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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1342 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1342

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford, New Jersey, as the ``Brian 
                  P. Parrello Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2005

Mr. Garrett of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. LoBiondo) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford, New Jersey, as the ``Brian 
                  P. Parrello Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. BRIAN P. PARRELLO POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford, New Jersey, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Brian P. Parrello Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Brian P. 
Parrello Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
Demetrius MC LAUGHLIN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1661

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 23, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Arthur ROLLE, petitioner, v. NEW YORK, et al.

No. 12-9211.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
ORDER 

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS IGLESIAS, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FERRARA CANDY CO., and DOES 1 through 

10, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:17-cv-00849-VC

[CLASS ACTION]

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND 

SERVICE AWARD

Hon. Judge Vince Chabbria

Date: October 25, 2018

Time: 10:00 AM

Judge: Hon. Vince Chabbria

Courtroom: Courtroom 4

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-12 Filed 09/06/18 Page 1 of 2
1 

ORDER 

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

This Court, having received and fully considered Plaintiff’s notice of motion and motion 

for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and service award; supporting memorandum of points and 

authorities; the declaration of Ryan J. Clarkson; the declaration of Thomas Iglesias; the pleadings, 

declarations, and other evidence previously filed with this Court on May 10, 2018 in connection 

with the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval and supporting papers; and the oral argument 

presented to the Court, HEREBY ORDERS and MAKES DETERMINATIONS that:

1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), this Court finds and determines 

that reasonable attorneys’ fees should be awarded to Class Counsel Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., in 

the amount of 25% of the $2.5 million claim fund amount. Specifically, the Court awards and 

grants final approval of the sum of $625,000 as attorneys’ fees to be paid out of the common fund

within 30 days or as otherwise provided in the parties’ settlement agreement. This award 

represents a 1.19 multiplier, which is well within the range of multipliers the courts have allowed, 

and is warranted in this case.

2. The fee award is appropriate based on Class Counsel’s efforts and the substantial 

benefits to the class. Class Counsel dedicated significant time and resources in pursuing 

Plaintiff’s claims, and did so despite the real risk of nonpayment for their investment of time and 

resources due to the contingent nature of their representation.

3. The Court finds and determines that $102,172.12 in litigation expenses were 

reasonably incurred by Class Counsel and are awarded to Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. and to be paid 

out of the common fund within 30 days or as otherwise provided in the parties’ settlement 

agreement.

4. The Court finds that Thomas Iglesias’ substantial efforts on behalf of the settlement 

class warrant a service award in the amount of $5,000, which shall be paid out of the common 

fund within 30 days or as otherwise provided in the parties’ settlement agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _________________, 2018 _____________________________

Honorable Vince Chabbria

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-12 Filed 09/06/18 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1261 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1261

 To amend the National Trails System Act to improve the efficiency and 
fairness of acquiring railroad rights-of-way for interim use as public 
  trails by applying the procedures applicable to other Federal real 
                          estate acquisitions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 2005

Mr. Ryun of Kansas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                       the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Trails System Act to improve the efficiency and 
fairness of acquiring railroad rights-of-way for interim use as public 
  trails by applying the procedures applicable to other Federal real 
                          estate acquisitions.

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

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF RAILROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR INTERIM USE AS 
              PUBLIC TRAILS.

    (a) Fair Acquisition Procedures.--Section 8(d) of the National 
Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1247(d)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(d)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) In the case of any donation, transfer, lease, sale, or other 
conveyance of a railroad right-of-way for interim use described in 
paragraph (1), the interim use of the right-of-way shall not begin 
until the payment or deposit of compensation to each of the owners of 
the land underlying the right-of-way has been made--
            ``(A) in accordance with--
                    ``(i) section 301 of the Uniform Relocation 
                Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act 
                of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4651); and
                    ``(ii) sections 3113 and 3114 of title 40, United 
                States Code; or
            ``(B) pursuant to the order of a court of competent 
        jurisdiction in a condemnation proceeding consistent with such 
        sections.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--Paragraph (2) of section 8(d) of the National 
Trails System Act, as added by subsection (a), shall apply only to the 
interim use of railroad rights-of-way pursuant to donations, transfers, 
leases, sales, or other conveyances described in such section that are 
entered into on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.2



Exhibit 10.2


BRITISH COLUMBIA

Ministry of Employment and Investment

Energy and Minerals Division

Minerals Titles Branch



 

Minerals Tenure Act

Section 52


BILL OF SALE ABSOLUTE


	
INDICATE TYPE OF TITLE:
	

Mineral

	

MINING DIVISION:
	

Lillooet






SELLER


I, Gerard Gallissant, 783 MacCleave Avenue, Penticton, British Columbia V2A 3C4, (250) 492-2959 - Client Number 109141.


