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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4099 

To make supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for the tree and 

wood pests activities of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

and for certain forest health management and urban and community 

forestry activities of the Forest Service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on the 

Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To make supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2014 

for the tree and wood pests activities of the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service and for certain forest health management and urban and community forestry activities of the Forest Service. 

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 ‘‘Temporary Resources 

5 for Emergency Eradication Act of 2014’’ or the ‘‘TREE 

6 Act of 2014’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4099 IH

1 SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR APHIS 

2 TREE AND WOOD PESTS ACTIVITIES. 

3 The following sums are appropriated, out of any 

4 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for fis5 cal year 2014: 

6 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

7 AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

8 ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

9 SALARIES AND EXPENSES

10 For an additional amount for ‘‘Animal and Plant 

11 Health Inspection Service-salaries and expenses’’ for tree 

12 and wood pests, $37,000,000, to remain available until ex13 pended: Provided, That such amount is designated as 

14 being for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) 

15 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 

16 Act of 1985. 

17 SEC. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR CERTAIN 

18 STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY ACTIVITIES 

19 OF THE FOREST SERVICE. 

20 The following sums are appropriated, out of any 

21 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for fis22 cal year 2014: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4099 IH

1 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

2 FOREST SERVICE 

3 STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

4 For an additional amount for ‘‘State and Private 

5 Forestry’’ $20,000,000, to remain available until ex6 pended, of which $15,000,000 shall be used for forest 

7 health management for cooperative lands and $5,000,000 

8 shall be used for urban and community forestry: Provided, 

9 That such amount is designated as being for disaster relief 

10 pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget 

11 and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. David Michael REED

No. 365A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 2, 2016.

Paul E. Smith, Attorney at Law, for Reed, David Michael.

E. Burke Haywood, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 5th of October 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd of November 2016."
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-3330 

ADELINE B. BENJAMIN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

Respondent. 

Richard J. Link, Jr., Karpel & Link, of Silver Spring, Maryland, argued for 

petitioner. 

Tara K. Hogan, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. With 

her on the brief were Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. 

Davidson, Director, and Todd M. Hughes, Deputy Director. Of counsel on the brief was 

Alan B. Robinson, Branch Chief, Employee Relations Branch, United States 

Department of Agriculture, of Beltsville, Maryland. 

Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-3330 

ADELINE B. BENJAMIN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

Respondent. 

Judgment 

ON APPEAL from the Merit Systems Protection Board 

In CASE NO(S). DC0752060891-I-1. 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (RADER, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: _October 8, 2008____ / s / Jan Horbaly

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk
2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-29-2008

Kindler v. Horn

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 03-9010

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Kindler v. Horn" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 433.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/433
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No: 03-9010 and 03-9011

JOSEPH J. KINDLER

 v.

MARTIN HORN, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections;

*DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, Superintendent of the State Correctional

Institution at Graterford; JOSEPH P. MAZURKIEWICZ, Superintendent

of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview,

 Appellants

(*Amended - See Clerk's Order dated 1/6/05)

Argued October 15, 2007

BEFORE: McKEE, FUENTES, and STAPLETON Circuit Judges

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order Amending Opinion is this matter,

entered September 24, 2008, is vacated. It is further ORDERED that the Slip Opinion in

this case filed on September 3, 2008, be amended as follows:

The second paragraph on page 15, which reads: “Next, the district court

relied in part on Doctor v. Walters, 96 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 1996), in rejecting

the Commonwealth’s claim of procedural default. There, we had held that

Pennsylvania’s fugitive forfeiture rule was not firmly established when

Kindler escaped. Accordingly, “the fugitive forfeiture rule . . . [did] not

provide an independent and adequate basis to preclude federal review of

[Kindler’s] habeas claims. . .”. Kindler v. Horn, 291 F. Supp. 2d at 343.”

should be changed to read as follows: “Next, the district court relied in part

on Doctor v. Walters, 96 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 1996), in rejecting the

Commonwealth’s claim of procedural default. There, we had held that

Pennsylvania’s fugitive forfeiture rule was not firmly established when

Doctor, the habeas petitioner, escaped in 1986. Accordingly, the district
court held that “the fugitive forfeiture rule . . . [did] not provide an

independent and adequate basis to preclude federal review of [Kindler’s]

habeas claims. . . .” Kindler v. Horn, 291 F. Supp. 2d at 343. 

