alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

U.S. Coast Guard 

 MOTION FOR

CG-5800A (08/14)

Complainant: 

 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

v. 

Respondent:

 MOTION FOR

For Docketing Center Use Only:

Coast Guard Enforcement Activity Number:

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

1) [purpose and relief sought];

In accordance with 33 C.F.R. § 20.309, respondent clearly and concisely states the following:

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

3) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the assigned Administrative Law Judge by:

Type or print name Signature Date

Docket Number:

20 -

Respondent hereby motions the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) [type the order or ruling you wish the judge to 

make]

2) [reference to any statutory or regulatory authority]; and

3) [facts constituting the grounds for relief sought]. 

1) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the Coast Guard Representative by:

2) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the ALJ Docketing Center by:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Type or print name Signature Date

Privacy Act Statement 

The legal authority for the collection of information on this form is authorized by 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77 and 33 C.F.R. Part 20. The information provided will be 

used to advocate your position in this administrative proceeding. Unless part of mandatory discovery, submission of the information on this form is voluntary. 

You are solely responsible for the manner in which you want to present your own case. This document will become part of the official record, which can be 

viewed by the public. 33 C.F.R. § 20.903.
EXHIBIT 31.2


Certification

I, Ramzi M. Nassar, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of eLinear, Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this 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 officer(s) 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)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) 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.     Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;

c.     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

5.     The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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; and

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: November 15, 2004


/s/ Ramzi M. Nassar
-----------------------------------
Ramzi M. Nassar, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer


<PAGE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafael Sandoval, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered October 15, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2505 

AN ACT 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require 

the annual reporting of data on enrollment in Medicare 

Advantage plans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2505 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Advantage 

3 Coverage Transparency Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR ENROLLMENT DATA REPORT5 ING FOR MEDICARE. 

6 Section 1874 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

7 1395kk) is amended by adding at the end the following 

8 new subsection: 

9 ‘‘(g) REQUIREMENT FOR ENROLLMENT DATA RE10 PORTING.— 

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than May 1 of 

12 each year (beginning with 2016), the Secretary shall 

13 submit to the Committees on Ways and Means and 

14 Energy and Commerce of the House of Representa15 tives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate 

16 a report on enrollment data (and, in the case of part 

17 A, on data on individuals receiving benefits under 

18 such part) for the plan year or, in the case of part 

19 A and part B, for the fiscal year or year (as applica20 ble) ending before January 1 of such plan year, fis21 cal year, or year. Such enrollment data shall be pre22 sented— 

23 ‘‘(A) by zip code, congressional district, 

24 and State; 

25 ‘‘(B) in a manner that provides for such 

26 data based on enrollment (including receipt of 
3 

•HR 2505 EH

1 benefits other than through enrollment) under 

2 part A, enrollment under part B, enrollment 

3 under an MA plan under part C, and enroll4 ment under part D; and 

5 ‘‘(C) in the case of enrollment data de6 scribed in subparagraph (B) relating to MA 

7 plans, presented in a manner that provides for 

8 such data for each MA–PD plan and for each 

9 MA plan that is not an MA–PD plan. 

10 ‘‘(2) DELAY OF DEADLINE.—If the Secretary is 

11 unable to submit a report under paragraph (1) by 

12 May 1 of a year for data of the plan year, fiscal 

13 year, or year (as applicable) ending before January 

14 1 of such year, the Secretary shall, not later than 

15 April 30 of such year, notify the committees de16 scribed in such paragraph of— 

17 ‘‘(A) such inability, including an expla18 nation for such inability; and 
4 

•HR 2505 EH

1 ‘‘(B) the date by which the Secretary will 

2 provide such report, which shall be not later 

3 than June 1 of such year.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2505 

AN ACT 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 

ment in Medicare Advantage plans. require the annual reporting of data on enroll-
**Equal Employment Opportunity Data Posted Pursuant to the No Fear Act:**

# Civilian (and below), Region 1 (Civilian) (and below), Region 2 (Civilian) (and below), Region 3 (Civilian) (and below), Region 4

**For 1st Quarter 2024 for period ending December 31, 2023**

1/16/24, 9:30 AM

No Fear Report – DHS Prod EEO Case Management 3.4.0

10

https://etkeeo.tsa.dhs.gov/entellitrak/page.request.do?page=com.micropact.product.component.sitemenu.page.webcomponentload er&navitemid=63

