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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 459 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 459

  To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to preserve 
        certain rates for the milk income loss contract program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2011

Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to preserve 
        certain rates for the milk income loss contract program.

    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 ``MILC Preservation Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. MILK INCOME LOSS CONTRACT PROGRAM.

    (a) Payment Rate.--Section 1506(c)(3) of the Food, Conservation, 
and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8773(c)(3)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' at the end; 
        and
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``ending August 31, 
        2012'' and all that follows through the end of subparagraph (C) 
        and inserting ``thereafter, 45 percent.''
    (b) Payment Rate Adjustment for Feed Prices.--Section 1506(d) of 
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8773(d)) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking the paragraph heading and 
        all that follows through ``August 31, 2012,'' and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(1) In general.--For any month beginning on or after 
        January 1, 2008,'';
            (2) by striking paragraph (2); and
            (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
    (c) Budgetary Effects.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the 
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 
shall be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for 
printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate 
Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior 
to the vote on passage.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2311 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2311

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain high-performance 
                             loudspeakers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2005

 Mr. Wilson of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain high-performance 
                             loudspeakers.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN HIGH-PERFORMANCE LOUDSPEAKERS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.85.20 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain high-performance 
loudspeakers) is amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/
31/2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 11
                                   
                BT FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND AFFILIATES
                  COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                                   
                              (Unaudited)


                              Three months ended      Nine months ended
                                    September 30           September 30
                                 1997       1996        1997       1996
                            --------------------------------------------
(In thousands, except shares
and per share data)
Primary income per share:
     Net income               $ 4,388    $ 3,115    $ 12,663    $ 9,858
     Preferred dividends            0          0           0         54
                            --------------------------------------------
     Net income applicable to
      common stock            $ 4,388    $ 3,115    $ 12,663    $ 9,804
                            --------------------------------------------
  Average common shares
    outstanding and common
     stock equivalents      6,250,436  6,250,436   6,250,436  6,026,748
                            ============================================

 Net income per share-primary  $  .70     $  .50      $ 2.03     $ 1.63


Fully diluted income per share:
     Net income               $ 4,388    $ 3,115    $ 12,663    $ 9,858
                            ============================================
     Average common shares
      outstanding and common
       stock equivalents    6,250,436  6,250,436   6,250,436  6,026,748
     Additional common shares
      assuming:
        Conversion of preferred
         stock Series A             0          0           0     69,216
                            -------------------------------------------
     Average common shares
      outstanding and common
      stock equivalents     6,250,436  6,250,436   6,250,436  6,095,964
                            ===========================================

     Net income per share-fully
      diluted                  $  .70     $  .50     $  2.03   $   1.62
                            ===========================================

 Note:  Share and per share data have been adjusted to reflect the 10%
        stock dividends distributed on October 22, 1996 and September 15, 1997.
EXHIBIT31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael D.Liddle, Chief Executive Officer of Home Director, Inc., certifythat:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of Home Director, Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge,this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period coveredby this quarterly report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small businessissuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;

4.    The small business issuer's othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and wehave:

a)    Designed such disclosure controls and proceduresor caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small businessissuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisquarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

c)    Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the smallbusiness issuer's internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the small business issuer's internal controlover financial reporting; and

5.    The small businessissuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer's board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):

a)    Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial data;and

b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the smallbusiness issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 24, 2004

|  | By:  /s/Michael D. Liddle Michael D. Liddle Chief ExecutiveOfficer |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 0 2
- 00 235
- CR

Mark Lagrada Canete , Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST

JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. A
- 99
- 0652
- S , HONORABLE CURT F. STEIB , JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Mark Lagrada Canete was placed on community supervision after being convicted of burglary of a habitation on a plea of guilty. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 30.02 (West Supp. 2002). His supervision was revoked after he admitted several of the violations alleged in the motion to
revoke. Appellant =

s court

- appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requireme nts of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State , 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy ofcounsel =

s brief was deliv ered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel = s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel = s motion to withdraw is granted.

The order revoking community supervisio n is affirmed.

Mack Kidd, Justice Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear
Affirmed Filed: August 30, 2002
Do Not Publish
#### Ruth Quinche, Appellant, v Diego Gonzalez, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 798]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered February 1, 1996, which incorporated, but did not merge, the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement dated October 27, 1995, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated August 2, 2010, as, after a hearing, denied that branch of her motion which was to hold the defendant in civil contempt of, inter alia, the judgment of divorce.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court did not err in admitting into evidence at the subject hearing certain audio recordings. The recordings did not constitute inadmissible hearsay. “Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein” *(Gelpi v 37th Ave. Realty Corp.,*281 AD2d 392, 392 [2001]). “However, a statement which is not offered to establish the truth of the facts asserted therein is not hearsay” *(id.).*Here, the recordings at issue were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not err in admitting the recordings into evidence on this ground. The plaintiffs remaining contentions concerning the admission of these recordings are unpreserved for appellate review.

