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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2475 

To provide for a one-year extension of the extended period of protections 

for members of uniformed services relating to mortgages, mortgage foreclosure, and eviction under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2015 

Mr. FINCHER (for himself and Mr. HECK of Washington) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for a one-year extension of the extended period 

of protections for members of uniformed services relating 

to mortgages, mortgage foreclosure, and eviction under 

the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. 

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 ‘‘Stability for Service 

5 Members Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2475 IH

1 SEC. 2. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF EXTENDED PERIOD OF 

2 PROTECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF UNI3 FORMED SERVICES RELATING TO MORT4 GAGES, MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, AND 

5 EVICTION UNDER SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL 

6 RELIEF ACT. 

7 Section 710(d) of the Honoring America’s Veterans 

8 and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Pub9 lic Law 112–154; 126 Stat. 1208; 50 U.S.C. App. 533 

10 note) is amended— 

11 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘December 

12 31, 2015’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2016’’; and 

13 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘January 1, 

14 2016’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2017’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 6

    CONSENT OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to (i) the inclusion in Canadian Natural  Resources  Limited's
Annual  Report on Form 40-F for the year ended  December 31, 2007;  and (ii) the
incorporation by reference in the  registration  statement on Form F-9 (File No.
333-146056),  of our audit  report dated  February 26, 2008 on the  consolidated
balance sheets of Canadian Natural Resources Limited as at December 31, 2007 and
2006,  and  the  consolidated  statements  of  earnings,  shareholder's  equity,
comprehensive  income  and cash  flows for each of the  years in the  three-year
period ended December 31, 2007 and the  effectiveness  of internal  control over
financial  reporting of Canadian  Natural  Resources  Limited as of December 31,
2007. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading  "Experts" in the
Form F-9.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Calgary, Alberta
March 27, 2008
|Investors Capital Holdings, Ltd. report on form 10-Q
|----------------------------------------------------



|Quarter Ended 09/30/07
|----------------------



|Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION
|-------------------------

I, Timothy B. Murphy, certify that this report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Investors Capital Holdings, Ltd.

Date: November 14, 2007

By: /s/ Timothy B. Murphy



|Timothy B. Murphy, President,Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Director(principal financial officer)
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 1

---
# C_2022182EN.01001401.xml

| 4.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/14

---

Opinion No 1/2022

(pursuant to Article 287(4), TFEU)

concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations

(2022/C 182/03)

The European Court of Auditors has published its opinion No 1/2022 (pursuant to Article 287(4), TFEU) concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations.

The opinion can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ Internet:

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=61068

---
#### William Roberts *ads.*John Holsworth.

A *mandamus*will be issued to a *Court*only to direct the Court to proceed according to law, but not to direct them how to proceed.

ITornblower, on the part of Roberts the .defendant, moved for a *mandamus*-to be directed to the Court of Common Pleas of Essex, *to*eompU them either *to*proceed in the cause, or to discharge the defendant on common bail, and he founded his application upon the following affidavits, *viz.: “*That said defendant was on the 29th of December, A. D. 1825, arrested and held to bail, without a judge’s order, for $500. That said cause (that is *Holsworth,*v. *Roberts)*was noticed for trial before the Essex Pleas, in April term 1827, a^id remained without further notice, until April term 1828, when this defendant moved the court by his counsel, to have the same brought to trial, which was denied him. That this defendant was surrendered, in discharge of special bail, on the 21st of September, 1827, but no bail piece and commititur thereon, was committed to the late or present sheriff of said county; and defendant still remains in the common goal of the county of Essex, by virtue of such said surrender.” That in January term, A. D. 1828, this defendant, by his counsel, applied to the said Court of Common Pleas, to b.e discharged on common' bail, or for a judgment of nonsuit on said circumstances; which was also denied him.

*69Oh. Justice.

