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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1291 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1291

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To prohibit the imposition of access charges on Internet service 
                   providers, and for other purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1291

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To prohibit the imposition of access charges on Internet service 
                   providers, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Internet Access Charge Prohibition 
Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF CHARGES ON PROVIDERS OF INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE.

    Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(l) Prohibition of Charges on Internet Service Providers.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (b)(4) or (d) 
        or any other provision of this title, the Commission shall not 
        impose on any provider of Internet access service (as such term 
        is defined in section 231(e)) any contribution for the support 
        of universal service that is based on a measure of the time 
        that telecommunications services are used in the provision of 
        such Internet access service.
            ``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
        shall preclude the Commission from imposing access charges on 
        the providers of Internet telephone services, irrespective of 
        the type of customer premises equipment used in connection with 
        such services.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 16, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
A00A0863.

#### AHEARN v. WESTREC MANAGEMENT, INC.

(536 SE2d 606)

Decided June 29, 2000.

*James L. Kraemer,*for appellant.

Miller, Judge.

Westrec Management sued Joe Ahearn for the costs incurred in removing a sinking boat moored at its dock. Ahearn counterclaimed for the loss of the boat. The trial court entered partial summary judgment in favor of Westrec and awarded $3,825. The court also awarded judgment to Westrec on Ahearn’s counterclaim. Ahearn appeals contending that the court erred in granting partial summary judgment to Westrec.

Westrec moved to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.1 In our February 9, 2000 order denying Westrec’s motion, we ordered Ahearn to submit a brief on the merits of the appeal, which he failed to do. Ahearn’s brief submitted prior to the order has no citations to the record and has no argument on the merits beyond two sentences claiming that the question of gross negligence is a jury question under OCGA § 51-1-4. The remainder of Ahearn’s brief focuses on the jurisdictional issue that was subsequently decided by this court in the denial of Westrec’s motion to dismiss.

A complete statement of the applicable ruling from the sole authority cited by Ahearn is: “A jury question is presented only when reasonable [persons] could disagree as to whether the facts alleged constitute gross negligence.”2 The salient fact here is that Ahearn’s sinking boat was obstructing the marina.

Because of the inadequacies in Ahearn’s brief3 and his failure to comply with the February 9 order,4 we conclude the grant of partial summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56 (a) was not erroneous for any reason argued in Ahearn’s brief and affirm.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope, P. J., and Smith, P. J., concur.*

*700*Manchel, Johnson & Wiggins, Norman G. Johnson, Scott M. Kaye,*for appellee.

1

 Westrec moved this court to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds because Ahearn filed an application for discretionary appeal instead of filing a direct appeal. But summary judgment and partial summary judgment are directly appealable and will be treated as if enumerated under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) for purposes of OCGA § 5-6-35 (j), allowing this court jurisdiction to decide the case upon application for permission to appeal.

2

 (Citations omitted.) *Harris v. Nat. Evaluation System,*719 FSupp. 1081, 1084 (N.D. Ga. 1989), aff'd, 900 F2d 266 (11th Cir. 1990).

3

 “Each enumerated error shall be supported in the brief by specific reference to the record or transcript.” Court of Appeals Rule 27 (c) (3) (i).

4

 See Court of Appeals Rule 7.
Keithrick THOMAS, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 18-1035.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District denied.
William Lee GRAY, petitioner, v. Pat VASQUEZ, Warden.

No. 17-5381.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906**     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of Alloy, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:     The Annual Report for the year ended January 31, 2005 (the“Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information containedin the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ James K. Johnson, Jr.       James K. Johnson, Jr. *Chief Financial Officer*Dated: April 15, 2005     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1042

___________________________

Inez Hunter

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Ford Motor Company, in Dearborn MI; Citi Financial Auto, (“CFA”) a

corporation in Bedford, TX; Hastings Automotive Inc., (“HAI”), in Hastings, MN;

Dion Carpenter, an individual; Doug Ericksen, an individual; John Does, I through

X, sued in their individual and official capacities whose identities are not yet known

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: May 2, 2016

Filed: May 4, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Inez Hunter appeals after the District Court denied her motion for

1

postjudgment relief in this pro se action related to the purchase and financing of a car. 

We conclude that the motion was properly denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c) (time

limits for filing a motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure);

Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 620 F.3d 873, 879 (8th Cir. 2010)

(denying a Rule 60(d)(3) motion filed five years after judgment because the litigant

was not withoutfault and the rule has an “equitable requirement that the party seeking

relief be free from negligence and fault”); SDDS, Inc. v. South Dakota (In re SDDS,

Inc.), 225 F.3d 970, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding that a Rule 60(b) motion cannot “be

used to collaterally attack a final court of appeals’ ruling in lieu of a proper petition

for review in the United States Supreme Court”), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1007 (2001). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota. 

