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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4213 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4213

   To direct the Federal Trade Commission to revise the regulations 
       regarding the definitions for funeral industry practices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 12, 2014

 Mr. Whitfield (for himself, Mr. Peters of Michigan, and Mr. Walberg) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Federal Trade Commission to revise the regulations 
       regarding the definitions for funeral industry practices.

    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 ``Funeral Rule Improvement Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF REGULATIONS REGARDING FUNERAL INDUSTRY PRACTICES 
              REQUIRED.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Federal Trade Commission shall revise the definitions in section 
453.1 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations in the following manner:
            (1) By amending the definition of ``funeral provider'' to 
        read as follows: ``A `funeral provider' is any person, 
        partnership, trust, or corporation that sells or offers to sell 
        funeral or burial goods or services to the public.''.
            (2) By further amending the definition of ``funeral 
        provider'' to except each of the following:
                    (A) Any religious denomination, middle judicatory, 
                house of worship, or similar religious organization.
                    (B) Any State or political subdivision of a State.
                    (C) Any cemetery that has 25 or fewer burials per 
                year.
                    (D) Any entity described in section 501(c)(13) of 
                the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 
                501(c)(13)).
            (3) By amending the definition of ``funeral services'' to 
        read as follows: ```Funeral or burial services' are any 
        services that are sold or offered for sale directly to the 
        public for use in connection with either: (1) the care and 
        preparation of deceased human remains for burial, cremation, or 
        other final disposition or (2) the arrangement, supervision, or 
        carrying out the funeral ceremony or final disposition of 
        deceased human bodies.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

Section 906 CEO Certification

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 of Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Rodolfo Prieto, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.



|                        |  |  |  |                     
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------
|/s/ Rodolfo Prieto      |  |  |  | Date: August 9, 2007
|Rodolfo Prieto          |  |  |  |                     
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |
#### STATE ex rel. Lester Charles BALL v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2267.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Ball, Lester Charles; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 176,164, 176,164; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No(s). 36475-KH, 36364-KH.

Denied.
EAGLE SERVICES & TOWING, LLC, George K. Clardy, Jr., and Sylvia W. Clardy v. ACE MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORP.

No. 234P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Pamela S. Duffy, Attorney at Law, Burlington, R. Bryan Norris, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Ace Motor Acceptance Corp.

Joseph L. Bell, Jr., Attorney at Law, Joseph G. McKellar, Attorney at Law, Rocky Mount, for Eagle Services & Towing, LLC, et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of July 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
#### Joseph E. WHITFIELD, Cross-Appellant/Appellee, v. Michael BOWERSOX, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center; Jeremiah Nixon, Attorney General, State of Missouri, Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Nos. 01-1537, 01-1538.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Sept. 2, 2003.

Cheryl Ann Pilate, Charles M. Rogers, Wyrsch *&*Hobbs, Kansas City, MO, Joseph E. Whitfield, pro se, Mineral Point, MO, for Petitioner-Appellee.

Stephen David Hawke, Attorney General’s Office, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondents-Appellants.

On June 17, 2003, the Supreme Court of Missouri, in *State v. Whitfield,*107 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Mo.2003), recalled its mandate and set aside Whitfield’s death sentence. The Missouri Supreme Court resentenced “Whitfield “to life imprisonment without eligibility for probation, parole, or release except by act of the Governor.” *Id.*at 272. Based on the Missouri Supreme Court’s action, we vacate sections III.B. and III. C.l of our panel opinion as moot. *Whitfield v. Bowersox,*324 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir.2003). We also vacate as moot that portion of the district court’s January 24, 2001, Memorandum and Order granting Whitfield a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Whitfield’s Ground III.C. relating to Whitfield’s death sentence. Whitfield’s petition for rehearing by the panel is otherwise denied. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23

- 0268

_________________ MONTANA TROUT UNLIMITED, TROUT UNLIMITED, MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER, EARTHWORKS, and AMERICAN RIVERS,

Petitioners and Appellants,

v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION and TINTINA MONTANA, INC.,

Respondents and Appellees. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 26(2), and with good cause shown, Appellants ’ Unopposed Motion fo r an Exten sion of Time to file Appellants ’ Opening Brief is GRAN TED. Appell ants shall file their opening brief on or before August 23, 20 23.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 14 2023

07/14/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0268
#### Jonathan D. COLEMAN and Kathleen Coleman, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK OF ST. CLAIR, Defendant/Respondent.