BY THE COURT,

/s/ Theodore A. McKee

 Circuit Judge

DATED: September 29, 2008
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3811 

To require notification of individuals of breaches of personally identifiable 

information through Exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2014 

Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mrs. 

BLACK, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. 

CALVERT, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. 

CHABOT, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. COOK, Mr. COTTON, Mr. 

CRAWFORD, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mrs. ELLMERS, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. FITZPATRICK, 

Mr. FLORES, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. GIBSON, Mr. GINGREY

of Georgia, Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas, Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia, Mr. 

HALL, Mr. HARPER, Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, 

Mr. JONES, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, Mr. 

LANCE, Mr. LATTA, Mr. LONG, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mrs. 

MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. MEEHAN, Mrs. MILLER of 

Michigan, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. 

POMPEO, Mr. RADEL, Mr. REED, Mr. RIBBLE, Mr. RIGELL, Mr. ROGERS

of Michigan, Mr. ROKITA, Mr. ROTHFUS, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. SMITH of 

Texas, Mr. STIVERS, Mr. TERRY, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. 

TIBERI, Mrs. WAGNER, Mr. WALDEN, Mrs. WALORSKI, Mr. WEBSTER of 

Florida, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. WILSON of South 

Carolina, Mr. WOMACK, and Mr. WOODALL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require notification of individuals of breaches of personally identifiable information through Exchanges under 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3811 IH

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 ‘‘Health Exchange Secu5 rity and Transparency Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS OF BREACHES OF 

7 PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION 

8 THROUGH PPACA EXCHANGES. 

9 Not later than two business days after the discovery 

10 of a breach of security of any system maintained by an 

11 Exchange established under section 1311 or 1321 of the 

12 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 

13 18031, 18041) which is known to have resulted in person14 ally identifiable information of an individual being stolen 

15 or unlawfully accessed, the Secretary of Health and 

16 Human Services shall provide notice of such breach to 

17 each such individual. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-006-CV

NO. 2-06-155-CV

Ex Parte S.R.D., a child

In the Interest of B.G.D. a/k/a S.R.D., A Child	APPELLANT

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY	NO. 2-006  -04400    07-047              -CV

JOSEPH H. LEE, III, VIRGINIA K. LEE AND 	APPELLANTS

PATRICIA LEE BARROW AND SAVINGS 

OF AMERICA, INC.	MeEtTwWeEsStT, InNcC. dD/bB/aA QuUeEsStT DiIaAgGnNoOsStTiIcCsS InNcCoOrRpPoOrRaAtTeEdD	   APPELLANT	

DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED

	V.

MiIgGuUeElL RoOdDrRiIgGuUeEzZ, JrR., MiIgGuUeElL RoOdDrRiIgGuUeEzZ, and Lucy Rodriguez OPAL LEE, IN HER CAPACITY AS 	APPELLEES

aRODRIGUEZ, AnNdD LuUcCyY RoOdDrRiIgGuUeEzZ  TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF DALE T. LEE, DECEASED	

	----------

	FROM THE 48TH          PROBATE DISTRICT COURT  NO. 2 OF TARRANT                     TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered “aaAppellant  Metwest Inc.. dDd/b/a Quest Diagnostic Incorporated’s /d ddD/b’s [s’]’ “Motion To Dismiss aAppealNotice Of Nonsuit.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P.Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the appellants [ [s][- [oOR the the party incurring the same], for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P.Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:   HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

    HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER                                     , JJ.

