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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 179 

To amend the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 to reduce the rates 

of pay of Members of Congress by 5 percent and eliminate future 

cost-of-living adjustments in such rates of pay. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2015 

Mr. YODER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 to 

reduce the rates of pay of Members of Congress by 

5 percent and eliminate future cost-of-living adjustments 

in such rates of pay. 

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 ‘‘Congressional Pay Re5 duction Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 179 IH

1 SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN RATES OF PAY AND ELIMINATION 

2 OF FUTURE COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS 

3 FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. 

4 Section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act 

5 of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) is amended by amending para6 graph (2) to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(2) Effective with respect to pay periods beginning 

8 after the date of the regularly scheduled general election 

9 for Federal office held in November 2016, the annual rate 

10 of pay for each of the positions described in paragraph 

11 (1) shall be equal to 95 percent of the annual rate of pay 

12 for such position for the most recent pay period preceding 

13 such election.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### HIRSCHBACH, Respondent, v. KETCHUM, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

September 9, 1896.)

Action by Simon Hirschbach against Alexander P. Ketchum.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. See 39 N. Y. Supp. 291.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6897

HERMAN EUGENE JACKSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KENNETH L. OSBORNE, Warden, M.C.T.C., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District Judge. (CA-05-405-TSE) Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 28, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herman Eugene Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Herman Eugene Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 28 U .S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of his constitutional c laims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not demonstrated error in the district court’s procedural ruling. Accordingly, we deny Jackson’s motion for a jury trial, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2009138EN.01000301.xml

| 18.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5417 — Mubadala/General Electric/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 138/05

On 29 May 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/ competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/ competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5417. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5417. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
732 A.2d 1199

#### In the Matter of Franklyn D. BRADLEY, II.

No. 524 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 24, 1999.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 24th day of June, 1999, a Rule having been entered by this Court on May 20, 1999, pursuant to Rule 214(d)(1), Pa.R.D.E., directing Franklyn D. Bradley, II, to show cause why he should not be placed on temporary suspension and no response thereto having been filed, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Rule is made absolute; Franklyn D. Bradley, II, is placed on temporary suspension and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.; and the matter is referred to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 214(f)(1), Pa.R.D.E.
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








I, Scott
Scherr, Chief Executive Officer of The Ultimate Software Group, Inc., hereby
certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that this Annual Report on Form
10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the
information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly represents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The
Ultimate Software Group, Inc.




/s/ Scott
Scherr


Scott
Scherr


Chief
Executive Officer




Date:           March
5, 2010


71
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

RANDY JOSEPH SEITZINGER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MARK NOOTH, Superintendent, 

Snake River Correctional Institution, 

Respondent. 

HERNANDEZ, District Judge: 

No. 2:14-cv-01705-SB 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings & Recommendation (#41) on December 

22, 2016, in which she recommends the Court deny Petitioner's Amended Habeas Corpus 

Petition and deny a Certificate of Appealability. Petitioner has timely filed objections to the 

Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) 

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). 

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & 

Recommendation, the district court must make a de nova determination of that portion of the 

1-0RDER 

Case 2:14-cv-01705-SB Document 43 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 2
Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Dawson v. Marshall, 561F.3d930, 932 (9th 

Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane). 

I have carefully considered Petitioner's objections and conclude there is no basis to 

modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the 

record de nova and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings & Recommendation [39], 

and therefore, Petitioner's Amended Habeas Corpus Petition [19] is denied. The Court further 

declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

2-0RDER 

DATEDthis __ S"° ___ dayof .ku.i- ,201 7. 

MARCOA ERNANDaz 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-01705-SB Document 43 Filed 01/25/17 Page 2 of 2
#### Madison Avenue Leasehold, LLC, Appellant, v Madison Bentley Associates LLC et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 29, 2007;

decided February 20, 2007

Motion for reargument denied *[see*8 NY3d 59].
Case 6:16-cv-00005-MC Document 5 Filed 01/08/16 Page 1 of 3
Case 6:16-cv-00005-MC Document 5 Filed 01/08/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 6:16-cv-00005-MC Document 5 Filed 01/08/16 Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Monika W., an Infant. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Elizabeth W., Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 895]

— In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (White, J.), dated February 18, 2011, which denied her motion to vacate her default in appearing at fact-finding and dispositional hearings. Assigned counsel for the mother has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the mother’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*
      *107147 NY2d 606 [1979]). Dillon, J.P., Eng, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

FILED

MAR 05 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE 

JULIANA; et al.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et 

al.,

 Defendants - Appellants.

No. 18-36082

D.C. No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA

U.S. District Court for Oregon, 

Eugene

MANDATE

The judgment of this Court, entered January 17, 2020, takes effect this date. 