***Starting in FY2022, issues marked with:***

**** are reported under Other Terms / Conditions of Employment.***

***** are reported under Other Disciplinary Actions***

# Equal Employment Opportunity Data Posted Pursuant to the No Fear Act:

## Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2020 Addendum Civilian (and below)

**For 1st Quarter 2024 for period ending December 31, 2023**

1

2

## Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Anti- Discrimination Act of 2020 Addendum

**Civilian (and below)**

**For 1st Quarter 2024 for period ending December 31, 2023**

3

# image2.png

# image3.png

# image4.png

# image5.png

# image6.png

# image7.png

# image1.png
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2541 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2541

 To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
  to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2015

 Mr. Langevin (for himself and Mr. Cicilline) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
  to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

    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 ``Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ADDITION OF RHODE ISLAND TO THE MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT 
              COUNCIL.

    Section 302(a)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(1)(B)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``Rhode Island,'' after ``States of'';
            (2) by inserting ``Rhode Island,'' after ``except North 
        Carolina,'';
            (3) by striking ``21'' and inserting ``23''; and
            (4) by striking ``13'' and inserting ``14''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.37



Amendment to Employment Agreement



This document is dated as of March 4, 2004. It amends the Employment Agreement dated August 8, 2000 between Stephen G.
Kasnet and Calypso Management LLC (as amended heretofore, Agreement).



For value received, the parties agree to add to the second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 1 of the Agreement the words at least before the words 50% and before the words 33
1/3%.



Except as set forth above, the terms of the
Agreement are hereby ratified and affirmed.



Executed under
seal.



|                       |  |                                                                     |  |  |  |                         
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------
|CALYPSO MANAGEMENT LLC |  |                                                                     |  | 
|                       |  |                                                                     | 
|By:                    |  | /s/    DONALD H. HUNTER                                             |  |  |  | /s/    STEPHEN G. KASNET
|Title:                 |  | Donald H. Hunter Chief Operations Officer
& Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  | Stephen G. Kasnet
#### PARKER et al., Appellants, v. WEBSTER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

January 18, 1894.)

Action by Pascal D. Parker and others against Edward Webster, as executor, etc.

No opinion. Judgment appealed from affirmed. Opinion by BRADLEY, J. (Withheld from publication by the judge.)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92 -463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

# NAME AND COMMITTEE CODE:

Advisory Committee for Geosciences (1755).

# DATE AND TIME:

October 13-14, 2021; 11:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. EDT.

# PLACE:

                        National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314/Virtual Meeting registration information is available on the GEO Advisory Committee website at                         *https://www.nsf.gov/​geo/​advisory.jsp.*

# TYPE OF MEETING:

Open.

# CONTACT PERSON:

Melissa Lane, National Science Foundation, Room C 8000, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; Phone 703-292-8500

# MINUTES:

May be obtained from the contact person listed above.

# PURPOSE OF MEETING:

                        To provide advice, recommendations, and oversight on support for geoscience research and education including atmospheric, geo-space, earth, ocean and polar sciences.                              ( print page 52225)    

## Agenda

### October 13, 2021

    - Directorate and NSF activities and plans
    - Discussion of the Administration and NSF Focus Area on Climate Change
    - Discussion of the Recently Released NASEM Earth System Science Study
    - Briefing on the Future TIP Directorate

### October 14, 2021

    - Report outs from Division Meetings
    - Update on OPP Activities
    - Report on the EAR Committee of Visitors Meeting
    - Report on the GEO Education & Diversity Committee of Visitors Meeting
    - Meeting with the NSF Director and Chief Operating Officer
    - Action Items/Planning for Spring 2022 Meeting

Dated: September 15, 2021.

