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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 581 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 581

To eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members of Congress, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2009

Mr. Latta (for himself, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Olson, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Jordan 
 of Ohio, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Coble) 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 eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members of Congress, 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. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF 
              CONGRESS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)) is repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 601(a)(1) of such Act is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)'';
            (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
        paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; and
            (3) by striking ``, as adjusted by paragraph (2) of this 
        subsection''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on 
December 31, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Bradley J. Gregory, Sr. certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8618 and 34-52492]c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andd) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 15, 2007                                 /s/ Bradley J. Gregory, Sr.   Bradley J. Gregory, Sr.   Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

**WORLDNET, INC. OF NEVADA**

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

•

the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

•

the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  March 15, 2011

*/s/ Donald R. Mayer*

Donald R. Mayer

Principal Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

LN REAL ESTATE, LLC,

Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellee,

UNPUBLISHED

November 28, 2017

v No. 333208

Genesee Circuit Court

KINGDOM LIVING CHURCH, LC No. 16-105381-CK

Defendant/Counter-PlaintiffAppellant.

Before: MURRAY, P.J., and FORT HOOD and GLEICHER, JJ.

MURRAY, P. J., (concurring).

I concur in the analysis and conclusions reached by the majority opinion. However, I 

write separately to briefly set forth two points related to two of the claims at issue on appeal.

First, with respect to the trial court’s ruling granting summary disposition in favor of LN 

Real Estate on its slander of title claim, I would agree with its argument that summary 

disposition was proper but for the fact that the only published Michigan decision that supports its 

argument was vacated. Specifically, in Ruby & Assoc, PC v Shore Fin Servs, 276 Mich App 

110, 115-116; 741 NW2d 72 (2007), this Court concluded that a lis pendens was invalid because 

the underlying lawsuit which resulted in the filing of the lis pendens only sought money damages

and, therefore, did not affect the title, possession, or interest in the real property as contemplated 

by MCL 600.2701. Indeed, the Ruby & Assoc, PC Court cited the only other published decision 

addressing this issue, Patten Corp v Canadian Lakes Dev Corp, 788 F Supp 975, 978 (WD Mich, 

1991), that came to the same conclusion. However, the Supreme Court vacated that part of this 

Court’s decision. See Ruby & Assoc, PC v Shore Fin Servs, 480 Mich 1107 (2008) (“[W]e 

VACATE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as that court concluded that 

plaintiff’s lis pendens was invalid[.]”). In light of this, and the other law set forth in the majority 

opinion, I concur in its resolution of the slander of title claim.

Second, with respect to Kingdom Living Church’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act claim, I 

concur in the decision to remand to the trial court for it to reconsider LN Real Estate’s motion for 

summary disposition under the framework set forth in the majority opinion. This is a reasonable 

and typical procedure utilized by this Court. That being said, it is nonetheless quite clear that the 

church adduced no evidence suggesting that LN Real Estate acted based upon the church’s 
-2-

religious affiliation in making any decision. Indeed, the only decision-maker involved in the 

decisions at issue unequivocally testified that he did not know the religious affiliation of the 

church, never met the pastor nor anybody else at the church, and was unaware of any animosity 

between the church’s pastor and the LN representative. Nor has the church brought forward any 

evidence—circumstantial or otherwise—that would lead a reasonable juror to conclude that 

religious animus motivated LN Real Estate to act as it did in not offering a right of first refusal. 

Thus, although I concur in the remedy to remand, I simply point out to the trial court what it had 

previously concluded; there is no evidence supporting Kingdom Living Church’s Elliott-Larsen 

Civil Rights claim.

/s/ Christopher M. Murray
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 12-0979

THOMAS K. DAILEY, JR., PETITIONER,

V.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, RESPONDENT.

Before HAGEL, MOORMAN, and LANCE, Judges.

O R D E R

On March 22, 2012, Thomas K. Dailey, Jr., filed through counsel a petition for extraordinary

relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, requesting, in pertinent part, that this Court order the

Secretary to issue a final decision in response to the Substantive Appeal he purportedly filed on

September 25, 2007. On June 20, 2012, a panel was formed to consider Mr. Dailey's petition.

On August 31, 2012, the Secretary filed an amended response and informed the Court that

the Montgomery, Alabama, regional office issued an August 28, 2012, Statement of the Case in

response to Mr. Dailey's June 2011 letter requesting that VA issue a final decision in response to his

September 2007 Substantive Appeal. The regional office determined that Mr. Dailey's June 2011

letter was a Substantive Appeal but it was not timely; however, the regional office accepted Mr.

Dailey's June 2011 letter as a Notice of Disagreement with its decision that he had not filed a

Substantive Appeal in September 2007. 

On September 4, 2012, the Court ordered Mr. Dailey to file a response, not later than 11:59

p.m. on Thursday, September 6, 2012, explaining why the Court should not dismiss his petition as

moot. On September 6, 2012, Mr. Dailey filed his response indicating that he "does not object to the

Secretary's [a]mended [r]esponse and motion to dismiss." Appellant's September 6, 2012, Response

at 1(emphasis in original). 

This Court adheres to the case-or-controversy jurisdictional restraints provided for in Article

III of the U.S. Constitution. See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 13-15 (1990). When the relief

requested in a petition has been obtained, the appropriate course of action is for the Court to dismiss

the petition as moot. See Thomas v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 269, 270-71 (1996) (per curiam order).