This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 

41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

FOR THE COURT:

MOLLY C. DWYER

CLERK OF COURT

By: Quy Le

Deputy Clerk

Ninth Circuit Rule 27-7

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 461 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19176]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Notice of Conditional Approval of New York States' Application 
for the Partial Deferral of Interest Accrued on Outstanding Title XII 
Loans Otherwise Payable on or before September 30, 2021

    Title XII Section 1202(b)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act (SSA) 
provides that a state may defer payment of three-fourths of interest 
due on outstanding advances to state unemployment trust funds under 
Title XII Section 1201 SSA on or before September 30 of a given year if 
the state's rate of insured unemployment (IUR) during the first six 
months of the prior calendar year equaled or exceeded 7.5 percent. 
Title XII Section 1202(b)(3)(C)(i) and 20 CFR 606.41(c) provide that a 
qualifying state must pay at least 25 percent of the amount due on or 
before September 30 of the taxable year, and must pay at least one-
third of the remaining amount on or before September 30 in each of the 
following three years. 20 CFR 606.41(d) further clarifies that the 
timely and full payment of one-fourth of the interest due prior to 
October 1 is a precondition to approval of this deferral.
    The New York State Department of Labor applied for this deferral 
prior to the July 1, 2021 deadline. Pursuant to 20 CFR 606.41(e)(2) the 
Employment and Training Administration has confirmed that the state's 
rate of insured unemployment exceeded the 7.5 percent threshold during 
the first 6 months of calendar year 2020. As such New York's 
application for the high unemployment deferral has been conditionally 
approved contingent on the timely payment of one-fourth of the interest 
due on or before September 30, 2021.

Lenita Jacobs-Simmons,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training.
[FR Doc. 2021-19176 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 FIRSTPLUS Financial Group, Inc.,
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, John Maxwell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 14, 2007                    By: /s/ John Maxwell
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               John Maxwell
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               (Principal Executive Officer)
```
#### Hilary Guishard et al., Respondents, v General Security Insurance Company, Appellant.

Submitted February 20, 2007;

decided May 8, 2007

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise granted.
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |   |   | /s/ Robert F. Apple                                                 |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Robert F. AppleExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |   |   |                                                                |

----
#### Ingles, Appellant, *v.*Eddy *et al.,*Respondents.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Decree of the surrogate of Madison county reversed upon the exceptions, and the proceedings remanded to the surrogate’s court for further action. The question of costs reserved for the determination of the court below upon the final disposition of the case.
Robert’s Rules of Order 

Conducting Business Through Motions 

1. A member makes a motion. 

2. Another member seconds the motion. 

3. The chairperson states the question on the 

motion; that is, restates the motion exactly as it 

is to be passed. 

4. Members debate the motion. 

5. The chairperson puts the question (to a vote). 

6. The chairperson announces the result of the 

 vote.
TWG HFE Protocol Motion

The Technical Work Group accepts the Proposal to 

Amend the High-Flow Experiment Protocol and 

Other Considerations and moves to forward it to 

the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) 

to meet the Directive given at the February 15, 

2023, AMWG meeting.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting April 16-17, 2012 

 List of Attachments 

 No. Attachment Presenter / Author 1 Action Item Tracking Report Shane Capron 2 TWG Ad Hoc Group Update 3a Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Updates Dr. Jack Schmidt 3b Trends and Status of the Little Colorado River Population of Humpback Chub: 

1989-2011 (ASMR Update) PPT Dr. Scott Vanderkooi 

3c Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TED) Background Presentation PPT Dr. Helen Fairley 4 Report on Tribal AMWG Representative Budget Discussion for Fiscal  

Year 2013-14 Dr. John Halliday 

5a Science Advisors Annual Report (USGS Service Contract Inventory 2012 Contract) and PPT 

Dr. Dave Garrett 5b Memo from Dr. Garrett to TWG Chair Dated April 11, 2012, Subject: Review 

Comments on GCMRC 2013-2014 Draft Budget Proposal 6a Meeting Notes from Budget Ad Hoc Group Call held on April 12, 2012 

Glen Knowles 

6b USBR Proposed FY2013-14 Budget and PPT 6c Memo from Dr. Joel Pederson, to Marianne Crawford Dated Sept. 30, 2011, 

Subject: Finalized report Enclosed for Grand Canyon Project, BOR Contract No. 08-CS-40-8210 AND Report on Data Recovery at Nine Cultural Sites in Grand Canyon and Lower Glen Canyon 2008-2010 

6d GCMRC Proposed FY2013-14 Budget and PPT Dr. Jack Schmidt 6e CRAHG Issues with Proposed FY2013-14 Biennial Budget Kurt Dongoske 7a Final Report of the Aquatic Food Base Study and Protocol Evaluation Panel and 

PPT Dr. Daren Carlisle 

7b Part 3. Long-term Food Web and Ecosystem Monitoring Dr. Ted Kennedy 

7c Foodbase Monitoring and Research: Response to PEP PPT 8 Memo (via e-mail) from TWG Chair to Lori Caramanian on April 19, 2012, 

Subject: The GCD Technical Work Group Report on Issues for Review by the Department of the Interior on the FY 2013-14 Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Budget and Work Plan 

Shane Capron
# L_2009173EN.01000801.xml

| 3.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 173/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/8

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 22 June 2009

on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Nepal on certain aspects of air services

(2009/514/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2) in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Council authorised the Commission on 5 June 2003 to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Council authorised the Commission on 5 June 2003 to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.

| (2) | On behalf of the Community, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Nepal on certain aspects of air services (1) (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On behalf of the Community, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Nepal on certain aspects of air services (1) (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.

| (3) | The Agreement was signed on behalf of the Community on 23 January 2009 subject to its conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Council Decision 2009/117/EC (2). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Agreement was signed on behalf of the Community on 23 January 2009 subject to its conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Council Decision 2009/117/EC (2).

| (4) | The Agreement should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Agreement should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Nepal on certain aspects of air services is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to make the notification provided for in Article 9(1) of the Agreement.

Done at Luxembourg, 22 June 2009.

For the Council

The President

J. ŠEBESTA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 41, 12.2.2009, p. 5.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 41, 12.2.2009, p. 3.

2

---