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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1679 

Expressing support for designation of September as Childhood Cancer 

Awareness Month. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Mr. CARNAHAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of September as 

Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. 

Whereas childhood cancer is the leading cause of death in 

children under the age of 20, killing more children than 

asthma, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and AIDS combined; 

Whereas more than 12,400 children are diagnosed with childhood cancer each year and 35 children are diagnosed 

each day; 

Whereas 2,500 children a year will not survive their illness; 

Whereas studies and drug development specific to childhood 

cancers remain underfunded; 

Whereas for every $6 in Federal research per AIDS patient 

and every $1 per patient with breast cancer, a child with 

cancer receives only 30 cents; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1679 IH 

Whereas since 1980, only one new drug has been approved 

for the treatment of childhood cancer, compared with 50 

that have been approved for adults; 

Whereas 3 out of 5 survivors will suffer life-long side effects, 

including heart damage, second cancers, lung damage, infertility, cognitive impairment, growth deficits, hearing 

loss, and more; 

Whereas the American Childhood Cancer Organization is recognized for its advocacy of childhood cancer awareness; 

Whereas the St. Baldrick’s Foundation is recognized for its 

endless efforts to raise money for childhood cancer research; 

Whereas Curesearch is recognized for its advocacy and research for childhood cancer; 

Whereas the Make a Wish Foundation is recognized for its 

efforts in providing support through granting wishes to 

children suffering from childhood cancer and other diseases; 

Whereas Friends of Kids With Cancer is recognized for its 

efforts in providing support to childhood cancer patients 

and their families in St. Louis, Missouri; 

Whereas there is a need for greater awareness for childhood 

cancer on part of the public, including awareness of 

symptoms, treatment options, research, and public policy 

implications; and 

Whereas September would be an appropriate month to designate as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1679 IH 

1 (1) supports the designation of Childhood Can2 cer Awareness Month; and 

3 (2) applauds the actions of medical profes4 sionals and other caregivers, researchers, patients 

5 and their families, and others who strive to combat 

6 and raise public awareness of childhood cancer. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
David Samuel LoPINTO, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 15-9916.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
1182.

#### GRAHAM *v.*MASSENGALE ADVERTISING AGENCY.

It is not error to strike a plea in abatement which is filed to an action-brought upon an unconditional contract in writing and is based upon, the pendency of a suit on an open account between the same parties. Especially is this true where it appears that the account, the subject-matter of the prior suit, has been settled by the defendant, without any agreement as to the costs, and where, in the absence of an agreement as-to the payments of costs, the plaintiff’s liability for the costs, if any,, ended, and the defendant became, by law, liable therefor.

Complaint, from city court of Bainbridge — Judge Harrell. April 20, 1908.

Submitted July 14,

Decided October 12, 1908.

*E. S.*Longley, for plaintiff in error.

*Donalson & Donalson,*contra.

Russell, J.

All of the questions raised by the writ of error-are abandoned by the plaintiff in error in his brief, except the assignment of error which insists that the court erre¿l in striking the defendant’s plea in abatement. In addition to what we have said in the headnote, it is only necessary to state that the Massengale Advertising Agency, having brought an action against the plaintiff in error to recover upon an open account, effected a settlement with him, by the terms of which he paid $100 in cash, and gave certain promissory notes in settlement of the remainder of the account. These promissory notes were the basis of the-second suit. It appears that both suits were open upon the docket at the time that the plea in abatement was filed, but it is uncontroverted that the second suit was upon the notes given in settlement of the first. It is clear, where one settles an action instituted against hint, that, in the absence of any agreement between the parties to the controversy, the costs in the case become chargeable -against him. The case, therefore, does not fall within the provisions of §5043 of the Civil Code, which provides that where.*827there is a dismissal or nonsuit, the plaintiff can not recommence' his action -without paying costs. In this case the plaintiff did not. dismiss his action, and his right was to have, a judgment for the costs against the defendant, which the court properly allowed, entered nunc pro tunc. This being true, there was no merit in the plea in abatement. ■ *Judgment affirmed.*
<PAGE>
                               EXHIBIT  11.1