Crystal Robinson,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2021-20289 Filed 9-17-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
1 

### ... T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 1987- CR
- 5143, s t y l ed St at e of Te xas v. Juan M ol i na , in the 2 9 0 th Jud i ci al D i st ri ct C o urt , B exar C o unt y , T exas, t he H o no rable Sharo n M acR ae p res i d i ng. i i i i i i



## MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No . 0 4- 09 -0 05 26 -C R IN RE Juan MOL INA Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1


### PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: October 28, 2009 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On Aug ust 21, 2009, r elator J uan Molina filed a petition f or writ of manda mus, complaining of the trial c ourt’s fa ilure to rule on his motion for DNA testing. Howeve r, on October 15, 2009, the trial court gran t ed relator’s motion for DNA te sting. Ac cording ly , the petition is DENI ED AS MOOT. T EX 

### . R. A PP 

### . P. 52.8(a)
. P E R C U R I A M DO NO T PU B L I SH
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Lamont SIMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-30046.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 18, 2007.

Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Vincent T. Lombardi, Esq., USSE—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ron Ness, Port Ochard, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*725Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Keith Lamont Sims appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence imposed for conspiracy to make and pass false and fictitious securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Sims has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Sims has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The government filed notification that it would not file an answering brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief. We therefore GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2521 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2521

      To reinstate Federal Pell Grant eligibility for individuals 
  incarcerated in Federal and State penal institutions, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2015

Ms. Edwards (for herself, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Lee, Mr. 
 Scott of Virginia, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Richmond, Ms. Norton, Mr. Lewis, 
Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Cardenas, Ms. Plaskett, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
     Conyers, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Ted Lieu of 
California, and Mr. Hastings) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To reinstate Federal Pell Grant eligibility for individuals 
  incarcerated in Federal and State penal institutions, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Restoring Education And Learning Act 
of 2015'' or the ``REAL Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF FEDERAL PELL GRANT ELIGIBILITY.

    Section 401(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1070a(b)) is amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (6) and redesignating paragraph 
        (7) as paragraph (6); and
            (2) in paragraph (2)(A)(ii), by striking ``(7)(B)'' each 
        place it appears and inserting ``(6)(B)''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 2 shall be effective for academic 
year 2015-2016 and succeeding academic years.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ross *v.*Simon *et al.*

*(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.*

June 2, 1890.)

Appeal—Réhearikg.

In an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien against the lessor and lessee of premises, the questions were as to whether the statement in the lien was sufficient as against the owner, and as to whether the allegations in the complaint that the lessor had full knowledge of, and consented to, the doing of the work, constituted a sufficient pleading of the facts. *Meld,*that an authority which decided that, in order to bind the owner, the work must be done at his instance, or that of his agent, and that, in the absence of evidence that the,lessor had some connection with plaintiff’s contract, the latter can only enforce a lien against the interest of the lessee, goes only to the evidence, and does not affect the question of pleading.

Motion for rehearing. For former report, see 9 H. Y. Supp. 536.

Action by John B. Boss against John Simon, Ignatz Schmitt, and others, to enforce a mechanic’s lien. Simon was the owner of the premises sought to be subjected to the lien, and Ignatz Schmitt had leased them. Defendant Simon demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against him, and from a judgment sustaining the demurrer plaintiff appeals.

Argued before Larbemore, C, J., and Allen and Bookstaver, JJ.

*J. C. de Lamore,*for appellant. ' *Steph. Philsin,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The appeal was from a judgment of the general term of the city court affirming a judgment upon demurrer. There were but two questions upon the appeal. The first was whether or not the statement in the lien was sufficient as against the owner; and the second was whether the •allegations in the complaint that the defendant, the owner, had full knowledge of, and consented to, the doing of the work, was a sufficient pleading of the facts. The reargument is asked for on the authority of *Cornell*v. *Barney,*94 N. Y. 394, which the respondent claims his counsel, through inadvertence, overlooked, and to which he failed to draw the attention of the •court. But that ease does not touch the question of the sufficiency of the notice of a lien in any way, and the sole question decided there was that, in ■order to bind the owner, the work must be done, or materials furnished, at his instance or that of his agent; and, in the absence of evidence that the lessor had some connection with plaintiff’s contract, plaintiff is not entitled to have or enforce a lien against the interest of the lessor in the land or building, but only against that of the lessee. This does not affect the question of what is necessary to plead in the complaint in order to admit evidence to hold the lessor. It only goes as to what evidence would be required in such a case; and that distinction was expressly made by the general term, *743which reversed the judgment in this case. The motion for a reargument, or for leave to go to the court of appeals, will therefore be denied, with $10 costs.