Because the response filed by the Secretary demonstrates that Mr. Dailey has obtained the requested

relief and because Mr. Dailey does not oppose the Secretary's amended response seeking dismissal,

the Court will dismiss Mr. Dailey's petition as moot. Accordingly, oral argument scheduled for

September 13, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. will be canceled. 
Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that Mr. Dailey's March 22, 2012, petition regarding his September 25, 2007,

Substantive Appeal, is DISMISSED. It is further

ORDERED that the September 13, 2012, oral argument scheduled in this case is canceled.

DATED: September 12, 2012 PER CURIAM.

Copies to:

John F. Cameron, Esq. 

VA General Counsel (027)

2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar GUAJARDO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20601

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Clinard J. Hanby, Esq., The Woodlands, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Oscar Guajardo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Guajardo has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Guajardo’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Guajardo’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Guajardo’s motion to place his response under seal is GRANTED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 11

                                LOGILITY, INC.
            Statement re:  Computation of Per Share Earnings (Loss)
                   (in thousands, except per share amounts)
 
 
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                 Three Months Ended                              Nine Months Ended
                                                     January 31,                                    January 31,
                                          --------------------------------               ---------------------------------
                                            1998                    1997                   1998                     1997
                                          --------                --------               --------                ---------
<S>                                       <C>                     <C>                    <C>                     <C>
Common Stock:                             
   Weighted average common                 13,798                  11,300                 12,697                  11,300
     shares outstanding                   
                                          
Dilutive effect of outstanding            
   stock options                                7                       -                      7                        -
                                          --------                --------               --------                ---------
                                          
       Total                               13,805                  11,300                 12,704                   11,300
                                          --------                --------               --------                ---------
                                          
                                          
Net earnings (loss)                       $   471                 $   464                $ 1,656                 $(1,577)
                                          ========                ========               ========                ========
                                          
Earnings (loss) per common                
   and common equivalent share            $  0.03                 $  0.04                $  0.13                 $ (0.14)
                                          ========                ========               ========                ========
</TABLE>



                                      21
# Optional Checklist for Form I-765 (c)(3)(B) Filings

This is an optional checklist to help you complete Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization. This is for F-1 students seeking Optional Practical Training (OPT) in an occupation directly related to studies: post-completion OPT. Do not submit this checklist to USCIS.

**NOTE**: This optional checklist does not replace or change statutory or regulatory requirements. We recommend you review these requirements, as well as the appropriate form instructions, before completing and submitting your Form I-765. Do not send original documents unless specifically requested in the form instructions. See uscis.gov/i-765 for the most recent Form I-765.

                    - Did you complete all sections of the application that apply to you? (See How To Complete Form I-765 in the General Instructions section  of the Form I-765 Instructions.)
                    - Did you sign and date your application? (See Signature and Validity of Signatures in the General Instructions section  of the Form I-765 Instructions.)
                    - Did you submit the correct filing fee, if applicable? (See Fee Schedule,  Form G-1055 , for information on fees.)
                    - Did you provide your current U.S. mailing address in Part 2., Item Number 3? Do not provide the address of your attorney or accredited representative, unless you want your employment authorization document mailed to that address. (See the Specific Instructions section  of the Form I-765 Instructions.)

Did you provide the following?
                    - Completed Form G-28, if you are represented by an attorney or an accredited representative.

**NOTE**: If you want your Employment Authorization Document (EAD) mailed to your attorney or accredited representative, please select Part 4., Item Number 1.b., on Form G-28. (See the Specific Instructions section of the Form G-28 Instructions.)
                    - Certified English translations of any documents with information in a foreign language. (See Translations in the General Instructions section of the Form I-765 Instructions.)
                    - Proof of identity. (See Item 3.B. in the Required Documentation section of the Form I-765 Instructions.)
                    - Photographs. (See Item 3.C. in the Required Documentation section of the Form I-765 Instructions.)

04/01/2024

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7246** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. TERRELL ROGERS, a/k/a Tavon , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr - 00467

- WMN

- 1; 1:13

- cv - 00116

- WMN )

Submitted : December 16, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014

Before DUNCAN an d DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion
. Terrell Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Judson T. Mihok, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Terrell Rogers appeals the district court’s orders denying a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

recon sideration of the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion . For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and dismiss in part
. Rogers sought a sentence reduction under Guidelines Amendment 75 0 and the Fair Sentencing Act. We conclude the district court properly determined that neither the crack cocaine Guidelines amendments nor the Fair Sentencing Act impacted Rogers’ Guidelines calculations and resulting sentence, as his sentence was driven by the attempted first

- deg ree murder

cross - reference applied for his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012) conviction and his statutory enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2012)
. See United States v. Munn , 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010). We therefore affirm the portion of the distric t court’s order denying a sentence reduction. The order denying Rogers’ Rule 60(b) motion is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies3 relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rogers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of
t he appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED IN PART , DISMISSED IN PART
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Annual Report of MILLENNIUM CAPITAL VENTURE HOLDINGS,
INC.(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Leonard Sternheim, President, Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) 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 result of operations of the
Company.

By:/s/ Francis Mailhot
   -----------------------------------------------------------------
   Francis Mailhot
   President, Principal Financial Officer,
   Principal Accounting Officer, Chairman of the Board of Directors

March 14, 2005
# FY 2015 Grant Recipients

#### Archived Content

The information on this page is out of date. However, some of the content may still be useful, so we have archived the page.

## FY 2015 Citizenship and Integration Grant Program Award Recipients

In FY 2015, USCIS awarded nearly $10 million in grants to 40 organizations. The performance period is October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2017.

For more information, please see the FY 2015 grant program fact sheet  (PDF, 205.17 KB), individual program descriptions  (PDF, 171.46 KB), and news release.

09/15/2015

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.