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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2294

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the use of autodialers 

for purposes of political solicitations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2005

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself and Ms. FOXX) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the 

use of autodialers for purposes of political solicitations, 

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Robocaller Identifica5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AUTOMATED CALLING FOR POLIT7 ICAL PURPOSES. 

8 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 227(b)(1) of the Commu9 nications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)) is amended—
2

•HR 2294 IH 

1 (1) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘, for any 

2 purpose other than for a political purpose,’’ after 

3 ‘‘prerecorded voice’’; 

4 (2) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph 

5 (C); 

6 (3) by striking the period at the end of sub7 paragraph (D) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

8 (4) by adding at the end the following new sub9 paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(E) to initiate any telephone call using an 

11 automatic telephone dialing system or an artifi12 cial or prerecorded voice for a political purpose, 

13 unless—

14 ‘‘(i) at the beginning of the message, 

15 it states clearly the identity of the entity or 

16 individual that is responsible for initiating 

17 the call and the entity or individual respon18 sible for funding the call; and 

19 ‘‘(ii) during or after the message—

20 ‘‘(I) it states clearly a telephone 

21 number or address of such entity or 

22 individual where further information 

23 about the entity may be obtained; or 
3

•HR 2294 IH 

1 ‘‘(II) it states the individuals 

2 that serve on the board of directors of 

3 the entity.’’. 

4 (b) DEFINITION.—Section 227(a) of such Act is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new para6 graph: 

7 ‘‘(5) The term ‘political purpose’ means the 

8 purpose of attempting to influence legislation, or of 

9 attempting to participate in or intervene in any po10 litical campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) 

11 any candidate for public office.’’.

Æ
**Exhibit 31.3**

**CERTIFICATION**

I,Phillip B. Simons, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Wheeling Island Gaming,Inc.;

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and wehave:

a) designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

5.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting. 
|                             |                                         |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                        | /s/ Phillip B.  Simons                       |
|                        |                                         |
| Dated: March 21,  2007 | Phillip B. Simons  Vice President of Finance |

 

----
[No. 39398-7-I.

Division One.

August 11, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. William O. Ward, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-1-03525-1, Michael Hayden, J., entered September 23, 1996. *Dismissed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
EXHIBIT 10-15






EXHIBIT  10.15




Summary of Pamela J. Ahrens 2015 Compensation




The Knoll, Inc. compensation committee approved an annual base salary of $285,000 for Pamela J. Ahrens, with a bonus target of $285,000.  Ms. Ahrens is also entitled to participate in the benefit plans provided by Knoll that are generally available to Knoll employees.
#### BRADY, Respondent, v. MAXWELL-BRISCOE MOTOR CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by Arthur C. Brady against the Maxwell-Briseoe Motor Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I,Steven M. Besbeck, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this transitional report on Form 10-QSBof Creative Computer Applications, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour 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 changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent first fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors:

(a)           All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: February 24, 2005 | /S/ Steven M. Besbeck                                            |   |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Steven M. Besbeck                                                |
|                    | President, Chief Executive  Officer, and Chief Financial Officer |

 

20

----
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CINCOTTA, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 6, 1913.)

Proeeeding .by the People of the State of New York against Antonio Cincotta.

No opinion. Motion denietl.
#### JAMES R. KEISER, Inc., Respondent, v. KAISER & CO. et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 15, 1912.)

Action by James B. Keiser, Incorporated, against Kaiser & Co. and others. M. D. Josephson, for appellants. R. F. Clarke, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. See, also, 144 App. Div. 917, 129 N. Y. Supp. 1129.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 99-4518

MYRNA JOSEPHINE HOLT WILSON,

a/k/a Joanne Wilson,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge.

(CR-98-91-2)

Submitted: March 23, 2000

Decided: March 31, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Linda Gale Willis, Bedford, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P.

Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Sharon Burnham, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Myrna Josephine Holt Wilson appeals her conviction and sentence

for conspiracy to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.

§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (West 1999). Because we find no reversible error,

we affirm.

Initially, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion

by denying Wilson's motion to withdraw her guilty plea despite her

contentions that she did not understand either the plea agreement or

the amount of heroin attributed to her. See United States v. Moore,

931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991) (stating standard of review). After

applying the appropriate factors laid out in Moore, see id., the district

court concluded that Wilson failed to articulate a"fair and just reason" justifying withdrawal of her guilty plea, see Fed. R. Crim. P.

32(e). We find this conclusion proper given that during her Rule 11

colloquy she knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty in full understanding of the plea and the amount of heroine attributed to her, that

instead of arguing her innocence she repetitively admitted her culpability to family and to the district court, and that she waited close to

four months before moving to withdraw her plea.

We next decline to address Wilson's claim that the district court

erroneously enhanced her sentence for her role in the drug conspiracy

because she waived her right to appeal this issue. In her plea agreement and plea colloquy Wilson voluntarily and intelligently waived

her right to appeal her sentence except if the district court departed

upwards from the guidelines or deviated from factual findings stipulated in the plea agreement. See United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d

165, 167 (4th Cir. 1991). Because her conspiratorial role enhancement

falls under neither exception, her right to appeal this issue was

waived.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court judgment order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the material before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 115 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 32266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12822]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than July 19, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Chris P. Wangen, Assistant 
Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
    1. Bank Forward Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, Fargo, 
North Dakota; to acquire up to 40% of the voting shares of Security 
State Bank Holding Company, Fargo, North Dakota, and thereby indirectly 
acquire voting shares of Bank Forward, Hannaford, North Dakota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 14, 2021.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-12822 Filed 6-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
#### Illinois Union Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v Arrio Corporation, et al., Defendants. Arric Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, v Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants, and Guard Contracting Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

[942 NYS2d 827]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J), entered July 30, 2010. The order denied the motion of third-party defendants Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company and National Surety Corporation for summary judgment and granted the *1445cross motion of third-party defendant Guard Contracting Corporation for summary judgment.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on January 31, 2012 and filed on February 14, 2012,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Fahey, Garni and Sconiers, JJ.
(121 App. Div. 488.)

#### HALL v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

1. Explosives—Personal Injuries—Persons Liable—Railroads—Construction.

Where dynamite obtained by a contractor engaged in widening railroad tracks for use in his work exploded, and injured plaintiff, but it did not appear that the railroad company had anything to do with the dynamite and the cause of the explosion was unknown, a verdict against the railroad company was unwarranted.

*1072. Same—Keeping op Dynamite.

The keeping of dynamite by a contractor engaged in widening railroad, tracks along the line of work for immediate use is not within an ordinance making it unlawful to have or keep dynamite in any place except in magazines erected for the purpose according to plans approved by the fire commissioners and under a license from the mayor.

[Ed. Note.—For eases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 23, Explosives, §§ 4, 5.1

Appeal from Westchester County Court.

Action by Hattie Hall against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company and another to recover damages from a nuisance. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant railroad appeals. Reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, HOOKER, RICH, and GAYNOR, JJ.

Gustav R. Hamburger, for appellants.

William A. Walsh, for respondent.

GAYNOR, J.

The widening of the appellant’s railroad tracks in

the City of Mount Vernon was being done by a contractor under a written contract with the appellant. Rock had to be blasted in the work by the contractor. The contractor used dynamite for this purpose. One hundred and five pounds of it in a box at a point on the work exploded, and the shock injured the plaintiff in her house nearby. She brought this action for damages against both the contractor and the railroad company (the appellant), and got a verdict of $500 against both. There is no evidence that the appellant had anything to do with the dynamite. It was brought on the work for necessary use by the contractor. The cause of the explosion is unknown. The learned trial judge also erred in his charge in respect of the city ordinance. In sum and substance it makes it unlawful “to have or keep” dynamite, or other explosives named, in any place in the city, except in magazines erected for the purpose according to plans approved by the fire commissioners and under a license from the mayor. The “storing” of such explosives except under such a license is subjected to a penalty. The refusal of the learned trial judge to charge that this ordinance did not apply to the case was error. It only applies to the storing of explosives to be taken out and used elsewhere, and not to explosives along the line of work for immediate use, as was the case here.

The judgment should be reversed.

Judgment and order of the County Court of Westchester county reversed and new trial ordered; costs to abide the event. All concur. HIRSCHBERG, P. J., concurs on first grounds stated in opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2300 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2300

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for 
 pension benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans 
   Affairs to veterans who served during certain periods of time in 
                          specified locations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2005

  Mr. Rahall introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for 
 pension benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans 
   Affairs to veterans who served during certain periods of time in 
                          specified locations.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
              PENSION BENEFITS.

     Section 1501(4) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Such term includes--
            ``(1) the period beginning on February 1, 1955, and ending 
        on August 4, 1964, in the case of active military, naval, or 
        air service performed in the Republic of Korea;
            ``(2) the period beginning on May 8, 1975, and ending on 
        August 1, 1990, in the case of active military, naval, or air 
        service performed in the Republic of Korea;
            ``(3) the period beginning on August 24, 1982, and ending 
        on July 31, 1984, in the case of active military, naval, or air 
        service performed in Lebanon or Granada; and
            ``(4) the period beginning on December 20, 1989, and ending 
        on January 31, 1990, in the case of active military, naval, or 
        air service performed in Panama.''.
                                 <all>
```