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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 251 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 251

Expressing the sense of the Senate on future international arms control 
                              agreements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 27, 2021

 Mr. Daines submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Senate on future international arms control 
                              agreements.

Whereas the United States and the former Soviet Union signed the Intermediate-
        Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (commonly referred to as the ``INF 
        Treaty''), which entered into force on June 1, 1988, for the purposes of 
        strengthening international peace and security and avoiding the 
        devastating consequences of nuclear war;
Whereas the INF Treaty required the United States and the former Soviet Union, 
        the 2 dominant world powers at the time, to eliminate their ground-
        launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 
        5,500 kilometers (between 300 and 3,400 miles) by an implementation 
        deadline of June 1, 1991;
Whereas, by that deadline, both countries destroyed a total of 2,692 short- and 
        intermediate-range missiles, with the former Soviet Union destroying 
        1,846 such missiles and the United States destroying 846 such missiles;
Whereas the United States upheld the terms of the INF Treaty for more than 3 
        decades;
Whereas the Russian Federation violated the terms of the INF Treaty by 
        developing, producing, and testing the SSC-8/9M729, a ground-launched 
        cruise missile (GLCM) with a range of 2,500 kilometers;
Whereas, in December 2019, the United States withdrew from the INF Treaty upon 
        finding the Russian Federation in material breach of the treaty, with 
        the North Atlantic Treaty Organization concurring in the finding; and
Whereas, during the period in which the INF Treaty was in effect, the People's 
        Republic of China developed, produced, and tested an arsenal of an 
        estimated 200 intermediate-range, 150 medium-range, 250 short-range, and 
        54 ground-launched ballistic missiles: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that any international 
arms control agreement entered into by the United States that limits 
the number of allowable nuclear-capable missiles must--
            (1) be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate; and
            (2) include the Russian Federation and the People's 
        Republic of China.
                                 <all>
```
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 179 

To make temporary appointments to the Select Committee on Ethics. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 22, 2021 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To make temporary appointments to the Select Committee 

on Ethics. 

1 Resolved, That (a) for matters before the Select Com2 mittee on Ethics involving Preliminary Inquiry Case Num3 bers 30094 and 30226, and subsequent action by the 

4 Committee with respect to these matters, if any, the Sen5 ator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) and the Senator from 

6 Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford) shall be replaced by the Sen7 ator from New Mexico (Mr. Luja ́n) and the Senator from 

8 Arkansas (Mr. Boozman). The Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 

9 Schatz) shall act as Chairman and the Senator from Idaho 

10 (Mr. Risch) shall act as Vice Chairman for those matters 

11 only. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 179 IS 

1 (b) The membership of the Select Committee on Eth2 ics shall be unchanged with respect to all matters before 

3 that Committee other than the matters referred to in sub4 section (a). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Nedean WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. JESSICA L. KERR, P.A., et al., Appellees.

No. 3D18-1895

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 4, 2019

Nedean Williams, in proper person.

Jessica L. Kerr, P.A. d/b/a The Advocacy Group, and Jessica L. Kerr (Ft. Lauderdale); The Law Offices of Jeffrey N. Golant, P.A., and Jeffrey Golant (Coral Springs), for appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ.

MILLER, J.

Appellant, Nedean Williams, appeals a final order authorizing the disbursement of escrowed settlement funds pursuant to a charging lien and contingency fee agreement. On appeal, Williams contends that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting allegations that her attorneys colluded with one another to defraud her out of settlement proceeds. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

The trial court was charged with apportioning settlement proceeds following the resolution of litigation. The court declined to summarily adjudicate the competing interests, and, instead, convened a duly scheduled, multi-hour evidentiary hearing prior to rendering its final ruling. The record on appeal contains no transcript of the hearing.

"It is well established that the party seeking appellate review has the burden of providing the court with an adequate record of the proceedings in the lower tribunal." *Kass Shuler, P.A. v. Barchard*, 120 So.3d 165, 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (quoting Philip J. Padovano, *Florida Appellate Practice* § 12.3 (West's Fla. Prac. Series 2011-12 ed.) (footnote omitted) ). "An appellate court cannot reverse a decision in the absence of a sufficient record." *Id.* (emphasis omitted). This is because "[w]ithout a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can [not] properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory."1*Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee*, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). Thus, "when no transcript is provided, a judgment that is not fundamentally erroneous will be affirmed." *Arnold v. Whitley, Jr.*, 97 So.3d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).

Here, Williams has not brought forward any substitute for a trial transcript.2 The errors articulated on appeal necessarily implicate some factual determinations and are not apparent on the face of the record. Thus, we find no demonstration of error and affirm the final order under review. *Applegate*, 377 So.2d at 1152.

Affirmed.

1

As was aptly penned by now Justice Canady in *Esaw v. Esaw*, 965 So.2d 1261, 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) : "The most salient impediment to meaningful review of [a] trial court's decision is ... the absence of a transcript."

2

*See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(b)(5).
