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

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1572

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating certain

regulations relating to Indian gaming activities.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 27, 1998

Mr. BRYAN (for himself, Mr. ENZI, Mr. REID, and Mr. SESSIONS) introduced

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee

on Indian Affairs

A BILL

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating

certain regulations relating to Indian gaming activities.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.

4 Notwithstanding section 11(d)(7)(B)(vii) of the In5 dian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C.

6 2710(d)(7)(B)(vii)), the Secretary of the Interior may not

7 promulgate—

8 (1) as final regulations, the proposed regula9 tions published on January 22, 1998, at 63 Fed.

10 Reg. 3289; or
2

•S 1572 IS

1 (2) any similar regulations to provide for proce2 dures for gaming activities under the Indian Gaming

3 Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) in any case

4 in which a State asserts a defense of sovereign im5 munity to a lawsuit brought by an Indian tribe in

6 a Federal court under section 11(d)(7) of that Act

7 (25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(7)) to compel the State to par8 ticipate in compact negotiations for class III gaming

9 (as that term is defined in section 4(8) of that Act

10 (25 U.S.C. 2703(8))).

Æ
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1319

To repeal the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 24, 1997

Mr. BYRD (for himself and Mr. MOYNIHAN) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred jointly pursuant to the order of August

4, 1977, as modified by the order of April 11, 1986, to the Committees

on the Budget and Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one

Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be

discharged

A BILL

To repeal the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF THE LINE ITEM VETO ACT OF 1996.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Line Item Veto Act (Public

5 Law 104–130) and the amendments made by that Act are

6 repealed.

7 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The Impoundment Control Act

8 of 1974 shall be applied and administered as if the Line

9 Item Veto Act had not been enacted.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1531 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1531

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To deauthorize certain portions of the project for navigation, Bass 
                             Harbor, Maine.

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

SECTION 1. BASS HARBOR, MAINE.

    (a) Deauthorization.--The portions of the project for navigation, 
Bass Harbor, Maine, authorized on May 7, 1962, under section 107 of the 
River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), that are described in 
subsection (b) are not authorized after the date of enactment of this 
Act.
    (b) Description.--The portions of the project referred to in 
subsection (a) are described as follows:
            (1) Beginning at a bend in the project, N149040.00, 
        E538505.00, thence running easterly about 50.00 feet along the 
        northern limit of the project to a point N149061.55, 
        E538550.11, thence running southerly about 642.08 feet to a 
        point, N148477.64, E538817.18, thence running southwesterly 
        about 156.27 feet to a point on the westerly limit of the 
        project, N148348.50, E538737.02, thence running northerly about 
        149.00 feet along the westerly limit of the project to a bend 
        in the project, N148489.22, E538768.09, thence running 
        northwesterly about 610.39 feet along the westerly limit of the 
        project to the point of origin.
            (2) Beginning at a point on the westerly limit of the 
        project, N148118.55, E538689.05, thence running southeasterly 
        about 91.92 feet to a point, N148041.43, E538739.07, thence 
        running southerly about 65.00 feet to a point, N147977.86, 
        E538725.51, thence running southwesterly about 91.92 feet to a 
        point on the westerly limit of the project, N147927.84, 
        E538648.39, thence running northerly about 195.00 feet along 
        the westerly limit of the project to the point of origin.

            Passed the Senate June 9, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1531

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To deauthorize certain portions of the project for navigation, Bass 
                             Harbor, Maine.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Walker, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 369]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated May 3, 2011 *(People v Walker,*84 AD3d 842 [2011]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered June 18, 2009.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Mastro, A.P.J., Balkin, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0118. STEFANIE L. BORGERS v. BRYAN THOMAS BORGERS.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered

that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10

days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a

copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

The Appellant’s request to stay the trial court’s order is DENIED. See Court

of Appeals Rule 41 (b). Should Appellant wish to obtain a ruling on this issue, she

should first direct any such request to the trial court. See Green Bull Ga. Partners,

LLC v. Register, 301 Ga. 472, 473 (801 SE2d 843) (2017).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

October 17, 2017

10/17/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> 
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of Blue Rhino Corporation and its
subsidiaries and affiliates as of and for the six months ended January 31, 1999
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                          1,681
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                   6,795
<ALLOWANCES>                                      254
<INVENTORY>                                        35
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,637 
<PP&E>                                         14,810
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 43,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           5,967
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            8
<OTHER-SE>                                     25,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   43,491
<SALES>                                        17,898 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               18,137
<CGS>                                          13,767         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,911 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (150)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  311 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 67
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (2)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (2)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                      (2)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.00)
        


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

ALBERT STAFFORD , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 13

- 1532

[ December 5, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Lynn Rosenthal

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 93

- 18389 CF10B

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, a nd Luke R. Napodano , Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY OF MANDATE

P ER C URIAM

.

We initially issued an opinion in this case reversing t he trial court’s order denying A ppellant’s motion for po stconviction relief and remanding for resentencing pursuant to Atwell v. State

, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016).
We cited our opinion in Michel v. State , 204 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) and certified conflict with Stallings v. State , 198 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016 ) and Williams v. State , 198 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Thereafter, we granted a stay of mandate pending the disposition of the conflict. The Florida Supreme C ourt subsequently quashed our opinion in Michel

. See State v. Michel , 43 Fla. L. Weekly S298 (Fla. July 12, 2018)

. Appellant has now filed a motion to lift the stay of mandate and reinstate our opinion following the dictates of Atwell . In response, the State requests that we withdraw our Michel opinion and affirm the trial court’s summary d enial of A ppellant’s motion for postconviction relief.
We agree with the State and now lift our stay of mandate and withdraw

our prior opinion in the instant case . We affirm the t rial court’s summary2 denial of A ppellant’s motion for postconviction relief pursuant to the

supreme c ourt’s opinion in Michel

. See also Franklin v. State

, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S556 (Fla. Nov. 8, 2018) (reaffirming that Atwell is no longer good law and that Franklin’s three 1,000

- year concurrent sentences with the possibility of parole did not violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution or the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48 (2010) and Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 (2012) ).

Prior opinion withdrawn ; affirmed

.

C IKLIN , C ONNER and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Case: 1:03-cv-00611 Document #: 20  Filed: 12/22/03 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:115

Case: 1:03-cv-00611 Document #: 20  Filed: 12/22/03 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:116

Case: 1:03-cv-00611 Document #: 20  Filed: 12/22/03 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:117

Case: 1:03-cv-00611 Document #: 20  Filed: 12/22/03 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:118

Case: 1:03-cv-00611 Document #: 20  Filed: 12/22/03 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:119

Case: 1:03-cv-00611 Document #: 20  Filed: 12/22/03 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:120
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________ NO. 09
- 12
- 00 251
- CV



### _________________ NATHANIEL JONES , III , Appellant

V. R. ALFORD, ET AL , Appellee s

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 136th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. D
- 191,576

________________________________________________________________________ ORDER Appellant, Nathaniel Jones , III , is currently confined in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and is representing
himself pro se in civil litigation. Appellant requests possession of the original appellate record so that he may prepare his brief. D. Pille , an employee of the correctional facility in which the appellant is confined, shall act as custodian of the record.
It is t herefore ORDERED that the clerk’s record, the supplemental clerk’s record and the reporter’s record filed in this appeal be mailed to D. Pille , Law Library2

Supervisor , 3060 F.M. 3514, Beaumont, Texas 77705 , who shall give a receipt therefore. Law Library S upervisor D. Pille shall maintain the appellate record in custody and safekeeping, for review by appellant, Nathaniel Jones , III . The Court ORDERS Law Library Supervisor D. Pille to return the appellate rec ord to the Court of Appeals by January 4 , 201 3

. The brief of the ap pellant is due January 4 , 201 3

. ORDER ENTERED November 30 , 2012

. PER CURIAM

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnny Rios, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 499]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered August 26, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of 25 years to life, to run consecutively to a certain undischarged sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing.

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his due process right to a fair trial by the admission of certain uncharged crime evidence is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Dahlbender,*23 AD3d 493, 494 [2005]) and, in any event, without merit *(see generally People v*
      *979
      *Till, 87*NY2d 835, 836-837 [1995]; *People v Muniz,*248 AD2d 644, 644-645 [1998]; *see also People v James,*19 AD3d 616, 617 [2005]; *cf. People v Resek,*3 NY3d 385, 390 [2004]; *People v Drake,*94 AD3d 1506 [2012]; *People v Sayers,*64 AD3d 728, 732 [2009]; *People v Foster,*295 AD2d 110, 113 [2002]; *People v Bell,*217 AD2d 585, 586 [1995]).

