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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1764 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1764

  To authorize the Secretary of Education to make grants to States to 
  establish statewide screening programs for children who are 5 to 7 
                years of age to prevent reading failure.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2005

   Mr. Cummings (for himself, Mr. Owens, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. 
 Conyers, and Mrs. McCarthy) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Secretary of Education to make grants to States to 
  establish statewide screening programs for children who are 5 to 7 
                years of age to prevent reading failure.

    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 ``Reading Failure Prevention Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. GRANTS FOR SCREENING TO PREVENT READING FAILURE.

    (a) Grants.--The Secretary of Education may make grants to States 
to establish statewide screening programs for children who are 5 to 7 
years of age for the prevention of reading failure.
    (b) Use of Funds.--The Secretary may not make a grant to a State 
under this section unless the State agrees to use the grant for the 
following:
            (1) Development and implementation of a statewide screening 
        program for children who are 5 to 7 years of age to prevent 
        reading failure by screening such children for traits that 
        indicate the children have dyslexia or are otherwise at risk of 
        reading failure.
            (2) Providing adequate professional development for 
        personnel who administer screening programs under this section.
    (c) Determination of Traits.--The Secretary, using reliable, 
replicated, and scientifically-based research, shall enumerate specific 
traits that may be screened under this section to determine whether a 
child has dyslexia or is otherwise at risk of reading failure.
    (d) Application.--To seek a grant under this section, a State shall 
submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
and containing such information as the Secretary may reasonably 
require.
    (e) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        Education.
            (2) The term ``State'' includes the several States, the 
        District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
        Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, 
        Guam, the Virgin Islands, and any other territory or possession 
        of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 2:15 CR 105

)

AARON L. GREEN )

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY AND

 ADJUDICATION

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge (DE # 25), to which the defendant has waived objection, and subject to this

court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(3), the

Magistrate Judge’s findings are now ADOPTED, defendant’s plea of guilty to the

offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is now hereby ACCEPTED, and defendant

is adjudged guilty of that offense. A sentencing date will be set under separate order.

SO ORDERED.

Date: April 28, 2016

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11637]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 HDP User Group International, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 27, 1995, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), HDP USER GROUP 
INTERNATIONAL, INC., an Arizona non-profit corporation, has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASAT, Palo Alto, 
CA; ESEC, Phoenix, AZ; IMC, Linkoping, SWEDEN; Combitech, Jonkoping, 
SWEDEN; National Semiconductor, Santa Clara, CA; and Delco Electronics 
(a subsidiary of GM), Kokomo, IN have become members of the HDP User 
Group.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or the 
planned activity of the joint venture. Membership remains open and HDP 
intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On September 14, 1994, the HDP User Group filing its original 
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. A notice was 
published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act 
on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15306-7).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-11637 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
#### SUTTON v. BAYLES.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1912.)

Judgment (§ 167*)—Default Judgment—Vacation—Teems.

A default judgment against defendant should be opened on terms securing payment of any judgment finally obtained and a speedy trial, with payment of proper costs to plaintiff’s attorney, where there have been numerous defaults in the cause, chargeable in equal degree to the parties.

[Ed. Note.—Por other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. §§ 326, 330, 333, 334; Dec. Dig. § 167.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.

Action by McWalter B. Sutton against Chester A. Bayles. From an order refusing to open a default, defendant appeals. Order reversed, and default opened conditionally.

See, also, 132 N. Y. Supp. 327.

Argued February "term, 1912, before SEABURY, GUY, and BI-JUR, JJ.

Chester A. Bayles, in pro. per.

Max Brown, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

There have been numerous defaults herein, which have been opened on terms, and the various missteps throughout the proceeding seem to have been chargeable in about equal degree to the plaintiff and defendant. The last default, in the course of events, happened to be due to the neglect of the defendant. Under the unusual circumstances presented by this case, we think the motion to open defendant’s default should have been granted. Defendant has given a surety company bond, and is willing to stipulate that the case shall be tried on any day the court may order. As this action involves the personal reputation and standing of a member of the bar, every opportunity should be afforded to both sides for a speedy and fair *588trial of the issues. The motion to open the default should therefore be granted, but upon compliance with the following terms:

Order reversed, and default opened, upon condition that the defendant pay to the plaintiff’s attorney the sum of $10 costs; that the defendant file an undertaking, if one has not already been given, to the effect that any judgment that may ultimately be obtained against the defendant, and the costs thereof, will be paid, and the filing of a stipulation that the defendant will try the case upon a day certain, within 30 days after the entry of an order of this court, and notice of the entry of the same—all of the foregoing conditions to be complied with within 5 days after the entry of the order herein and notice of its entry. Otherwise, order affirmed, with costs. If said terms are complied with, no costs of this appeal to either party.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. CITY OF AMSTERDAM, Respondent, v. HESS et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 8, 1898

Action by the people -of the state of New York, on the relation of the city of Amsterdam, against Henry E. Hess and others, assessors of the town of Perth, Fulton county.

No opinion. Order reversed, with costs, and certiorari dismissed, with costs.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HERU ANDY PARDEDE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74023

Agency No. A097-206-443

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Heru Andy Pardede, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,

FILED

JUN 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74023

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we grant the petition

for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the harm Pardede

experienced during the student protests and the burning of his church did not rise

to the level of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-340 (9th Cir.

1995).

