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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1596 

To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to obtain a statue of Shirley 

Chisholm for placement in the United States Capitol. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2019 

Ms. CLARKE of New York (for herself, Mr. BROWN of Maryland, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Ms. JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. NORTON, Mr. LEWIS, Mr. 

MEEKS, Mr. VEASEY, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. 

JEFFRIES, Mr. RICHMOND, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Ms. BASS, Mrs. 

BEATTY, Mr. MCEACHIN, Ms. PRESSLEY, Mr. EVANS, Ms. PLASKETT, 

Ms. LEE of California, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. FUDGE, Mrs. MCBATH, and Mrs. DEMINGS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to obtain 

a statue of Shirley Chisholm for placement in the United 

States Capitol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PLACEMENT OF STATUE OF SHIRLEY CHIS4 HOLM IN UNITED STATES CAPITOL. 

5 (a) OBTAINING STATUE.—Not later than 5 years 

6 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Joint ComVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:32 Mar 21, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1596.IH H1596

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1596 IH

1 mittee on the Library shall enter into an agreement to 

2 obtain a statue of Shirley Chisholm, under such terms and 

3 conditions as the Joint Committee considers appropriate 

4 consistent with applicable law. The Joint Committee may 

5 authorize the Architect of the Capitol to enter into the 

6 agreement and related contracts required under this sub7 section on its behalf, under such terms and conditions as 

8 the Joint Committee may require. 

9 (b) PLACEMENT.—The Joint Committee on the Li10 brary shall place the statue obtained under subsection (a) 

11 in a suitable permanent location in the United States Cap12 itol. 

13 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

14 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 

15 necessary to carry out this Act, and any amounts so ap16 propriated shall remain available until expended. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 18, 2022

No. 04-21-00557-CV

CARDINAL SENIOR CARE, LLC,

Appellant

v.

Greg BRADWELL,

Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CI11679

Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s brief is due on February 28, 2022. On February 17, 2022, appellee filed an 

unopposed motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED. Appellee’s 

brief is due no later than March 30, 2022.

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of February, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Exhibit
31.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I,
Richard M. Greenwood, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of BICO, Inc.;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual 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 annual report;
 
 4. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;
 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
 
 c)
presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;
 
 5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors:
 
 a) all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
 
 6. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date: May
20, 2005
 
 /s/Richard
M. Greenwood
 -------------------------------
 Richard
M. Greenwood
 Acting
Principal Accounting Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2594

KEITH PEDDIE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; INTERNAL REVENUE; MARY K. HOWERTON, individually and in her official capacity; CHARLES R. MOBLEY, individually and in his official capacity; JAMES R. STARKEY, individually and in his official capacity; GATE CITY TOWING COMPANY, INCORPORATED; WILLIAM WASHAM, individually and in his official capacity; POLICE OFFICER RAHENKAMP, individually and in his official capacity; JOHN DOES, 1-10, individually and in their official capacities; CITY OF GREENSBORO; ALL DEFENDANTS, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 98-1406

KEITH PEDDIE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus2 POLICE OFFICER RAHENKAMP, individually and in his official capacity; CITY OF GREENSBORO,Defendants - Appellees, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; INTERNAL REVENUE; MARY K. HOWERTON, individually and in her official capacity; CHARLES R. MOBLEY, individually and in his official capacity; JAMES R. STARKEY, individually and in his official capacity; GATE CITY TOWING COMPANY, INCORPORATED; WILLIAM WASHAM, individually and in his official capacity; JOHN DOES, 1-10, individually and in their official capacities; ALL DEFENDANTS, Defendants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CA-96-634-2) Submitted: June 23, 1998 Decided: July 20, 1998 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Peddie, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Farber, Sara S. Holderness, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Lindsay Reeves Davis, Jr., HILL, EVANS, DUNCAN, JORDAN & DAVIS, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denyingrelief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994), complaint and imposing attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $3709.26. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Peddie v. United States , No. CA-96-634-2 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 16, 1997; Jan. 30, 1998). We note that Appellant failed to establish that the United States waived immunity under 26 U.S.C.A. § 7433(a) (West 1989 & Supp. 1998), because Appellantfailed to establish that the United States recklessly or intentionally violated any provision of the Internal Revenue Code. 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.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11176]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01-1016; MM Docket No. 90-195, RM-7152]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Brookline, Missouri