No. ED 81774.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 6, 2003.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 26, 2003.

Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 26, 2003.

David G. Dempsey, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

*454Leo V. Garvin, Jr., St. Louis, MO, for respondent.

Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., and MARY K. HOFF and GEORGE W. DRAPER, III, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jonathan D. Coleman and Kathleen Coleman (Plaintiffs) appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Farmers & Merchants Bank of St. Clair (Defendant) and the denial of summary judgment to Plaintiffs. The underlying action is for alleged damages at law resulting from the wrongful foreclosure of Plaintiffs’ residence by their mortgagee, Defendant. On appeal, Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment because (1) Defendant’s motion failed to comply with Rule 74.04(c), (2) the trustee had not been validly appointed prior to the foreclosure sale in the manner required by the deed of trust, (3) Defendant failed to follow the notice and cure procedure set out in the deed of trust as a precondition to the acceleration of the Note and foreclosure of the deed of trust, (4) Defendant’s conduct lulled Plaintiffs into a false sense of security that the loan would not be foreclosed for continued late payments, and (5) Plaintiffs were not in default. Plaintiffs also urge us to review and reverse the trial court denial of Plaintiffs’ motion of summary judgment on the liability issue notwithstanding the fact that denial of a motion for summary judgment is normally not reviewed on appeal. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 05-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                  
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------
|                      |  | /s/ Curtis W. Mewbourne          
|                      |  | Name: Curtis W. Mewbourne        
|Date: August 21, 2006 |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer   
|                      |  | Mewbourne Development Corporation
Lannie Dale MILLS and Karen Lynn Mills Myers, as Co-executors of the Estates of Thomas C. Mills, deceased, and Dorothy Y. Mills, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. Jethro Barnes MAJETTE, III, Stanislawa J. Majette, and Margo Prescott Majette, Defendants.

No. COA16-1145

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 16, 2017

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
exhibit10-3.htm




 










	  	  	  
	
Notice of Grant of

	  	
LSI CORPORATION


	
Stock Option

	  	
ID: 94-2712976


	
Under the

	  	
1320 RIDDER PARK DRIVE


	
LSI Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive Plan

	  	
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95131







 










	  	  	  	  
	
GRANTEE NAME

	  	
Award Number:

	  
	
Address

	  	
Grant Date:

	  
	
Address

	  	
Number of Shares:

	  
	  	  	
Exercise Price:

	  
	  	  	
Expiration Date:

	  





 









 


On the grant date shown above, LSI Corporation granted you a nonqualified stock option covering the number of shares shown above under the LSI Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive Plan. When exercisable, the option will allow you to purchase shares of LSI’s common stock for a price per share equal to the exercise price shown above. Your right to exercise this Option will terminate on the expiration date shown above or earlier if provided in the attached Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement or in the plan.


 


 


Your option will become exercisable with respect to the number of shares and at the time or times indicated below, but only if [any applicable performance requirements indicated below have been met and] you have not incurred a Termination of Service prior to the applicable time. 


 



	  	  	  	  	  
	
Shares

	  	
Vesting Date

	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  





 









 


By your signature below, you agree that this award is governed by this Notice of Grant, the attached Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement and the LSI Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive Plan. You acknowledge that you have received, read and understand this Notice of Grant, the attached agreement and the plan. You agree to accept as binding all decisions or interpretations of the Board of Directors of LSI or its delegate regarding any questions relating to this Notice of Grant, the attached agreement or the plan. 