However, as the defendant contends and the People correctly concede, the defendant is entitled to be resentenced. In particular, certain remarks made by the Supreme Court during sentencing demonstrate that it incorrectly believed that it was required, as a matter of law, to direct that the defendant’s sentence run consecutively to a certain undischarged sentence when in fact, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court had discretion to direct that the defendant’s sentence run either concurrently with or consecutively to that undischarged sentence *(see*Penal Law § 70.25 [4]). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing *(see People v Yant,*223 AD2d 747, 747 [1996]; *People v Jeffries,*166 AD2d 665, 666 [1990]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1355 Engrossed Amendment House (EAH)]

  2d Session

                                S. 1355

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENTS
                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 23, 1998.

    Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1355) entitled ``An Act to 
designate the United States courthouse located in New Haven, Connecticut, as the 
``Richard C. Lee United States Courthouse'', do pass with the following

                              AMENDMENTS:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 141 Church Street in New 
Haven, Connecticut, shall be known and designated as the ``Richard C. 
Lee United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Richard C. Lee 
United States Courthouse''.

            Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to designate the 
        United States courthouse located at 141 Church Street in New 
        Haven, Connecticut, as the `Richard C. Lee United States 
        Courthouse'.''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Amendment No. 3 to 2002 Non-0fficer Employee Stock Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.8 
 MODUSLINK GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO 
 2002 NON-OFFICER EMPLOYEE STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 The 2002 Non-Officer Employee Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”) of ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is hereby amended by deleting all references to “CMGI, Inc.” and substituting in
lieu thereof “ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc.” 
 *********** 
  

	
	Adopted by the Board of Directors on
	September 24, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 155 (Monday, August 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 45821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17516]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


VA National Academic Affiliations Council, Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the VA National 
Academic Affiliations Council (Council) will meet via conference call 
on September 16, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST. The meeting is open 
to the public.
    The purpose of the Council is to advise the Secretary on matters 
affecting partnerships between VA and its academic affiliates.
    On September 16, 2021, the Council will receive briefs on VA 
initiatives that influence trainees and the academic mission. The 
Council will receive public comments from 2:45 p.m. to 2:55 p.m. EST.
    Interested persons may attend and/or present oral statements to the 
Council.
    The dial in number to attend the conference call is: 646-828-7666. 
At the prompt, enter meeting ID 160 780 1157, then press #. The meeting 
passcode is 008466, then press #. Individuals seeking to present oral 
statements are invited to submit a 1-2 page summary of their comments 
at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting 
record. Oral presentations will be limited to five minutes or less, 
depending on the number of participants. Interested parties may also 
provide written comments for review by the Council prior to the meeting 
or at any time, by email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbf7dac9d2c8c8da95fed6d4c9c2fbcdda95dcd4cd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96daf7e4ffe5e5f7b8d3fbf9e4efd6e0f7b8f1f9e0">[email protected]</span></a>, or by mail to Larissa 
A. Emory PMP, CBP, MS, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Academic 
Affiliations (14AA), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420. Any 
member of the public wishing to participate or seeking additional 
information should contact Ms. Emory via email or by phone at (915) 
269-0465.

    Dated: August 11, 2021.
Jelessa M. Burney,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-17516 Filed 8-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

KIMBERLY VINSON, 

Plaintiff, 

1: 14-cv-01120-TC 

v. 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

COFFIN, Magistrate Judge: 

On July 14, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint for review of the final decision of the 

commissioner (ECF No. 1). The following day, the court entered a scheduling order that, among 

other things, ordered that plaintiff file a memorandum in support of the petition for review not 

later than sixty (60) days after service of the answer. The Commissioner filed an answer and the 

administrative record on December 2, 2014. Plaintiff failed to file either an opening brief or a 

motion for extension of time within sixty ( 60) days after the Commissioner filed an answer. 

Plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing by February 25, 2015 why this matter 

should not be dismissed for failure to follow a court order and failure to prosecute and advised 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PAGE 1 

Case 1:14-cv-01120-TC Document 11 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 2
that failure to respond to the order may result in the dismissal of this action. To date, plaintiff 

has failed to respond to the order to show cause. 

Accordingly, this action should be dismissed for failure to follow a court order and 

failure to prosecute. 

The above Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a United States District 

Judge for review. Objections, if any, are due no later than fourteen days after the date this order 

is filed. The parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). If no objections are filed, review of the Findings and Recommendation will go under 

advisement on that date. If objections are filed, any party may file a response within fourteen 

days after the date the objections are filed. Review of the Findings and Recommendation will go 

under advisement when the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier. 

Dated this _:t_ day of March 2015. 

United 

THOMA~ States Magistrate Judge 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PAGE2 

Case 1:14-cv-01120-TC Document 11 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 2