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document dismisses as moot a Petition for Reconsideration 
filed by Lake Broadcasting, licensee of Station KBMX(FM), Channel 270A, 
Eldon, Missouri and permittee of Station KFXE(FM), Channel 271A, Cuba 
Missouri, of the Report and Order in this proceeding, which allotted 
Channel 271 at Brookline, Missouri, as a first local service. See 60 FR 
62219 published December 5, 1995. Lake had argued that the Brookline 
allotment prejudices Lake's reconsideration petition in MM Docket 89-
120 for an upgrade of its Eldon station, but the staff ruled that the 
Brookline petition was moot in view of the Commission's revocation of 
Lake's license for its Eldon and other stations, the affirmance by the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, and the denial of certirorari 
by the U.S. Supreme Court and in view of the Commission's dismissal of 
Lake's reconsideration petition in MM Docket 89-120. This document also 
denies Lake's motion to set aside the Report and Order, holding that 
the Brookline allotment is valid even though the original rulemaking 
proponent did not file an application for the allotment because four 
other parties did file applications. With this action, the proceeding 
is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Rhodes, Mass Media Bureau (202) 
418-2120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order in MM Docket No. 90-195, adopted April 11, 
2001, and released April 20, 2001. The full text of this decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Information Center at Portals ll, CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3805, 1231 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20036.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-11176 Filed 5-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Case 1:07-cv-01668-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-01668-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-01668-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-01668-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

Image
Entertainment, Inc.
Chatsworth, California

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 33-43241, No. 33-55393 and No. 33-57336) on
Form S-8 of Image Entertainment, Inc. of our report dated June 7, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Image Entertainment, Inc. as of
March 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
March 31, 2002, which report appears in the March 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Image Entertainment, Inc.

| |  | /s/ KPMG LLP
| |  | ------------

Los
Angeles, California
June 25, 2002

---

QuickLinks
#### WIEGMAN et al., Appellants, v. MORIMURA et al., Respondents.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

June 20, 1894.)

Action by John H. Wiegman and another against Ichitaro Morimura and others. Ten Eyck & Remington, for appellants. Lehmaler & Williams, for respondents.

FITZSIMONS, J.

The trial justice was right in dismissing the complaint. There is no evidence showing that the defendants in any way were responsible for the acts of the constable. It does not appear that the levy made by him was instigated or suggested by the defendants, or any other person acting for them; besides, it does not appear that the plaintiffs were copartners, a necessary thing to be shown in this case because of the allegation in the complaint that plaintiffs are copartners, and its denial by the defendants’ answer. For these and the other reasons which induced the trial justice to dismiss the complaint, the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH Document 13 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH Document 13 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH Document 13 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH Document 13 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH Document 13 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH Document 13 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH Document 13 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Terry Wayne TOWNLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-30872

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 4, 2013.

Camille Ann Domingue, Howard Cobb Parker, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lafayette, LA, Cristina Walker, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Rebecca Louise Hudsmith, Esq., Joseph R. Streva, Jr., Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Terry Wayne Townley appeals the 60-month sentence imposed following the rev*251ocation of his supervised release. He argues that the record does not support the court’s decision to impose the statutory maximum sentence because he. had only a single violation of his supervised release and because the Sentencing Guidelines recommended only six to 12 months of incarceration. He also contends that it is plainly unreasonable to impose such a harsh sentence on a defendant who was thrust back into society without first being given an opportunity to ease the transition with the help of a halfway house. We review Townley’s sentence under the “plainly unreasonable” standard. *See United States v. Miller,*634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.2011).