PURCHASE


Steve Bebek, 1190 Sutton Place, West Vancouver, British Columbia V7S 2L2, (604) 617-8060.


For and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars US($10.00) paid to me, do hereby sell the interest as specified below in the following mineral title:


	
Claim Name of Lease Type
	

Tenure Number
	

Percentage of title being sold

	

 

	

GOLD LEDGE
	

407574
	

100%

	

 

January 16, 2004
	


I declare that I have a good title to these tenures and every right to sell the same, in witness whereof have today signed my legal name.

	


/s/ illegible
	


/s/ Gerard Gallissant

	

(Signature of Witness)
	

(Signature of Seller)
William Bill CLARK, petitioner, v. M. CHEESEBORO, et al.

No. 12-9441.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 12, 2013.

Motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 10.61
 *** Text Omitted and Filed Separately
Confidential Treatment Requested
Under 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80(b)(4)
and 240.24b-2
 AMENDMENT TO THE PATENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT
(THE AMENDMENT)
 Purchaser Seller Agreement
 Whereas,
 Now, Therefore
 AMENDMENT
 1. Effect of this Amendment
 2. Section 5.3(e) of Main Body of Agreement
  3. Section 2.1 of Schedule 2.5 to the Agreement Schedule 2.5
 [ *** ]
 
 *
    
    Confidential Treatment Requested Purchaser and Seller Confidential
 -1-




---



##### 



4. Subsection (ii) of Section 5.3 of Schedule 2.5 (Retained Rights) of the Agreement Schedule 2.5
 
 5. No Other Amendment or Modification
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 QUALCOMM Incorporated
    
    
    
    Applied Micro Circuits CorporationBy:
    
    /s/ Philip J. Fries, Jr.
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Cynthia J. MorelandName: Philip J. Fries, Jr.
    
    
    
    Name: Cynthia J. MorelandTitle: VP & Legal Counsel
    
    
    
    Title:  VP, General CounselDate: 7/14/08
    
    
    
    Date: 7/14/08
 
 *
    
    Confidential Treatment Requested Purchaser and Seller Confidential
 -2-
#### Doris COSME, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elaine L. CHAO, Secretary of Labor, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-6156.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 7, 2004.

Doris Cosme, Staten Island, NY, for Appellant, pro se.

Laura D. Mantell, Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York (Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney, and Varuni Nelson, Assistant United States Attorney), Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee, of counsel.

Present: McLAUGHLIN, SACK, and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of June 26, 2003, be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

The plaintiff-appellant Doris Cosme appeals from the June 26, 2003, judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Edward R. Korman, *Chief Judge)*granting summary judgment to the defendant-appellee Elaine L. Chao, the Secretary of Labor (the “Secretary”), in her employment discrimination action, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.,*and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621*et seq.*

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment *de novo,*construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. *World Trade Ctr. Props., L.L.C. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.,*345 F.3d 154, 165-66 (2d Cir.2003). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). A fact is “material” for these purposes if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” *Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., All*U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). An issue of fact is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” *Id.*

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Cosme, as the district court and we are required to, the district court correctly granted summary judgment to the Secretary for the reasons set forth in the district court’s memorandum and order. A review of the record discloses that Cosme did not offer evidence to substantiate her claims of national origin, gender, or age discrimination. Her conelusory allegations alone did not raise a triable issue of fact.

*54For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is hereby AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1  Certification I, E. James Collord, certify that:  (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc.  (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; (4) The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have: a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  (b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants first fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  (5) The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting. /s/ E. James Collord By __________________________________ E.  James Collord President, Director and Chief Executive Officer Date:  May 14, 2007
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, petitioner, v. MISSOURI BOARD OF FUND COMMISSIONERS, et al.

No. 12-1123.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

 LAFAYETTE DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF THE INDIANA STATE )

COUNCIL OF ROOFERS HEALTH AND )

WELFARE FUND, INTERNATIONAL UNION )

OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES )

GLAZIERS LOCAL UNION 387, )

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS )

AND ALLIED TRADES GLAZIERS LOCAL )

UNION 387 PENSION FUND, )

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS )

AND ALLIED TRADES GLAZIERS LOCAL )

UNION 387 SOUTHERN OHIO HEALTH AND )

WELFARE FUND, and INTERNATIONAL )

UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES )

GLAZIERS LOCAL UNION 387 JOINT )

APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING )

COMMITTEE )

)

VS. ) CAUSE NO. 4:12-cv-0002-RLM-APR

)

ASI LIMITED )

STATUS UPDATE

Come now the Plaintiffs, by counsel, Charles L. Berger of the firm of Berger and 

Berger, LLP and advises the Court that an audit has recently been completed and 

recently received. Additional time is needed to finalize a Default Judgment since the 

Defendant’s counsel has withdrawn and no Answer has been filed in this matter. 

