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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 477 

To require the submission by the President of recommendations and proposed 

legislation to modernize, consolidate, reprioritize, and where necessary, 

terminate Federal programs, agencies, and activities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2009 

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To require the submission by the President of recommendations and proposed legislation to modernize, consolidate, 

reprioritize, and where necessary, terminate Federal programs, agencies, and activities. 

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 ‘‘Federal Efficiency and 

5 Performance Act of 2009’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 477 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRESIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE MOD2 ERNIZATION, CONSOLIDATION, REPRIORITI3 ZATION AND TERMINATION OF FEDERAL 

4 PROGRAMS, AGENCIES AND ACTIVITIES. 

5 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

6 of this Act, the President shall submit to the Congress 

7 recommendations, accompanied by proposed legislation, on 

8 which existing Federal programs and agencies should be 

9 modernized, consolidated, reprioritized, and where nec10 essary, terminated in order to— 

11 (1) reduce Federal expenditures; 

12 (2) increase efficiency and effectiveness of gov13 ernment operations; 

14 (3) eliminate overlap and duplication in Federal 

15 programs and offices; 

16 (4) terminate agencies, programs and activities 

17 that no longer serve an important governmental pur18 pose; and 

19 (5) identify reductions in amounts of discre20 tionary budget authority or direct spending that can 

21 be dedicated to Federal deficit reduction. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
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 Homeland Security

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

FEMA gives notice of an increase of the maximum amount for Small Project Grants to State and local governments and private nonprofit facilities for disasters declared on or after October 1, 2005. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

October 1, 2005 and applies to major disasters declared on or after October 1, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James A. Walke, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3834. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act) prescribes that FEMA must annually adjust the maximum grant amount made under section 422, Small Project Grants, Simplified Procedure, relating to the Public Assistance program, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor. 

FEMA gives notice of an increase of the maximum amount of any Small Project Grant made to the State, local government, or to the owner or operator of an eligible private nonprofit facility, under section 422 of the Stafford Act, to $57,500 for all disasters declared on or after October 1, 2005. 

FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers of 3.6 percent for the 12-month period ended in August 2005. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor released the information on September 15, 2005. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Public Assistance Grants.) 

R. David Paulison, 

Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 05-20294 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
COUNTY OF DURHAM, BY AND THROUGH DURHAM DSS, ex rel. Sharon L. Wilson and Tiffany A. King v. Robert BURNETTE

No. 404A18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed March 29, 2019

Office of the County Attorney, by Geri Ruzage, Senior Assistant County Attorney, for plaintiff-appellant.

Mary McCullers Reece, Smithfield, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Justice DAVIS did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 10, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50505

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICARDO VEGA-NIETO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-240-3

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

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ricardo Vega-Nieto was charged, along with three codefendants, with possessing with the intent to distribute 50

kilograms or more of marijuana and aiding and abetting. On the

morning of his trial, Vega-Nieto attempted to enter a guilty

plea. After substantially complying with FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, the

district court determined that Vega-Nieto’s plea was not entered

voluntarily and that Vega-Nieto did not admit the elements of his

offense. The district court thus refused to accept Vega-Nieto’s

guilty plea, and Vega-Nieto was convicted by a jury and sentenced
No. 06-50505

-2-

to 46 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release,

and a $100 special assessment. 

Vega-Nieto argues that the district court abused its

discretion in refusing to accept his plea. “A court may reject a

plea in the exercise of sound judicial discretion.” Santobello

v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971). A district court’s “broad

discretion” in deciding whether to reject a guilty plea “is

limited only by the procedural requirements of Rule 11.” United

States v. Wild, 92 F.3d 304, 308 (5th Cir. 1996). “A district

court ‘abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error

of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.’” 

United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 486-87 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 713 (2005). 

Vega-Nieto concedes that the district court substantially

complied with Rule 11. Vega-Nieto has not addressed the district

court’s reasons for rejecting his plea. He has therefore not

shown that the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous

or that the decision to reject his plea was an abuse of

discretion. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4668 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to increase 

the maximum amount that may be allotted to Puerto Rico under part 

A of title III. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2010 

Mr. PIERLUISI (for himself, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. SABLAN, Mr. SIRES, and Ms. 