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Name                                           State or Other Jurisdiction
                                            of incorporation or Organization

Syntel Limited                                          India

Syntel Europe Limited                                   England

Syntel Deutschland GmbH                                 Germany

Syntel (Singapore) PTE. LTD.                            Singapore

Syntel (Australia) Pty Limited                          Australia

Syntel Canada Inc.                                      Canada

Syntel (Hong Kong) Ltd.                                 Hong Kong

Syntel (Mauritius) Ltd.                                 Mauritius

SkillBay LLC                                            Michigan

Syntel Delaware LLC                                     Delaware

Syntel Global Private Limited                           India

Syntel International Private Limited                    India

Syntel Solutions (Mauritius) Limited                    Mauritius

Syntel Sourcing Private Limited                         India

Syntel Consulting Inc.                                  Michigan
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9461-10\3452444 Case No. 3:17-cv-00079-EMC

STIPULATED VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS

LAW OFFICES

SIDEMAN

& BANCROFT LLP

ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711

JEFFREY C. HALLAM (State Bar No. 161259)

E-Mail: jhallam@sideman.com

ZACHARY J. ALINDER (State Bar No. 209009)

E-Mail: zalinder@sideman.com

ELLEN P. LIU (State Bar No. 280459)

E-Mail: eliu@sideman.com

SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP

One Embarcadero Center, Twenty-Second Floor

San Francisco, California 94111-3711

Telephone: (415) 392-1960

Facsimile: (415) 392-0827

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FITBIT, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

FITBIT, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LAGUNA 2, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00079-EMC (KAW)

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF 

DEFENDANTS 

Courtroom: 5, 17th Floor

Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9461-10\3452444 1 Case No. 3:17-cv-00079

STIPULATED VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS

LAW OFFICES

SIDEMAN

& BANCROFT LLP

ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Plaintiff Fitbit, Inc. (“Fitbit”) and Defendants PCove Enterprises Inc. dba Buyers Consultation Service, Environmental Liquidation, Inc., Jonathan 

Manhan, and Francis Michael Baker (“Defendants” and together with Fitbit, the “Parties”) hereby

STIPULATE and AGREE to the voluntary dismissal of the Defendants from this Action with 

prejudice, pursuant to the Parties’ Settlement Agreement and Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 41(a)(2).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: July 2, 2018 SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP

By: /s/ Zachary J. Alinder

 Zachary J. Alinder

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FITBIT, INC.

DATED: July 2, 2018 BROWN WHITE & OSBORN LLP

By: /s/ Thomas M. Brown

Thomas M. Brown

Attorneys for Defendants

P-Cove Enterprises dba Buyers Consultation 

Service, Environmental Liquidation, Inc., Jonathan 

Manhan, and Francis Michael Baker

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

7/3/2018

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9461-10\3452444 2 Case No. 3:17-cv-00079

STIPULATED VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS

LAW OFFICES

SIDEMAN

& BANCROFT LLP

ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3711

ECF ATTESTATION

I, Zachary J. Alinder, attest that concurrence in e-filing this STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS has been 

obtained from the party signatories above, in compliance with Civil L.R. 5.1.

DATED: July 2, 2018 SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP

By: /s/ Zachary J. Alinder

Zachary J. Alinder

SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FITBIT, INC.
Donabell FLETCHER, Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3683

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 16, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUN 26 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RONALD L. GORE, aka Raheem

Muhammad,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-3106

(District of Kansas)

(D.C. No. 95-CV-3290)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, PORFILIO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
1Because Gore filed his notice of appeal on March 14, 1996, approximately

five weeks before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. no. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (Apr. 24, 1996), he need

not obtain a certificate of appealability in order to perfect this appeal. United

States v. Lopez, 100 F.3d 113, 116-17 (10th Cir. 1996). 

-2-

Petitioner Ronald L. Gore (a/k/a Raheem Muhammad) appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing. 

As the sole ground for his § 2255 motion, Gore asserts that his guilty plea was not

knowing or voluntary because his attorney misled Gore about the consequences of

his guilty plea. The district court denied Gore’s § 2255 motion without an

evidentiary hearing on the following grounds: (1) Gore had litigated the

voluntariness of his guilty plea on direct appeal and was not entitled to relitigate

the issue in a collateral proceeding; and (2) the record of Gore’s plea colloquy

demonstrated that Gore voluntarily undertook and fully understood the

consequences of his guilty plea. This court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1291, 2253 and affirms.

1

This court has considered Gore’s briefs and contentions and the entire

record on appeal. Having conducted a de novo review of whether Gore entered a

knowing and voluntary guilty plea, Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 431

(1983), this court affirms the district court’s denial of Gore’s § 2255 motion, as

did the district court in its Order dated February 20, 1996, for substantially those

reasons set out in the government’s brief before the district court.
-3-

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas

is hereby AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge
April 25, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

INDIAN OIL COMPANY, LLC AND WILLIAM E. TROTTER, II, Appellants

NO. 14-11-00908-CV V.