In analyzing Pardede’s withholding of removal claim, the agency declined to

apply the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922,

927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Intervening case law holds the disfavored group analysis

applies to withholding of removal. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1062-65;

Tampubolon v. Holder, 598 F.3d 521, 525-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (“any reasonable

factfinder would be compelled to conclude on this record that Christian

Indonesians are a disfavored group”). Accordingly, we remand to the BIA to

consider whether Rusli is entitled to withholding of removal under Sael and

Wakkary. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). In

addition, in assessing withholding of removal, the BIA should consider Pardede’s

pattern or practice of persecution and his social group claims. See Sagaydak v.

Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“the BIA [is] not free to ignore

arguments raised by a petitioner.”). 
3 07-74023

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.42

                            Schedule to Exhibit 10.40

Employee                   Title                                       Amount
Kevin J. McNamara          President and Chief Executive Officer     489,759.28
#### SMITH, Respondent, v. FREEPORT R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 25, 1913.)

Action by Samuel R. Smith against the Freeport Rail-road Company.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18 U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION 906
      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I,
      Steven
      B. Solomon certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
      Report of Citadel Security Software, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended
      December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
      information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material
      respects the financial condition and results of operations of Citadel Security
      Software Inc.




By:/s/
                Steven B. SolomonName:
                Steven B. SolomonTitle:
                President and Chief Executive Officer




March
      27,
      2006






I,
      Richard Connelly certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
      Annual Report of Citadel Security Software, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year
      ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
      information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material
      respects the financial condition and results of operations of Citadel Security
      Software Inc.





By:/s/
                Richard ConnellyName: Richard
                ConnellyTitle: Chief
                Financial Officer




March
      27,
      2006
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of F.J., a Child

No. 06-19-00041-CV

Appeal from the 115th District Court of 

Upshur County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 682-17). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice 

Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. 

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 25, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       8,769,598
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,774,914
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,774,914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,528
<BONDS>                                        964,480
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,790,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,774,914
<SALES>                                        153,809
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               988,221
<CGS>                                           68,653
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,287
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                876,281
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            876,281
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   876,281
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    28.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    28.92
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99(b)





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Form 10-QSB of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, I,
Lisa M. Porter, Chief Financial Officer of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:





|(1) |  | such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, 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 such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc.
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/s/  Lisa M. PorterLisa M. Porter Chief Financial Officer




18
# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Chicago, Illinois 60604 December 14, 2005

Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Chief Judge Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

Thomas J. Moriarty, Trustee on Behalf of the Local ] Union No. 727, I.B.T. Pension Trust, and the ] Teamsters Local Union No. 727 Health and ] Appeals from the United Welfare Trust, ] States District Court for ] the Northern District of Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant , ] Illinois, Eastern Division. ] Nos. 03-1699 and 03-1743 v. ] No. 96-C-7392 ] J AMES F. S VEC , individually and doing business as ] George W. Lindberg, S VEC & S ONS F UNERAL H OME and doing business as ] Judge. W EST S UBURBAN L IVERY , ] ] Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. ]

O R D E R The opinion issued in the above-entitled case on November 21, 2005, is hereby amended as follows: On Page 8, the last paragraph, lines 5-7 should be replaced with: requested in prior relevant arguments before this Court and the district court. Svec may not now reverse course and adopt a contrary position. The...
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       8,877,170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,882,486
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,882,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,291
<BONDS>                                        964,480
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,899,715
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,882,486
<SALES>                                        153,809
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,109,065
<CGS>                                           68,653
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,322
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                985,090
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            985,090
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   985,090
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    32.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    32.51
        

</TABLE>
Tariq Liyuen Adevemi BELT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the DISTRICT OF MARYLAND.

No. 12-10861.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 99.1


Quinenco S.A.
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

      Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies as
follows:

1.    I am the Chief Executive Officer of Quinenco S.A. (the "Company").

2.    The Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 2002
      accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
      "Exchange Act"); and

3.    The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

      Dated: June 25, 2003


                                                  /s/ Francisco Perez Mackenna
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                  Francisco Perez Mackenna
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
#### Arthur R. EIPPER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-20618

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 26, 2006.

David R. Schleicher, Law Office of David R. Schleicher, Waco, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Charmaine Aarons Holder, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant Appellee.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We affirm the judgment of the district court essentially for the reasons set forth in its careful memorandum and opinion of June 1, 2005.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
|   | 12/02 | 3/03 | 6/03 | 9/03 | 12/03 | 3/04 | 6/04 | 9/04 | 12/04 | 3/05 | 6/05 | 9/05 | 12/05 | 3/06 | 6/06 | 9/06 |
|--------|-------|------|------|------|-------|------|------|------|-------|------|------|------|-------|------|------|------|
| 1.29   | 1.30  | 1.31 | 1.34 | 1.33 | 1.33  | 1.32 | 1.32 | 1.31 | 1.29  | 1.28 | 1.26 | 1.25 | 1.23  | 1.23 | 1.22 |
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT



For the period of November 2, 2007 to December 31, 2007, the servicing of consumer finance receivables owned by BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2007-1 has been conducted by BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, in its capacity as servicer, in compliance with the servicing standards in all material respects, set forth in Articles IV and V of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated November 2, 2007.  To the best of the undersigneds knowledge, based on such review, the servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.



By:

BMW Financial Services NA, LLC



By:

/s/ Kerstin Zerbst

Kerstin Zerbst



Title:     Chief Financial Officer