The district court was authorized to impose any sentence that fell within the five-year statutory maximum for Townley’s original offense. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The ranges set forth under the Guidelines are advisory only. *See United States v. Mathena,*23 F.3d 87, 93 (5th Cir.1994). We have often upheld statutory-maximum revocation sentences as plainly reasonable. *See, e.g., United States v. Kippers,*685 F.3d 491, 500-01 (5th Cir.2012). With the exception of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), the district court was to consider the factors outlined in § 3553(a) in selecting a sentence. *Miller,*634 F.3d at 843 — 44. The district court thus was within its discretion in selecting a sentence based on Townley’s history of violence and his inability to comply with the terms of supervised release. *See*§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B) & (C). Moreover, Townley points to no authority which supports his assertion that the district court was required to consider his inability to find placement in a halfway house, nor does he attempt to connect this fact with any of the relevant sentencing considerations set forth in § 3553(a).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Case 1:07-cv-05710-RJH Document 2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 23.2** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration    Statement    No. 333-147925    on    Form S-8    of our report dated May 7, 2007 (March 14, 2008 as to    Note 18) relating to the financial statements and    financial statement schedules of Grubb & Ellis Company    (formerly NNN Realty Advisors, Inc.) and subsidiaries (“the    Company”) as of December 31, 2006 and for the two    years then ended, appearing in the Annual Report on    Form 10-K    of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007. /s/  Deloitte &    Touche LLP     Los Angeles, California    March 14, 2008
Case 1:07-cv-01654-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01654-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01654-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01654-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01654-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01654-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01654-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
NUMBER 13

- 14

- 00 400

- CV



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

PAUL JAMES HUDSON

, Appellant,

v.

GLORIA ARACELI LOEZA ACEVES

, Appellee.

On a ppeal from the 93rd District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas



### ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Justices Rodriguez , Garza, and Benavides

Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on an agreed, joint motion to abate appeal pending

settlement. The parties have settled the dispute in this appeal and request that th is Court

abate the appeal to effectuate the settlement agreement. The Court, having examined

and fully considered the documents on file and the joint motion to abate, is of the opinion2

that the joint motion to abate the appeal pending settlement should be granted. The joint

motion to abate the appeal pending settlement is GRANTED and this appeal is ordered

ABATED until September 25, 2014

.

The Court directs appellants to file, on or before September 25, 2014 , either (1) a

motion to reinstate the appeal or (2) a motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to

settlement.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

28 th day of August, 2014

.
Order filed, April 23, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00202

- CR

____________ HOLLY LYNETTE HUGHES , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Crim Ct at Law No 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1834277



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due April 19, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record.
The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Sandra Powell , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
[EXHIBIT 31.1]

          CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Paul Kravitz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of Med Gen, 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 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 officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-
14) for the registrant and have:

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the
filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
and have identified for the registrants auditors any material
weaknesses in internal controls; and

b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the
date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Date: May 7th, 2008               By: /s/Paul Kravitz
                                      -------------------
                                      Paul Kravitz
                                      Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Board of Education of the Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District, Respondent, v Kappa Renovation Corp., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, the Kappa Renovation Corp. (hereinafter Kappa) appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated March 18, 1986, which granted the application and denied its "counterclaim” for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The appeal brings up for review a subsequent order of the same court, entered February 11, 1987, which denied Kappa’s motion to renew its "counterclaim” for leave to serve a late notice of claim *(see,*CPLR 5517 [a] [3]; [b]).

Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Under the circumstances herein, we agree with the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, that Kappa, in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to Education Law § 3813 (2-a), failed to establish that it was entitled to that relief.

This case is distinguishable from *Matter of Nyack Bd. of Educ. v Capolino Design & Renovation*(114 AD2d 849, 850, *affd*68 NY2d 647), since there is no evidence herein that the petitioner-respondent had actual knowledge of the facts allegedly underlying Kappa’s $349,402 claim and it cannot be said that the petitioner-respondent would suffer no prejudice if Kappa were permitted to serve a late notice of claim for that sum *(see,*Education Law § 3813 [2-a]). Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.