To officers, a writ of *mandamus*may go to direct them how to proceed, and what to do; but a *mandamus*to a Court, only, directs them to proceed according to law, and does not direct them *how*to proceed. The furthest we have ever gone in these cases of mandamus, is in appeals to the Common Pleas, from the judgment of a justice, where we have directed the Court of Common Pleas, to restore an appeal-which had been dismissed. But this is in effect nothing more than ordering them to proceed, and not directing the manner in which they shall proceed.

Motion denied.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

RONALD REESE JR

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Number: 2023-0425

MISLE Activity ID: 

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: January 04, 2024

By Order of Administrative Law Judge Administrative Law Judge:

Honorable Brian Curley

Appearances:

For the Coast Guard

Kimberly a. Mclean

Sector Houston/Galveston

For the Respondent

Ronald Reese Jr
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On December 26, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of a 

Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to the Administrative Law Judge for approval 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find that it is fair, 

reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement 

is APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall 

constitute full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

__________________________________

Brian Curley

Administrative Law Judge

Date: January 04, 2024
**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 Emeritus Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Daniel R. Baty, 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:
 
 
 1.
The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 
 2.
The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
 
 /s/ Daniel R. BatyDaniel R. BatyChief Executive OfficerJanuary 27, 2005
#### Maria Lourdes MENDOZA, a.k.a. Maria Lourdes Mendoza Padilla; Raphaella Mendoza, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-70606.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 25, 2011.

Seth L. Reszko, Esquire, Reza Athari & Associates, PLLC A Multi-Jurisdictional Firm, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Marion Guyton, Esquire, Gary J. Newkirk, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Lourdes Mendoza and Raphaella Mendoza, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s finding of fact, and review de novo questions of law. *Vasquez v. Holder,*602 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Maria Lourdes Mendoza willfully misrepresented a material fact in order to obtain permanent residence based on marriage to a United States citizen, and is therefore removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A); *Forbes v. INS,*48 F.3d 439, 441-42 (9th Cir.1995).

Petitioners’ contention that the agency ignored the evidence in Maria Lourdes Mendoza’s application for cancellation of removal as a battered spouse under 8 *653U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) is not supported by the record.

Petitioners’ remaining contention is unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### TRUMAN, Respondent, v. LAKE CHAMPLAIN & M. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

October 2, 1896.)

Action by Alice Truman, as administratrix, etc., against the Lake Champlain & Moriah Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Charles S. Wiesenhart Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FiberNet Telecom Group, 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 quarterly report;

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

4. The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant and we 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants registered public accounting firm and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 15, 2006



|                             
|-----------------------------
|                             
|/s/ Charles S. Wiesenhart Jr.
|Charles S. Wiesenhart Jr.    
|Vice President and           
|Chief Accounting Officer     
|(Principal Financial Officer)
Order entered October 27, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00750-CR

HENRY LEE FLETCHER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-82292-2015

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.

On October 17, 2017, we abated this appeal for a hearing in the trial court to determine 

whether appellant had been deprived of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record because of 

ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any other reason. The clerk’s record was filed October 23, 

2017. On October 24, 2017, the trial court’s findings were filed. We ADOPT the findings that 

(1) appellant is indigent and wants to pursue the appeal; (2) the court reporters who recorded the 

proceedings are Kristen Kopp and Sheri Vecera; and (3) Ms. Kopp and Ms. Vecera estimate the 

records will be completed on or before December 1, 2017.

We ORDER the reporter’s record due on or before December 1, 2017.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Andrea Thompson, 

Presiding Judge, 416th Judicial District Court; to Sheri Vecera, official court reporter, 199th 

Judicial District Court; Kristen Kopp, official court reporter, County Court at Law No. 2; and to 

counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### Richard MURTON, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2011-7058.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 1, 2011.

Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

*992ON MOTION

ORDER

Richard Murtón moves for this court to dismiss that portion of his appeal which does not challenge determinations regarding his claim relating to alopecia areata. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs responds.

We note that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denied Murton’s request to bifurcate his claims in the case, and in this motion he challenges that ruling. Briefing in this case is now completed.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

The motion is deferred for consideration by the merits panel assigned to hear this case. Copies of this order, the motion, and the Secretary’s response shall be forwarded to the merits panel.
Exhibit 10.11


 


ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT

VEL03D, INC.