BISHOP PETROLEUM INC., Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, BISHOP 

PETROLEUM INC., signed July 15, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the 

record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore 

order the judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for 

proceedings in accordance with the court’s opinion.

We order each party to pay their own costs incurred in this appeal. We 

further order this decision certified below for observance.
Louis Eugene PAYTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1135

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 20 (Friday, January 31, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request; Bureau of Engraving and Printing Background 
Investigation Request Form

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury will submit the following 
information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this 
notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before March 3, 2025 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of 
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular 
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submissions may be 
obtained from Spencer W. Clark by emailing [email protected], calling 
(202) 927-5331, or viewing the entire information collection request at 
www.reginfo.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP)

    Title: Bureau of Engraving and Printing Background Investigation 
Request Form.
    OMB Control Number: 1520-0011.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved 
collection.
    Description: The Bureau of Engraving and Printing, under the 
authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, has the responsibility to 
design and print U.S. currency. See 12 U.S.C. 418-421 and title 31, 
U.S.C., including sections 303, 321, 5114, 5119, and 5120. The 
Background Information Request Form is completed by applicant companies 
per BEP Circular 82-00.13 to establish the eligibility of each company 
and key personnel to gain access to test decks of new designs and 
production samples of Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) or other government 
securities so they can update their products to denominate and/or 
authenticate genuine currency.
    Form: BEP Background Information Request.
    Affected Public: Banknote Equipment Manufacturers (BEMs) and 
Currency Reader Manufacturers (CRMs).
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 50.
    Estimated Time per Response: 45 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 38 hours.
    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Spencer W. Clark,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2025-02034 Filed 1-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4840-01-P
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSE HERNANDEZ,

Respondent

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 17-00040-BLF

[Proposed] ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT 

Good cause having been shown by the United States upon its Application For Entry of Order To 

Show Cause Re: Contempt, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT respondent Jose Hernandez appear in 

person before this Court on July 27, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 3, 5th Floor, United States 

Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California, and then and there show cause, if he has any, 

why he should not be held in contempt for his failure to comply with the Order Requiring Respondent to 

Appear Before Revenue Officer to Give Testimony and Provide Items Described in Summonses filed 

April 12, 2017.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner serve a copy of this Order to Show Cause Re: 

Contempt upon said respondent in accordance with Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at 

least thirty-five (35) days before the Show Cause Hearing on July 27, 2017. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent may file and serve a written response to the 

Order To Show Cause Re: Contempt on or before July 6, 2017, supported by appropriate affidavit(s) or 

Case 5:17-cv-00040-BLF Document 22 Filed 06/07/17 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

declaration(s) in conformance with 28 U.S.C. Subsection 1746, as well as any motions he desires to 

make. The petitioner may file and serve a written reply to such response, if any, on or before July 13, 

2017. All motions and issues raised by the pleadings will be considered at the Show Cause hearing on 

July 27, 2017.

Dated: June 7, 2017

_______________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Beth Labson Freeman

Case 5:17-cv-00040-BLF Document 22 Filed 06/07/17 Page 2 of 2
EX PARTE James Lee BURL

1170073 (CR-16-0400)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNIONAMERICA INSURANCE CO.,

LIMITED, Successor-ininterest to ST. PAUL

REINSURANCE,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

THE FORT MILLER GROUP, INC.,

THE FORT MILLER CO. and

BEECHE SYSTEMS CORP.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-1912 BZ

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on

counterdefendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended

counterclaim is continued to October 29, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by no later than September

29, 2008, counterdefendant shall file a brief addressing at

least the following specific issues:

1. If the court rules that the underlying policy was

rescinded, would the insureds still be able to bring a claim

for bad faith?

2. If the court finds that the policy was not

rescinded, would the insureds be able to bring a claim for

Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 153 Filed 09/18/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

bad faith?

3. Would the answers to questions 1. and 2. be

different if the insurer, who provided a defense and paid

benefits, filed the rescission action in such a fashion as to

impede the insured’s ability to defend the underlying claims?

4. Assuming that the insureds can maintain their bad

faith counterclaim, what damages may they claim?

5. Would the public policy of encouraging insurers to

comply with their insurance obligations be advanced if an

insurer could be subject to a claim based solely on the

grounds that it filed an unsuccessful rescission action in

bad faith?

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counterclaimant shall file an

opposition by no later than October 10, 2008. There will be

no further briefing unless specifically ordered by the court. 

All briefs shall be submitted in WordPerfect format on

diskette or may be e-mailed to the following address:

bzpo@cand.uscourts.gov

 The parties are reminded to carefully heed the

admonitions given by the court as to the focus of their

briefs. 

Dated: September 18, 2008

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\UNIONAMERICA V. FORT MILLER\ORDER RE FURTHER BRIEFING.MMH

DRAFT.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 153 Filed 09/18/08 Page 2 of 2
Case 4:17-mj-70037-MAG Document 7 Filed 01/13/17 Page 1 of 1