                   GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.
                     COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                 (In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    THREE                SIX
                                                                MONTHS ENDED        MONTHS ENDED
                                                                  JUNE 30,            JUNE 30,     
                                                             ------------------  ------------------
                                                               1998      1997      1998      1997  
                                                             --------  --------  --------   --------
<S>                                                          <C>       <C>       <C>        <C>
Net income (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $    168  $ (2,987) $ (3,341)  $(6,391)

Basic:

  Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding . . .     8,422     6,725     7,589     6,725

  Net loss per common share and common share equivalent . .  $   0.02  $  (0.44) $  (0.44)  $ (0.95)

Diluted:

  Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding . . .     8,631     6,725     7,589     6,725

  Net loss per common share and common share equivalent . .  $   0.02  $  (0.44) $  (0.44)  $ (0.95)

</TABLE>
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 Office of Public Affairs 

 Three Lafayette Centre 

 1155 21st Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20581 

 www.cftc.gov

Proposed Rule on Protection of Collateral 

of Counterparties to Uncleared Swaps 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) is proposing rules establishing regulations concerning 

protection of collateral of counterparties to uncleared swaps, and other matters.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) 

Section 724(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act amends the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) by inserting a new section 

4s(1), which requires that swap dealers (SDs) and major swap participants (MSPs) notify their counterparties 

that such counterparties have a right to require that any initial margin which they post to guarantee uncleared 

swaps be segregated at an independent custodian. 

Requirements for a Segregated Account 

If a counterparty elects segregation for its initial margin, the account must be held at a custodian that is 

independent of both the counterparty and the SD or MSP. There must be a written custody agreement 

between the counterparty posting the initial margin, the SD or MSP, and the custodian, which meets certain 

minimum standards of clarity.

Investment of Segregated Margin 

The proposed regulations provide that segregated margin may only be invested pursuant to the Commission’s 

Rule 1.25, which governs investment of customer property of futures customers. The proposed regulations do 

not, however, limit the types of margin collateral that a customer may post. Nor do they limit any commercial 

arrangements between the parties concerning allocation of gains and losses resulting from such investments. 

Other Matters 

Section 713(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act added Section 20(c) of the CEA, which specifies that the Commission 

“shall exercise its authority to ensure that securities held in a portfolio margining account carried as a futures 

account are customer property and the owners of those accounts are customers for the purposes of” the 

commodity broker provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The Commission proposes amendments to its Part 190 

Regulations (concerning commodity broker bankruptcies) that clarify those points. 

Public Law 111-16, the Statutory Time-Periods Technical Amendments Act of 2009, changed (among other 

things) the time period in the commodity broker provisions of the Bankruptcy Code during which the 

Commission could approve a transfer of customer funds in a commodity broker bankruptcy from five business 

days to seven calendar days. The Commission is proposing amendments to its Part 190 Regulations to 

conform to that statutory change. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080
Laureano Chirino RIVERA, petitioner, v. Bonita S. MOSLEY, Warden.

No. 16-5350.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Tyrone HARRIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9097.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Nos. 222 and 223.

#### American Steam Conveyor Corp. *v.*United States.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. J. Nelson Anderson*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Wideman,*and *Mr. James W. Morris*for the United States.

Petition for writs of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00160

- CV

Davis Serna Villarreal

v. Victoria Housing Authority

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No

. 1 of Victoria County , Texas

Trial Cause No. CIV1

- 18581

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part , reversed in part, rendered in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PAR T , REVERSED IN PART, RENDERED IN PART, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 50% against appellant although he is exempt from payment due to his inability to pay costs and 50% agains t appellee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. March 7, 2019
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 33-87592, No. 33-60369, No. 33-60373 and No. 33-60371) of J. Ray
McDermott, S.A. of our report dated July 10, 1997 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of J. Ray McDermott, S.A. included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 1997.


                                 ERNST & YOUNG LLP



New Orleans, Louisiana
July 10, 1997
SIXING LIU, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5541.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In
connection with the Annual Report of Digital Generation Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
SEC on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and dates indicated below, hereby 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: March 27, 2006 |  | By: | /s/SCOTT K. GINSBURGScott K. Ginsburg Chairman of the Board of Directors
and
Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------- |  | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: March 27, 2006 |  | By: | /s/OMAR A. CHOUCAIROmar A. Choucair Chief Financial
Officer
|-------------------- |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15768]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, June 21, 2001, 8:30 a.m. to 
June 22, 2001, 6 p.m., River Inn, 924 25th Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
20037 which was published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2001, 66 
FR 31683-31685.
    The meeting will be one day only June 21, 2001. The time and 
location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: June 18, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-15768 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
*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.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60222

Summary Calendar

LENIS IRENE MULLINS and EVERETT D. MULLINS,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

VERSUS

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(3:95-CV-178)

April 7, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”) appeals the denial of its

motion for new trial or, in the alternative, a remittitur. We

affirm.

Plaintiffs Lenis Irene Mullins and Everett D. Mullins brought

suit against Wal-Mart to recover damages sustained when Mrs.
2

Mullins slipped and fell and suffered personal injuries in a WalMart Store. After jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for

plaintiffs, assessing no damages for Mr. Mullins and $50,000 for

Mrs. Mullins. Wal-Mart moved for new trial or, in the alternative,

for remittitur, contending, inter alia, that the district court

erred in not granting a mistrial on motions made by Wal-Mart during

trial. On appeal, Wal-Mart argues that the district court erred in

denying this motion.

Specifically, Wal-Mart alleges that the jury, prejudiced by

repetitious and leading questions and improper comments by

Plaintiffs' counsel in response to Wal-Mart's objections, returned

a verdict against the weight of the evidence. Further, Wal-Mart

alleges that because they were forced by Plaintiffs' counsel's

egregious conduct to make numerous objections, the jury was led to

believe Wal-Mart had something to hide.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wal-Mart's motion for

new trial or, in the alternative, for remittitur. See Hiltgen v.

Sumrall, 47 F.3d 695, 703 (5th Cir. 1995). 

AFFIRMED.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 14, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

130484 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. BONNIE AMON, Successor Personal Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Ann Marie Justices Samodell, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 130484 COA: 260252 Oakland CC: 2002-046057-NH BOTSFORD GENERAL HOSPITAL, and ROBERT F. SCHIRMER, D.O., Defendants-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of April 13, 2007 , the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in ab eyance pending the decision in Mullins v St Joseph Mercy Hosp (Docket No. 131879). On order of th e Court, the case having been decided on Nove mber 28, 2007, ___ Mi ch ___ (2007), the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G )(1), in lieu of gran ting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals, REINSTAT E the order of the Oakland Circuit Court denying the defendant s' motion for summary disposition, and
REMAND this case to the Oaklan d Circuit Court for further pr oceedings not inconsistent
with this order and the order in Mullins . In all other respects, l eave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remain ing question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1211 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 14, 2007

Clerk
Raynard Paul CUMMINGS, petitioner, v. Ronald DAVIS, Warden.

No. 16-6182.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15737]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Region IV, North Florida District, Jacksonville, Florida, 
Advisory Council Meeting; Public Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration, North Florida District 
Office, Jacksonville, Florida, Advisory Council will hold a public 
meeting from 12:00 p.m. to 2 p.m., eastern standard time July 11, 2001, 
at the North Florida District Office, 7825 Baymeadows Way, Suite 100-B, 
in the Conference Room, to discuss such matters as may be presented by 
members, staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or others 
present.
    Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must 
contact Claudia Taylor, in writing by letter or fax no later than June 
25, 2001, in order to be put on the agenda. For further information, 
write or call Claudia D. Taylor, U.S. Small Business Administration, 
7825 Baymeadows Way, Suite 100-B, Jacksonville, Florida 32256-7504, 
telephone (904) 443-1933, fax (904) 443-1980.

Nancyellen Gentile,
Committee Management Office.
[FR Doc. 01-15737 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Linda KIDD, et al., petitioners, v. Sue DOE, et al.

No. 16-530.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
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.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1378-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-1378-DR), dated June 3, 2001, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

June 11, 2001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective June 11, 2001. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) 

Robert J. Adamcik, 

Deputy Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate. 

[FR Doc. 01-15714 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6718-02-U