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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 149 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 149

  To amend the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 to establish 
  qualification standards for individuals nominated to be the Deputy 
  Director of Demand Reduction in the Office of National Drug Control 
                                Policy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 21, 1997

 Mr. Moynihan (for himself and Mr. Grassley) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and 
                            Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 to establish 
  qualification standards for individuals nominated to be the Deputy 
  Director of Demand Reduction in the Office of National Drug Control 
                                Policy.

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

SECTION 1. QUALIFICATIONS FOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEMAND REDUCTION IN 
              OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY.

    (a) In General.--Section 1003(a)(1) of the National Narcotics 
Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1502(a)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)'';
            (2) by striking ``the Deputy Directory for Demand 
        Reduction,''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(B) The Deputy Director for Demand Reduction shall be 
        appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent 
        of the Senate, from among individuals who--
                    ``(i) have a scientific educational and 
                professional background;
                    ``(ii) are eminent in the field of substance abuse 
                treatment or substance abuse prevention; and
                    ``(iii) have a demonstrated record of professional 
                publication and research in a substance abuse 
                discipline.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
only apply to individuals nominated under section 1003(a)(1)(B) of the 
National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 on or after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1641 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 1641

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 8, 1998

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study alternatives for 
establishing a national historic trail to commemorate and interpret the 
            history of women's rights in the United States.

    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 ``Women's Rights National Historic 
Trail Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. STUDY OF ALTERNATIVES FOR NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL TO 
              COMMEMORATE AND INTERPRET HISTORY OF WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN 
              THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
Director of the National Park Service (referred to in this section as 
the ``Secretary''), shall conduct a study of alternatives for 
commemorating and interpreting the history of women's rights in the 
United States.
    (b) Matters To Be Considered.--The study under subsection (a) shall 
include--
            (1) consideration of the establishment of a new unit of the 
        National Park System;
            (2) consideration of the establishment of various 
        appropriate designations for routes and sites relating to the 
        history of women's rights in the United States, and alternative 
        means to link those sites, including a corridor between 
        Buffalo, New York, and Boston, Massachusetts;
            (3) recommendations for cooperative arrangements with State 
        and local governments, local historical organizations, and 
        other entities; and
            (4) cost estimates for the alternatives.
    (c) Study Process.--The Secretary shall--
            (1) conduct the study with public involvement and in 
        consultation with State and local officials, scholarly and 
        other interested organizations, and individuals;
            (2) complete the study as expeditiously as practicable 
        after the date on which funds are made available for the study; 
        and
            (3) on completion of the study, submit to the Committee on 
        Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the 
        findings and recommendations of the study.

            Passed the Senate October 7 (legislative day, October 2), 
      1998.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### Jean I. Knapp, Respondent-Appellant, v Richard H. Nichols, Individually and Doing Business as Nichols Financial Services, Appellant-Respondent. (Action No. 1.) Carol A. Tonzi, Respondent-Appellant, v Richard H. Nichols, Individually and Doing Business as Nichols Financial Services, Appellant-Respondent. (Action No. 2.)

[942 NYS2d 822]

Appeal and cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Wayne County (Thomas M. Van Strydonck, J.), entered August 16, 2011. The order granted the motion of defendant for consolidation and denied as untimely the motion of defendant to dismiss the fourth cause of action in action No. 1.

Now, upon the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on January 24 and 30, 2012,

It is hereby ordered that said cross appeals are unanimously dismissed upon stipulation, and the order is affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Fahey and Sconiers, JJ.
ACCEPTED 01-15-00752-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 9/16/2015 3:26:28 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
I

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1525

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 18, 1998

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To provide financial assistance for higher education to the

dependents of Federal, State, and local public safety

officers who are killed or permanently and totally disabled as the result of a traumatic injury sustained in

the line of duty.

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 ‘‘Public Safety Officers

5 Educational Assistance Act of 1998’’.
2

S 1525 RFH

1 SEC. 2. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

2 TO DEPENDENTS OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFI3 CERS KILLED OR PERMANENTLY AND TO4 TALLY DISABLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY.

5 Part L of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe

6 Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.) is amend7 ed—

8 (1) in the heading for subpart 2, by striking

9 ‘‘Civilian Federal Law Enforcement’’ and

10 inserting ‘‘Public Safety’’;

11 (2) in section 1211(1), by striking ‘‘civilian

12 Federal law enforcement’’ and inserting ‘‘public

13 safety’’;

14 (3) in section 1212(a)(1)(A), by striking ‘‘Fed15 eral law enforcement’’ and inserting ‘‘public safety’’;

16 (4) in section 1216(a), by inserting ‘‘and each

17 dependent of a public safety officer killed in the line

18 of duty on or after October 1, 1997,’’ after ‘‘1992,’’;

19 and

20 (5) in section 1217—

21 (A) by striking paragraph (2); and

22 (B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and

23 (6) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively.

Passed the Senate May 15, 1998.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Sam Kraynek, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc.;

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

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

4. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small
business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the
small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuers internal control over financial reporting;

5. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the Equivalent
functions);

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|      |  |             
|----- |  | ------------
|Date: |  | May 13,
2011

|                                     |  |                
|------------------------------------ |  | ---------------
|By:                                  |  | /s/ Sam Kraynek
|Sam Kraynek, Chief Executive Officer
#### David Dookie, Appellant, v Astoria Federal Savings, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 234]—

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated February 18, 2010, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff obtained a mortgage from the defendant, Astoria Federal Savings Bank to purchase a multiple-family building, pursuant to which mortgage, the plaintiff was responsible for procuring fire insurance. The plaintiff, initially, did procure fire and other insurance and also paid the defendant, monthly, one twelfth the amount of the insurance premium to assure future payment of premiums. The mortgage provided that, in the event of a lapse in insurance, the defendant was permitted to procure insurance for the plaintiff, but was not obligated to do so. After one year, the insurance initially procured by the plaintiff was not renewed by the insurance carrier. The plaintiff thereafter procured other insurance, but upon terms which he claimed were less favorable.