October 26, 2020


William McCombe


651 W. Hamilton Ave., Apt. B209


Campbell, CA 95008


 


Re: Employment Agreement Dated July 13, 2020


 


Dear William,


 


This Addendum refers to and amends the Employment
Agreement between you and Velo3D Inc. (the “Company”) dated July 13, 2020 (the “Agreement”). This Addendum defines
the key financial milestone referred to in the Agreement (the “Milestone”) for the determination of your incentive bonus under
paragraph 4 and the adjustment of your Starting Salary under paragraph 2.


 


		1.	The Milestone is defined as the sale by the Company of at least $20,000,000 of securities to New Investors (defined as other than
existing stockholders of the Company).



 


		2.	Your incentive bonus of $175,000 will be paid on closing of such sale.



 


		3.	If greater than$20,000,000 of securities are sold to New Investors, your incentive bonus will be increased proportionately, by the
same percentage amount that the amount of securities sold is greater than $20,000,000 respectively, to a maximum of $350,000



 


		4.	If bona fide offers to buy securities from New Investors are wholly or in part rejected by the Company pursuant to an allocation process,
or for any other reason, such offers will be added back to the amount of sales to New Investors for the purpose of calculating your incentive
bonus.



 


		5.	If there are multiple closings, the proportionate amount of the incentive bonus payable will be paid at each closing. The aggregate
amount of such closings will be used to calculate your total incentive bonus.



 


We look forward to your continuing work on behalf of the Company.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ Benyamin Buller
	 	BENYAMIN BULLER
	 	CEO and President



 


I have read and understood this Addendum to the Employment Agreement
between me and the Company dated July 13, 2020 and hereby acknowledge, accept and agree to the terms as set forth above.


 


	/s/ William McCombe	 	Date signed:	10/28/2020
	William McCombe
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2508 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2508

 To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to prohibit 
  further reductions in sodium levels and to reinstate the grain-rich 
  requirements applicable to the national school lunch and breakfast 
                               programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2015

 Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois (for himself and Mr. Ashford) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
                           and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to prohibit 
  further reductions in sodium levels and to reinstate the grain-rich 
  requirements applicable to the national school lunch and breakfast 
                               programs.

    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 ``Healthy School Meals Flexibility 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SODIUM TARGET LEVELS; WHOLE GRAIN REQUIREMENT.

    Section 9(f) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1758(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) Sodium target levels.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law, the Secretary shall not implement any 
        regulation under this Act, the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 
        U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 
        (Public Law 111-296), or any other law that would require a 
        reduction in the quantity of sodium contained in federally 
        reimbursed meals, foods, and snacks sold in schools below 
        Target 1 (as described in section 220.8(f)(3) of title 7, Code 
        of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations)).
            ``(6) Whole grain requirement.--Notwithstanding the final 
        rule of the Secretary entitled `Nutrition Standards in the 
        National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs' (77 Fed. 
        Reg. 4088 (January 26, 2012)) or any other provision of law--
                    ``(A) the Secretary shall only require that half of 
                all grains in federally reimbursed meals, foods, and 
                snacks sold in schools are whole grain-rich; and
                    ``(B) school food authorities shall comply with the 
                applicable grain component or standard with respect to 
                the school lunch or school breakfast program that was 
                in effect prior to July 1, 2014.''.
                                 <all>
```
L]NITED STATES OF AMERICA

I].S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

VS

KENNETH GERARDO GAMBOA

Respondent

Docket Number 2023-0174

Enlbrcemenr ActiviB No. 7657941

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On May 16,20?-3, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of a

Settlement Agreement and Entry olConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe case

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find that it is fair,

reasonable and in subslantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideralion of record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated this 26th day ofJune 2023, at

Galveston, Texas

HON. TOMMY CANTRELL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

LINITED STATES COAST GUARD

L]NITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant