 

13 elected Office of Sheriff, as defined by State con14 stitution or State statute, of a county, town, town15 ship, parish, village, or other general purpose polit16 ical subdivision of a State; and 

17 ‘‘(6) ‘law enforcement officer’ means a State or 

18 local officer or employee whose duties are primarily 

19 the investigation, apprehension, or detention of indi20 viduals suspected or convicted of offenses against 

21 the criminal laws of a State or local jurisdiction, in22 cluding an officer or employee engaged in this activ23 ity who is transferred to a supervisory or adminis24 trative position.’’. 

Æ 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE EX REL. Kenneth J. BARNES v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1309

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 8, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claims, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in *1281La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
# C_2021123EN.01008401.xml

| 9.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/84

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific and temporary measures in view of the COVID-19 outbreak concerning the renewal or extension of certain certificates, licences and authorisations and the postponement of certain periodic checks and periodic training in certain areas of transport legislation, for reference periods subsequent to those referred to in Regulation (EU) 2020/698’

(COM(2021) 25 final — 2021/0012 (COD))

(2021/C 123/17)

| Referrals | Council of the European Union, 28.1.2021
  European Parliament, 8.2.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 91, 100(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted at plenary | 27.1.2021 |
| Plenary session No | 557 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | unanimous |

Referrals

Council of the European Union, 28.1.2021

European Parliament, 8.2.2021

Legal basis

Articles 91, 100(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted at plenary

27.1.2021

Plenary session No

557

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

unanimous

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided unanimously, at its 557th plenary session of 27 and 28 January 2021 (meeting of 27 January), to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 27 January 2021.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---