Counsel believes an additional Sixty (60) days is required to finalize a Default 

Judgment.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request the Court for an additional Sixty (60) days to 

move forward with a Default Judgment.

case 4:12-cv-00002-APR document 22 filed 08/29/12 page 1 of 2
Respectfully Submitted,

s/Charles L. Berger, Esq.

CHARLES L. BERGER

A Member of the Firm of

BERGER AND BERGER

313 Main Street

Evansville, Indiana 47708

Telephone: (812) 425-8101

cberger@bergerlaw.com

Attorney No. 2698-82

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 29th day of August, 2012, a copy of the foregoing 

document was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties 

by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing 

through the Court’s system. For those parties who do not have access to the Court’s 

electronic filing system, a copy of the foregoing document has been served via the 

United States Postal Service.

Kenneth W. Smith

President

ASI Limited

4485 South Perry Worth Road

Whitestown, Indiana 46075

s/ Charles L. Berger, Esq.

Charles L. Berger

case 4:12-cv-00002-APR document 22 filed 08/29/12 page 2 of 2
Wisnia ETIENNE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 4D19-333

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 30, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:12-CR-6-TLS

)

GREGORY B. WALKER )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 19] filed on March 19, 2012. The Defendant has waived objection to the

Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 19] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(3), the plea of

guilty to the offenses charged in Count 1 and 2 of the Indictment are hereby accepted, and the

Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offenses. 

Any request for a sentence involving a departure under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines, or for a variance above or below a Guidelines sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

with the exception of matters raised pursuant to §5K1.1 of the Guidelines, shall be communicated to

the probation officer and opposing counsel, in writing, within fourteen (14) days following initial

disclosure of the pre-sentence report. Any sentencing memorandum addressing these or any other

issues, including requests for a departure based on § 5K1.1, shall be filed with the Court no later

than seven (7) days prior to the sentencing hearing. The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence

scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate order.

SO ORDERED on April 3, 2012. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
March 21. 1975

The Honorable Mark W. White, Jr. Opinion No. H- 561 Secretary ofState Capitol Building Re: Whether a contribution to Austin, Texas 78711 a candidate which is pledged and received after the election is aprohibited gift toa Dear Secretary White: public servant You have requested our opinion concerning Chapter 36 ofthe Penal Code. Specifically, you ask whether the defense provided in section 36.10(4) is applicable to campaign contributions made after an election. Sectton 36.10 provides inpart:

Itis a defenre toprosecution under Section 36.07 (Compensation for Past Official Behavior), 36.08 (Giftto Public Servant), or 36.09 (Offering Gift toPublic Servant) ofthis code thatthe benefit involved was:

. . . (4) a contribution made under the election laws for thepolitical campaign ofan elective public servant when he is a candidate for nomination or election to public office. The Election Code in article 14.08(h)(l)(iii), (h)(3) and (h)(5) contemplates post election contributions andprovides for thetr reporting. Inour opinion, the Legislature intended toprovide a defense to sections 36.07. 36.08 and36.09 for campaign contributions which relate to a specific campaign.
p. 2525The Honorable Mark W. 

### White. Jr., page 2 (H-566)

Since the election laws provide for the reporting ofpost-election contributions. especially inthe common instance ofa campaign deficit, we believe it tobe clear that section 36.10(4) was intended toallow such contributions. Accordingly, it is our opinion thatthe language “when he is a candidate” modifies theword “campaign” as contained in section 36.10(4), and merely limits the defense to contributions to a specific campaign, whether they be made before or after the election. SUMMARY Section 36.10(4) of the Penal Code provides a defense for campaign contributions which relate to a specific campaign. whether theybe made before or after the election. Very truly yours.

Attorney General of Texas APPROVED:

DAVID M. KENDALL, First 

### Assistant

Opinion Committee

p. 2526
* Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-30056 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus BILLY D. MCLEOD, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CR-74 A M2
- - - - - - - - - - June 19, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Billy D. McLeod, # 02571-095, moves for permission to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) the denial of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. McLeod argues that his guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel based on erroneous advice regarding his sentencing guidelines range, erroneous advice that he could not withdraw his guilty plea, andNo. 96-30056 -2- failure to advise that his arrest and the search of his home were illegal. He also argues that the Government breached its plea agreement. He also argues that counsel was ineffective for advising him not to file a direct appeal. He further argues that his arrest and the search of his home were illegal. We have reviewed the record, the district court's opinion, and appellant's brief and discern no reversible error. See United States v. McLeod , No. 94-74-A (M.D. La. Sept. 1, 1995). Further, we hold that McLeod's appeal is frivolous, and accordingly, we DENY IFP and DISMISS the appeal as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 212, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. IFP DENIED, APPEAL DISMISSED.