DELIVERED:    September 28, 2006   October 2September 235, 2008
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

 

I,James M. Kratochvil, Chief Financial Officer of Berry PlasticsCorporation, certify that:

 

1.         Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KA of Berry Plastics Corporation(the “Registrant”);

 

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

 

3.                 Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.                 The Registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have:

 

(a)               Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

(b)              Designed such internal controlover financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financialreporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation offinancial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles; 

 

(c)               Evaluated the effectiveness of theRegistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(d)              Disclosed in this report anychange in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                 The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      BD

<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Financial Statements of Maxcor Financial Group Inc. at and as of
March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
Consolidated Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                  MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                         16,346,687
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  25,471,748
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                                     0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                                   0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                            13,756,963
<PP&E>                                                          9,221,552
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 83,750,728
<SHORT-TERM>                                                            0
<PAYABLES>                                                      9,909,867
<REPOS-SOLD>                                                            0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                                     0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                                      0
<LONG-TERM>                                                     3,689,415
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           2,000,000
<PREFERRED>                                                             0
<COMMON>                                                           11,392
<OTHER-SE>                                                     31,018,824
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   83,750,728
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                                 586,200
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                                              355,993
<COMMISSIONS>                                                  44,412,112
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                                           0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                205,188
<COMPENSATION>                                                 29,209,821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 4,256,236
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                                      4,256,236
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                         0
<CHANGES>                                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    1,573,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0.14
        


</TABLE>
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE, LLC v. ETRANSMEDIA TECHNOLOGY, INC.

330A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 19, 2016

W. Swain Wood, Attorney at Law, Shannon R. Joseph, Attorney at Law, John T. Kivus, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Christopher Jackson, Attorney at Law, for Allscripts Healthcare, LLC.

Tracie H. Brisson, Attorney at Law, for Etransmedia Technology, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 16th of September 2016 by Plaintiff-Appellant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of September 2016."

Plaintiff-Appellant shall have up to and including the 14th day of November 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Worley, et al. v. Moore, et al.

310A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 15, 2016

Adam H. Charnes, Attorney at Law, John M. Moye, Attorney at Law, Atlanta, for Moore, Roy J., et al.

R. Daniel Boyce, Attorney at Law, Thomas J. Ludlam, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Worley, Dennis, et al.

*804The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 8th of September 2016 by Defendants:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of September 2016." Ervin, J. recused

Defendants shall have up to and including the 26th day of October 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Slip op. at 12. 1

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. 1454-07

ARSENIO CARLOS CLARKE, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HARRIS COUNTY

KELLER, P.J., filed a dissenting opinion in which KEASLER and HERVEY, JJ.,

joined.

DISSENTING OPINION

The Court relies upon Rule 33.1, Tex. R. App. P., to hold that if an argument is

presented to the trial judge in time for him to rule on it, “That is all that is required.” But 1

that is not all that is required when we are talking about motions for new trial. Rule 21.4 has
CLARKE DISSENT - 2

 Slip op. at 11. 2

 State v. Moore, 225 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 3

specific requirements regarding the time of and necessity for filing motions for new trial and

amended motions for new trial. Appellant failed to meet these requirements, and the trial

court was therefore not required to address a claim that was not raised in the original motion

for new trial.

The Court acknowledges appellant’s failure to raise a Brady/Giglio claim in his

original motion for new trial, but excuses that failure by saying the he did not become aware 2

of it until after his motion for new trial was filed. But unfortunately for appellant, even

“good cause” can’t save him here. The Rules of Appellate Procedure prohibit a defendant

from amending a motion for new trial later than thirty days after imposition of sentence.

3

Appellant’s attempt to add a claim orally at the hearing cannot be countenanced any more

than if he had attempted to add a new claim in writing. Appellant had no authority to amend

his motion.

Just as with any claim that a defendant discovers outside the time limits for a motion

for new trial, this claim may be raised in a post-conviction writ application. It is probably

worth noting, though, that the trial court heard appellant’s claim at the hearing on the motion

for new trial, and denied the motion anyway. If the trial judge had thought that appellant’s
CLARKE DISSENT - 3

 The trial court had authority to grant the orally-amended motion because the State 4

failed to object. Id. at 570.

evidence was significant, all he had to do was grant the motion and resentence him.4

I respectfully dissent.

Publish

Filed: September 24, 2008
In the Matter of the Appeal of: Old North State Acquisition LLC, from the decisions of the Montgomery County Board of Equalization and Review concerning the valuation of certain real property for tax year 2012.

No. COA15-769

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 16, 2016

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
INN OF THE MOUNTAIN GODS RESORT AND CASINO
      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 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 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
quarterly report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
  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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
data; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Lance KintzBy:
    
    Lance KintzTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer