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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1497

To amend the Small Business Act with respect to the women’s business

center program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 20, 1999

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. THUNE, Mr. PASCRELL, Mrs.

KELLY, Mr. HILLIARD, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. BRADY of

Pennsylvania, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, MR. PHELPS, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. DAVIS

of Illinois, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. MOORE, and Mr. WEINER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small

Business

A BILL

To amend the Small Business Act with respect to the

women’s business center program.

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 ‘‘Women’s Business

5 Centers Sustainability Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 1497 IH

1 SEC. 2. WOMEN’S BUSINESS CENTER PROGRAM.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 29 of the Small Business

3 Act (15 U.S.C. 656) is amended by adding at the end the

4 following:

5 ‘‘(l) ELIGIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE.—

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), a

7 private organization that has received financial as8 sistance under this section pursuant to a grant, con9 tract, or cooperative agreement, and that is in the

10 final year of a 5-year project or that has completed

11 a project financed under this section (or any prede12 cessor to this section), may apply for financial as13 sistance for an additional 5-year project under this

14 section.

15 ‘‘(2) CONDITIONS FOR PARTICIPATION.—Not16 withstanding any other provision of this section, as

17 a condition of receiving financial assistance author18 ized by this subsection, an organization described in

19 paragraph (1)—

20 ‘‘(A) shall meet such requirements as the

21 Administration shall establish to promote the

22 viability and success of the program under this

23 section, in addition to the requirements set

24 forth in this section; and

25 ‘‘(B) shall agree to obtain, after its appli26 cation has been approved and notice of award
3

•HR 1497 IH

1 has been issued, cash contributions from non2 Federal sources for each year of additional pro3 gram participation in an amount equal to 1

4 non-Federal dollar for each Federal dollar.’’.

5 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

6 29(k) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656(k)) is

7 amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the fol8 lowing:

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be

10 appropriated $12,000,000 for each of fiscal years

11 2000 and 2001 to carry out the projects authorized

12 under this section, of which, in each fiscal year, not

13 more than 40 percent may be used to carry out

14 projects funded under subsection (l).’’.

Æ
#### Kemp, Appellant, *v.*Kach.

*62November 14, 1955:

Argued October 11, 1955.

Before Stern, C. J., Stearns, Jones, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

*Sherman H.*Siegel, with him *Louis R. Oppenheim,*for appellant.

*August L. Sismondo,*for appellee.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The appeal is from a decree in equity dismissing a complaint alleging the existence of an oral partnership between the plaintiff, Stanley A. Kemp, and his brother-in-law, John Kach, the defendant. The printed record consists of 861 pages. The testimony is in part contradictory, with the findings of fact depending upon the credibility of witnesses. The chancellor found that plaintiff is not and never has been a partner with defendant in the business in question. Such finding is amply supported by the testimony and was approved by the court in banc. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss the seventy-one exceptions filed by plaintiff to the adjudication and their disposition by the court in banc, since action thereon Avould not alter the controlling finding of no partnership.

The decree is affirmed at the cost of appellant.
MASTROGIOVANNI SCHORSCH & MERSKY, P.C., et al., petitioners, v. Edward MANDEL.

No. 18-905.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Steven THOMASON, petitioner, v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB, et al.

No. 18-8086.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 23, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 23, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21D0363. IN THE INTEREST OF T. A. Z. D. et al., CHILDREN (MOTHER) .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

20JV79
Arthur Nop LEW, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 18-8067.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District denied.
ONG VUE, petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General.

No. 18-8136.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RICHARD ANTHONY BONNELL

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 216 5

[ February 16, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Okeechobee County ; Michael J. McNicholas , Judge; L.T. Case No.

472021 CF 000 639A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant

Pub li c Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, L EVINE AND C ONNER

, JJ., CONCUR

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 01/25/11                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       68,682
COMMITMENTS
  21,880    3,168    7,110   23,388   43,102   52,378   53,380   16,304   15,302

CHANGES FROM 01/18/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,202)
     292      137      140      648      456    1,080      733      122      469

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    31.9      4.6     10.4     34.1     62.8     76.3     77.7     23.7     22.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       89)
      35        9       21       31       26       73       51
```

----

Updated January 28, 2011
Elbert KIRBY, Jr., et al., petitioners, v. David O'DENS, et al.

No. 17-5469.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Dockery CLEVELAND, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8307.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Daryl MINGO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8133.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6712

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ULRISTE TULIN, a/k/a Blade , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O ’ Grady , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cr - 00173

- LO

- 2 ; 1:19

- cv - 00157

- LO )

Submitted : August 20, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Ulriste Tulin , Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Attias , National Security Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ulriste Tulin seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion , his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider , and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) motion for relief from judgment based on fraud and misrepresentation

. The order s are 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 appealabilit y 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 denies 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 ground s, 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 constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and con clude that Tulin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 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.
DISMISSED
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### General Services Administration

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - 48 CFR Part 4
          - [FAC 2022-06; Item II; Docket No. FAR-2022-0052; Sequence No. 1]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

DoD, GSA, and NASA published a Technical Amendment, and this document corrects an erroneous instruction in that rule.

# DATES:

*Effective:*                         May 1, 2022.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Lois Mandell, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), at 202-501-4755 or                         *GSARegSec@gsa.gov.*                         Please cite FAC 2022-06, Technical Amendments.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DoD, GSA, and NASA are correcting an amendatory instruction under part 4, section 4.402.

In FR Doc. 2022-08578 appearing on pages 24843-24844 in the issue of April 26, 2022, make the following correction:

4.402 

1. On page 24844, in the first column, Instruction 2, is corrected to read: 

                        “2. Amend section 4.402 by removing from paragraph (d)(1) the phrase “via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) at                         *https://wawf.eb.mil”*                         and adding “at                         *https://      ( print page 25573)    tesseract.cloud.dcsa.mil/​nccs”*                         in its place.                    

William F. Clark,

Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-09414 Filed 4-28-22; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
In Re Charlette Dufray JOHNSON, petitioner.

No. 18-8080.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Johnny R. ANDOE, petitioner, v. C.L. "Butch" OTTER, et al.

No. 16-9028.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8
                               AMENDMENT TO THE
                                DOMINO'S PIZZA
                          DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

Domino's Pizza, Inc., having determined that the Company shall no longer make
either Employer Matching Contributions or Supplemental Contributions after the
end of the 1999 Plan Year and having further determined to provide a modified
Employer benefit to the plan for the Plan Year 2000 which is not yet determined
desires to grant Participants with a limited opportunity to change their
Participant elections this one year only prior to their receipt of compensation
adopts the following amendment to the Plan effective immediately:

Section 3.1 is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in its
place:

     DEFERRAL CONTRIBUTIONS.  Each Participant may elect to execute a salary
     reduction agreement with the Employer to reduce their Compensation by a
     specified percentage: determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board
     of Directors of the Employer not exceeding the percentage of his or her
     Compensation applicable to their particular job grade and position as
     described on the attached Exhibit B in a whole number multiple of five (5)
     percent.  Such agreement shall become effective on the first day of the
     period as set forth in the Participant's election.  The election will be
     effective to defer Compensation relating to all services performed in a
     Plan Year subsequent to the filing of such an election.  An election once
     made will remain in effect until a new election is made.  A new election
     will be effective as of the first day of the following Plan Year and will
     apply only to Compensation payable with respect to services rendered after
     such date, provided however, that for the Plan Year 2000, Participants
     shall be entitled to change their election on one occasion before February
     28, 2000 in this Plan Year only due to a change in the terms of the
     Employer contributions to the Plan which will not become effective or
     determined until after the commencement of the 2000 Plan Year.  Amounts
     credited to a Participant's account prior to the effective date of any new
     election will not be affected and will be paid in accordance with that
     prior election.  A Participant shall have nonforfeitable right to his or
     her Deferral Contributions.

This amendments shall be effective immediately.  Other than the foregoing
amendment, the plan remains in full force and effect and unmodified.
<PAGE>

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has amended the plan to be effective
immediately.

                              DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC.


                              By:
                                 ---------------------------------------------
                                    Harry Silverman

                              Its: Chief Financial Officer

Dated:
      --------------------
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1885

YAMASSEE INDIAN TRIBE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ALLENDALE COUNTY GOVERNMENT; MR. WALTER H. SANDERS, JR.; 

HARVEY E. ROUSE, Tax Assessor; JOE MOLE, III; MS. THESSA 

SMITH; CALVIN BRANTLEY; ELOUISE BRANTLEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (1:13-cv-01577-TLW)

Submitted: January 21, 2015 Decided: January 28, 2015

Before KING, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yamassee Indian Tribe, Appellant Pro Se. Norma Anne Turner 

Jett, NESS & JETT, LLC, Bamberg, South Carolina; Angus Macauly 

Lawton, Erica Bedenbaugh McElreath, Jared Cyle Williams, LAWTON 

LAW OFFICE, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Yamassee Indian Tribe appeals the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismssing its civil action without prejudice. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Yamassee Indian Tribe

v. Allendale Cnty. Gov’t, No. 1:13-cv-01577-TLW (D.S.C. Aug. 15 

& 18, 2014). 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.

DISMISSED
Kofi KYEI, petitioner, v. Tessica L. SWIFT, et al.

No. 18-7591.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Oregon denied.
Exhibit
32



CERTIFICATIONS

I,
David Derby, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Golden Patriot, Corp.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
for the small business issuer and have:

a.

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c.

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

---

Exhibit
32



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April 27, 2004



/s/ David Derby

David Derby, Director, Chief Executive Officer
Richard ISASI, petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner, New York Department of Corrections and Community.

No. 17-9407.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 7, 2016

NO. 03-14-00136-CR

Terri Elmore-Munoz, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court. Having reviewed the record and 

the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s

judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The appellant shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
Daltonia DUNCAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7519.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Alloy, Inc.

New York, New York

We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-109788, 333-106382, 333-90681 and 333-48372) and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-134570, 333-117046 and 333-109786) of Alloy, Inc. and in the Prospectuses
constituting part of such Registration Statements, of our reports dated April 2, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements, and the effectiveness of Alloy, Inc.s internal control over financial reporting and financial
statement schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K.



|                    
|--------------------
|/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
|New York, New York  
|April 2, 2007