-2-
Gary BLACK, petitioner, v. MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 17-6804.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          15,028
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,790
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,391
<INVENTORY>                                     22,777
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,243
<PP&E>                                          18,145
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,714
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,004
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,149
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,459
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,396
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,004
<SALES>                                         37,686
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,686
<CGS>                                           21,314
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,454
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   650
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,215
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,878
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,337
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,337
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                Exhibit 10.27(2)



                         SECOND AMENDMENT TO INDEPENDENT
                              CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT

         This Second Amendment to Independent Contractor Agreement (the
"Amendment") is entered into as of the 30th day of September, 1999, by and
between JORE CORPORATION, a Montana corporation (the "Company") and THOMAS E.
MAHONEY, a resident of the State of Connecticut ("Contractor"), with reference
to the following facts:

                                    RECITALS

         A. The Company and Contractor entered into that certain Independent
Contractor Agreement, effective as of June 3, 1999, which was amended effective
July 23, 1999 (the "Agreement").

         B. The Company and Contractor desire to amend the Agreement by this
Amendment.

         IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES set forth in this Amendment and
in the Agreement, the Company and Contractor hereby amend the Agreement as
follows:

         1. Section 5.1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following new Section 5.1:

                  5.1 The term of this Agreement shall be from November 1, 1999
through October 31, 2000. Upon expiration of the term, the Company shall have
the option to renew this Agreement for additional one-year period(s).

         2. All other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.


JORE CORPORATION                            CONTRACTOR



_____________________________               ________________________________
By:  Matt Jore                              Thomas E. Mahoney
Its:  President
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 25637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09358]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than June 1, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Sebastian Astrada, 
Director, Applications) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 
94105-1579:
    1. Forest Holdings LLC, Goodyear, Arizona; to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring West Valley National Bank, Goodyear, Arizona.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 27, 
2022.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-09358 Filed 4-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Northern Border
Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership") for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Jerry L. Peters, as Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of
the Partnership, hereby certifies, 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 section 15(d), as applicable, 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 Partnership.

Dated: November 9, 2004                    /s/ Jerry L. Peters
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Jerry L. Peters
                                       Chief Financial and Accounting Officer

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and
not for any other purpose.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1365

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to recognize the time required

to save funds for the college education of adopted children.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 12, 1999

Mr. ANDREWS (for himself and Mr. PAYNE) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to recognize

the time required to save funds for the college education

of adopted children.

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF ADOPTED CHILDREN IN NEEDS

4 ANALYSIS.

5 Section 475 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20

6 U.S.C. 1087oo) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new subsection:

8 ‘‘(j) ADJUSTMENTS FOR PARENTS OF ADOPTED

9 CHILDREN.—For parents of dependent students who are
2

•HR 1365 IH

1 adopted children, the expected family contribution is de2 termined by—

3 ‘‘(1) dividing the expected family contribution

4 determined under the other provisions of this section

5 by 10; and

6 ‘‘(2) multiplying the resulting number by a

7 number equal to the lesser of—

8 ‘‘(A) the number of complete years that

9 such student has lived with such parents since

10 being adopted; or

11 ‘‘(B) 10.’’.

Æ
Thomas Phillip BELL, petitioner, v. Kiah Demarias LEIGH, et al.

No. 18-7690.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Rafael ALDANA and Julio Cesar Suarez, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9347.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF 10-K REPORT
OF
EXABYTE CORPORATION

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2004

The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Exabyte Corporation ("Exabyte").  This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This Certification accompanies the 10-Q Report of Exabyte for the quarter ended March 31, 2004.

We certify that such 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-K/A Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Exabyte.

This Certification is executed as of May 17, 2004.

/s/  TOM W. WARD



/s/  CARROLL A. WALLACE			Carroll A. Wallace
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF BUCKHEAD AMERICA  CORPORATION FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER  30,  1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000


<S>                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                      3,124
<SECURITIES>                                                2,590
<RECEIVABLES>                                               4,264
<ALLOWANCES>                                                376
<INVENTORY>                                                 40
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            8,632
<PP&E>                                                      39,671
<DEPRECIATION>                                              3,482
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              57,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       4,602
<BONDS>                                                     30,367
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 3,000
<COMMON>                                                    21
<OTHER-SE>                                                  19,899
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                57,199
<SALES>                                                     19,447
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            25,141
<CGS>                                                       15,734
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               16,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            2,386
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          2,364
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             3,439
<INCOME-TAX>                                                1,385
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         2,054
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                                2,054
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               0.72



</TABLE>
Manuel Robert LUCERO, V, petitioner, v. Thomas A. TURCO, III, et al.

No. 17-9252.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1359

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse to be constructed at 10 East Commerce Street in Youngstown, Ohio, as the

‘‘Frank J. Battisti and Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building and United

States Courthouse’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 25, 1999

Mr. TRAFICANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse to be constructed at 10 East Commerce Street

in Youngstown, Ohio, as the ‘‘Frank J. Battisti and

Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building and United States

Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building and United States courthouse

5 to be constructed at 10 East Commerce Street in Youngs6 town, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Frank
2

•HR 1359 IH

1 J. Battisti and Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building and

2 United States Courthouse’’.

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

4 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

6 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec7 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Frank

8 J. Battisti and Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building and

9 United States Courthouse’’.

Æ