After a fire destroyed the subject property, the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant alleging, among other things, breach of contract, claiming, inter alia, that the defendant breached its contractual obligation to pay the premium to the original insurer, resulting in the nonrenewal of that policy. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, inter alia, dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract.

*937“In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the mortgagee is under no obligation to insure the mortgaged premises” *(Beckford v Empire Mut. Ins. Group,*135 AD2d 228, 232 [1988]; *see Gurreri v Associates Ins. Co.,*248 AD2d 356 [1998]). Here, the original insurer delivered a renewal notice to the plaintiff which stated that “THERE ARE NO AUTOMATIC RENEWALS,” and which informed him that, in order to secure a renewal, the plaintiff had to sign the renewal form and expressly check off a box next to a statement that he desired renewal. Since the defendant submitted evidence on its motion that renewal required an active decision by the plaintiff as to whether he wanted to continue his relationship with this insurer, and also submitted the parties’ mortgage documents, which stated that the defendant had no contractual obligation to procure insurance in the event of a lapse, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant satisfied its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and that, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract. Florio, J.E, Lott, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
<logo>KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Suite 2800
Two First Union Center
Charlotte, NC 28282-8290

Independent Accountants' Report

The Board of Directors
First Union National Bank of North Carolina:

We have examined management's assertion about First Union 
National Bank of North Carolina Master Servicing Division's 
(the Company) compliance with the minimum servicing 
standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of 
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage 
Bankers (the USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31, 
1996 included in the accompanying management assertion. In 
as much as the Company does not service the loans underlying 
the master servicing directly, our procedures relative to 
minimum servicing standards
1.4., 11.1, 11.2., 11.3., 11.4., 111.2., 111.3., 111.4., 
111.6., V.1., V.2., V.3., V.4., and VI.1. of the USAP, 
involved obtaining and reading the most recently available 
reports from the primary servicers' independent auditors. 
Our opinion as expressed herein, insofar as it relates to 
such minimum servicing standards performed by such primary 
servicers, is based solely upon the reports of the 
respective independent auditors. Management is responsible 
for the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing 
standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on 
management's assertion about the Company's compliance based 
on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards 
established by the American Institute of Certified Public 
Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a text 
basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the 
minimum servicing standards and performing such other 
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. 
We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis 
for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal 
determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum 
servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that, except for 
noncompliance by the Company relating to custodial bank 
account reconciliations and various noncompliance with 
minimum servicing standards by certain of it's primary 
servicers noted from reading other independent auditors' 
reports, the Company complied with the aforementioned 
minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended 
December 31, 1996, is fairly stated, in all material 
respects.

/s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
April 28, 1997
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6499

MICHAEL MOMENT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RENEE MORTEL, a/k/a Renee Mortel Joy, State Attorney’s Office,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:16-cv-03966-PWG)

Submitted: June 29, 2018 Decided: August 1, 2018

Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Moment, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Moment seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

February 15, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on April 3, 2017.1

 

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment to note

an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period 

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). 

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” 

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

Moment’s notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after the district court’s 

entry of judgment. However, Moment sent the district court a letter dated March 24, 

2017, and entered on the district court’s docket on March 30, 2017, inquiring as to the 

status of his case. We construe this letter as a motion to reopen the appeal period. See

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(A). We remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the 

district court to determine when Moment received notice of the district court’s entry of its 

final order and whether he is entitled to a reopening of the appeal period pursuant to Rule 

 1 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for 

mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
3

4(a)(6).2

 The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further 

proceedings. 

REMANDED

 2 Because Moment did not move for an extension of the appeal period under Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(5), he is not eligible for an extension for excusable neglect or good cause. 

See Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 901 (4th Cir. 1989).
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (ii) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Paul KatzeffChief Executive Officer August 14, 2006
Opinion issued August 1, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NOS. 01-24-00551-CR

01-24-00552-CR

01-24-00564-CR

01-24-00565-CR

01-24-00566-CR

———————————

IN RE BARON YATES A/K/A BANON YATES, RELATOR

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator has filed these petitions for writ of mandamus complaining that the 

trial court has a ministerial duty to grant his “Motion to Dismiss Court Appointed 

Attorney and Appoint New Counsel to Act on Behalf of Defendant.”

1

1 The underlying cases are The State of Texas v. Yates, cause numbers 1833572, 

1833364, 1833417, 1824986, 1828678, pending in the 178th District Court of Harris

County, Texas, the Honorable Kelli Johnson, presiding.
2

We deny the petitions for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We 

dismiss any pending motions as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.4A
 
                   FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 


     This Amendment (the "Amendment") is entered into and made effective as of
the 1st day of August, 1998 and amends that certain Employment Agreement (the
"Agreement") dated as of May 9, 1997 between fine.com International Corp., a
Washington corporation f/k/a fine.com Corporation (the "Company"), and James P.
Chamberlin (the "Employee").

     The parties hereby agree as follows:

     1.  The first sentence of Section 4.1 of the Agreement is amended to read
as follows:

     "For all services rendered by Employee under this Agreement, including
     directors' fees, if any, Employer will pay Employee a base salary of One
     Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand Dollars ($133,000) per year (the "Base
     Salary")."

     2.  Except as amended above, the Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect as though set forth in this Amendment.

     DATED as of the date first above written.

EMPLOYEE:                    fine.com International Corp.



/s/ James P. Chamberlin      By:  /s/ Daniel M. Fine
-----------------------           -------------------------
James P. Chamberlin               Daniel M. Fine, President