 










	  	  	  
	
______________________________________________

	  	  
	
GRANTEE NAME

	  	  
	
Date:
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4270 

To clarify that funding for the standard setting body designated pursuant 

to section 19(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Investor 

Protection Corporation, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight 

Board is not subject to the sequester. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2014 

Mr. RENACCI (for himself, Mr. HIMES, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. PETERSON, Mr. 

MURPHY of Florida, Mr. FLORES, and Mr. SHERMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To clarify that funding for the standard setting body designated pursuant to section 19(b) of the Securities Act 

of 1933, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 

and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board 

is not subject to the sequester. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION. 

4 Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emer5 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a) does 

6 not apply with respect to the funding of— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4270 IH

1 (1) the standard setting body designated pursu2 ant to section 19(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 

3 (15 U.S.C. 77s(b)); 

4 (2) the Securities Investor Protection Corpora5 tion; or 

6 (3) the Public Company Accounting Oversight 

7 Board. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

Section 906 CFO Certification

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert Schaffhauser, Executive Vice President of Finance of the Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.D. 78m); and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|/s/    Robert Schaffhauser         
|Robert Schaffhauser                
|Executive Vice President of Finance

Date: August 13, 2009



28
EXHIBIT 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-43267), the Registration Statement (Form S-3 
No. 33-94782), the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-14139), the 
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-22211), the Registration 
Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-94036), the Registration Statement (Form S-8 
No. 333-44149) and in the related Prospectus of Liberty Property Trust 
and Liberty Property Limited Partnership of our report dated February 
12, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and 
schedule of Liberty Property Trust included in this Annual Report (Form 
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.




Philadelphia, Pennsylvania                       /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
February 24, 1999                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 19

- 00092

- CV

BRIAN CLAY EARLE AND LINDA GALE HURLEY, Appellants

V.

WILLIAM E. MOORE AND MARY R. MOORE, Appellees

On Appeal from the 402nd District Court

Wood County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- 419

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant s ha ve filed a motion with this Court seeking to voluntarily dismiss t h is

appeal. Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a )( 1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is

granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a )( 1). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal

.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: December 16, 2019

Date Decided: December 17, 2019
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19242]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 10198 and <greek-i> 10199

[Florida Disaster <greek-i> FL-00009]

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Florida dated 9/14/2005.
    Incident: Hurricane Katrina.
    Incident Period: 8/25/2005.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 9/14/2005.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/14/2005.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 6/14/2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Disaster Area Office 3, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort 
Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 
6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties:
    Monroe.
Contiguous Counties: Florida:
    Collier, Miami-Dade.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere...................      5.375
Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere................      2.687
Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere...................      6.557
Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit        4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             4.750
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    eThe number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10198 
8 and for economic injury is 10199 0.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> are Florida.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    Dated: September 14, 2005.
Hector V. Barreto,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-19242 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United Stat es District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2329

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. Gerardo G. Salinas, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 20, 2010 Filed: December 23, 2010

___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gerardo Salinas appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. Counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable because the court gave undue weight to Salinas’s prior convictions. In a supplem ental pro se brief, Salinas challenges the presentence report’s (PSR’s) calculation of his criminal history score and the description of his prior fe lony convictions; argues that he does not deserve career--2- offender status; and asserts that the court stenographer inaccurate ly transcribed his allocution testimony. For the following reasons, we affirm.
First, we conclude that Salinas forfeite d any challenge to the PSR’s recitation of the facts and its recommendations as to his career-offender status and criminal history score. Salinas resolved his objec tions to the PSR upon reaching an agreement with the government, and he advised the di strict court that the PSR, as amended to reflect his agreement with the government, accurately stated the facts and correctly calculated his Guidelines range. See United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 733-34 (1993). In any event, exercising our di scretion to review for plain error, seeUnited States v. Wallace , 408 F.3d 1046, 1048-49 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam), we find none. Second, Salinas does not explain how his allegedly inaccu rately transcribed allocution testimony is a basis to challenge his sentence in this direct criminal appeal. And third, the district court’s senten ce is not unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster , 572 F3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sta ndard of review; describing factors that demonstrate procedural error).
Finally, having reviewed the recordindependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________