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to increase the maximum amount that may 

be allotted to Puerto Rico under part A of title III. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT MAY BE 

4 ALLOTTED TO PUERTO RICO. 

5 Section 3111(c)(3)(D) of the Elementary and Sec6 ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6821(c)(3)(D)) 

7 is amended by striking ‘‘0.5’’ and inserting ‘‘2’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class            Interest             Principal    Losses           Balance
<S>               <C>                  <C>            <C>           <C>
A1               2265887.76                0                0           68147000
A10               141239.58          4523000                0                  0
A11                23546.05        -23546.05                0          686546.05
A12                       0        977070.98                0         4320929.01
A13              4703693.84       8215914.63                0       132684085.36
A14              4141990.47       7288781.64                0       117711218.38
A15                197826.4        291551.27                0         4708448.74
A16               384886.24         20315000                0                  0
A17                  630000                0                0           20000000
A18                   39000                0                0                  0
A19               3911287.5                0                0          115890000
A2               1127958.72                0                0           33421000
A20               629673.72                0                0           18657000
A3                 34073.52                0                0                  0
A4                827869.35       3370568.05                0        20929431.96
A5                683849.59       1862360.62                0        18137639.38
A6                 65415.35       3692000.02                0                  0
A7                 11968.35        -11968.35                0          348968.35
A8               2762384.17       3368502.37                0        76562497.62
A9                187213.59       9599999.99                0                  0
ALR                  143.06                0                0                100
APO                       0          5211.74                0          643989.07
AR                     3.36                0                0                100
B1                366485.44         51177.39                0        10828822.61
B2                317609.48         44352.17                0         9384647.83
B3                109945.63         15353.22                0         3248646.78
B4                 73330.78         10240.18                0         2166759.82
B5                 48842.28          6820.52                0         1443179.48
B6                 61104.27          6429.59          2103.22         1805493.93


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 12.2 

 

CERTIFICATION OF JOHN ASTON PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF 

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, John Aston, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Cambridge Antibody Technology Group plc; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof 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 financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the company, 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 company’s disclosure controls andprocedures 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 company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’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 asignificant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: December 16, 2004 

 

/s/     John Aston

Name: John Aston

Title: Chief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of General Nutrition Centers, Inc.;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrant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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 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 report
based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    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; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 October 27, 2006
    
    /s/ Joseph M. Fortunato

Joseph M. FortunatoChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 13.1  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
Annual Report on Form 20-F of Daimler AG (the Company) for the year
ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Dr. Dieter Zetsche, as
Chairman of the Board of Management of the Company, and Bodo Uebber, as Member
of the Board of Management, Finance & Controlling / Financial
Services, of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of his knowledge:  (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/ Dieter ZetscheName:
  Dr. Dieter ZetscheTitle:
  Chairman of the Board
  of Management / Head of Mercedes-Benz CarsDate:
  February 27, 2009/s/ Bodo UebberName:
  Bodo UebberTitle:
  Member of the Board of
  ManagementFinance &
  Controlling / Daimler Financial ServicesDate:
  February 27, 2009
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2354

STUART J. BYCZYNSKI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-96-1554-WMN) Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 1, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stuart J. Byczynski, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, George Levi Russell, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims of discrimination on the basis of national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Byczynski v. Apfel , No. CA-96-1554-WMN (D. Md. August 19, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### A. Lismore, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed February 13, 1928.

*H. B. 8. Hammond,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred II. Davis,*Attorney General, and *Roy S. Campbell,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., ■concur.
2001 OK JUD ETH 3.

#### JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2001-3.

Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel.

March 30, 2001.

{0 QUESTION 1: May a judge accept a gift from an attorney during the Christmas season?

T1 SPECIFIC FACTS: The judge and the attorney do not have a social relationship outside the Courthouse and the attorney makes a comparable gift to all of the judges in the Courthouse. The gift is inexpensive: e.g. a food, tie, book, or similar gift.

12 WE ANSWER: YES.

183 Canon 2: "A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all of the Judge's Activities"

T4 Canon 4D(5) "A judge should not accept, and should urge members of the judge's family residing in the judge's household, not to accept a gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone except for;. ...

> (c) ordinary social hospitality; ...

> (h) any other gift, bequest, favor or loan, but only if the donor is not a party or other person who has come or is likely to come or whose interests have come or likely to come before the judge; and the judge reports it as may be required by law."

15 A judge, like other members of society, must be permitted to be involved in ordinary social amenities. "Ordinary social hospitality" quoted above would suggest a gift that would not cause reasonable people in the community to believe the donor was obtaining or intending to obtain any special advantage, nor that the donee would have cause to give the donor any unfair advantages.

T6 It is impossible to set specific parameters regarding such gifts. A gift package of *269homemade cookies at Christmas surely would not be perceived as an impropriety. Larger gifts-season tickets to sporting events, free use of a vacation home, free vacation on a cruise ship-would be more than the perception of impropriety. If a gift is given where gifts are traditional, such as special occasions or holidays, or if the gift is given to all of the judges in the Courthouse, there would seem to be no impropriety.

T7 In summary, a judge may receive gifts from an attorney or from other individuals, but in each case, the judge must consider the appearance of impropriety and exercise caution and good judgment.

8 Robert L. Bailey, Chairman

Robert A. Layden, Vice-Chairman

Milton C. Craig, Secretary