“To prevail on a motion to punish a party for civil contempt, the movant must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the party charged violated a clear and unequivocal court order, thereby prejudicing a right of another party to the litigation” *(Katz v Katz,*73 AD3d 1134 [2010]; *see*Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]; *Sutton v Sutton,*93 AD3d 779 [2012]; *Manning v Manning,*82 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2011]; *Rienzi v Rienzi,*23 AD3d 447, 449 [2005]; *Vujovic v Vujovic,*16 AD3d 490, 491 [2005]; *Rupp-Elmasri v Elmasri,*305 AD2d 394, 395 [2003]). Here, the plaintiff failed to meet her burden. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of her motion which was to *1076hold the defendant in civil contempt. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Belen and Miller, JJ., concur.
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1728

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study 

and for other purposes. Missouri as a unit of the National Park System, tions of Ste. Genevieve County in the State of the suitability and feasibility of designating por-

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1728

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating portions of Ste. Genevieve County in the State of Missouri as a unit of 

the National Park System, 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, 
2

•HR 1728 EH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ste. Genevieve County 

3 National Historic Site Study Act of 2005’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

5 In this Act: 

6 (1) AREA.—The term ‘‘Area’’ means Ste. Gene7 vieve County, Missouri, which includes the Bequette8 Ribault, St. Gemme-Amoureaux, and Wilhauk 

9 homes, and the related and supporting historical as10 sets located in Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. 

11 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

12 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Di13 rector of the National Park Service. 

14 SEC. 3. STUDY. 

15 (a) In General.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

16 on which funds are made available to carry out this Act, 

17 the Secretary shall, in consultation with the State of Mis18 souri—

19 (1) complete a study on the suitability and fea20 sibility of designating the Area as a unit of the Na21 tional Park System, which shall include the potential 

22 impact that designation of the area as a unit of the 

23 National Park System is likely to have on land with24 in the proposed area or bordering the proposed area 

25 that is privately owned at the time that the study is 

26 conducted; and 
3

•HR 1728 EH 

1 (2) submit to the Committee on Resources of 

2 the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

3 Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a re4 port describing the findings of the study. 

5 (b) Contents.—The study under subsection (a) shall 

6 be conducted in accordance with Public Law 91–383 (16 

7 U.S.C. 1a–1 et seq.).

Passed the House of Representatives February 28, 

2006. 

Attest:

Clerk.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

|   | (1) | The                Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                         |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Reed                    Fisher      |   |   |        |
| Reed                    Fisher               |   |   |        |
| Chief                      Executive Officer |   |   |   |
|                                         |   |   |   |
| August                      4, 2006          |   |   |   |
July 14, 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EMMANUEL WIGGINS , Appellant
NO S . 14

- 15

- 00480

- CR 14

- 15

- 00481

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_____ ___________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there w as no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certi fied below for observance.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 128 (Thursday, July 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36160-36161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14489]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission


Certification of Meeting Closure

    Pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409) [5 
U.S.C. Section 552b]
    I, Helen H. Krapels, General Counsel of the United States Parole 
Commission, certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552b(f)(1):
    In my opinion a meeting of the Commission to be held on Tuesday, 
July 13, 2021 at approximately 2:00 p.m., at the U.S. Parole 
Commission, 90 K Street NE, Washington, DC 20530, could be closed to 
the public in the event that a majority of the Commissioners present 
vote to close said meeting at the beginning thereof, with the vote 
properly recorded.
    The exemptions of the Government in the Sunshine Act that may allow 
closing the meeting to the public 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10) and (d)(4) (for 
applicable Parole Commission regulations see 28 CFR 16.203(a)(10), 
16.205(a) and 16.205(b)(1)). In addition, the following laws and 
regulations may apply to exempt disclosure to the public portions of 
the subject matter of this meeting: 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (6) and (7) 
and 28 CFR 16.203(a)(3), (6), and (7).
    In witness whereof, I have signed this document (and affixed the 
seal of the

[[Page 36161]]

United States Parole Commission) this July 1, 2021.

Helen H. Krapels,
General Counsel, United States Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-14489 Filed 7-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Docs Historical Perspectives







TruckFarmingheadline bar Truck Farming in West Virginia


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
**Exhibit 14.1**

 

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

The Board of Directors 

Alcon, Inc.:

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-11145, 333-100746 and 333-86882) of Alcon, Inc. of our report dated February 8, 2006 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Alcon, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, which report appears in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 20-F of Alcon, Inc.  

 

 

 

| KPMG LLP |
|----------|

 

 

Fort Worth, Texas

March 13, 2006
#### Albert Jacobs, LLP, Respondent, v Diana Parker, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Troutman Sanders, LLP Respondent, v Diana Parker, Appellant. (Action No. 2.) Diana Parker, Appellant, v Troutman Sanders, LLP et al., Respondents. (Action No. 3.)

[942 NYS2d 374]

In three related actions, inter alia, to re*920cover damages for breach of fiduciary duties, Diana Parker, as executor of the estate of Gertrude Neumark Rothschild, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered August 12, 2011, which denied her motion to direct the release, to her, of certain funds in the sum of $1,214,920.41, that are held in escrow.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying her motion for the release of certain funds held in escrow.

“[A] written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” *(Greenfield v Philles Records,*98 NY2d 562, 569 [2002]; *see MHR Capital Partners LP v Presstek, Inc.,*12 NY3d 640, 645 [2009]). Here, the parties’ written escrow agreement clearly enumerates certain conditions to the release of escrow funds. None of those conditions was met.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Chambers, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.