alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IJKITED STrZTES DISTRICT COUK'I' 

SOGTHERN DISTRICT OF YEW' 1-ORK 

........ ".......... 

IN RE: 

This Uocumen~ Relcz(e.s To .-Ill .-lzlions 

MLZSTER FILE 

1 106-Mn- 1 789 (JFK) 

ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE 

C'onsidcrins thc C'ct-titic'atc' i1f Good Standing and ail other docunlc~~ts required by Case 

hla~~rlgcmcnt Ordcr No. 5 suht~~irrcd by counscl, IT JS HEREBY OKLIEKED that: 

Applicant's Namc: Dana Pctcrscn Moore 

Firm Name: Venablr. LLl' 

Address: 750 E. Pratl Street, Suite 900 

CilyIStateIZip: Baltimore, Maryland 2 1202 ._ ..._-.._. ! i . - 4-r-03 __ ,-__--. --r----,- 

TelephoneIFax: (4 10) 244-7799 (4 1 0) 244-7742 

li "- - . + -..-- --'- -- -- --' I- 

_ .& ._--- &--. 

Elnail Address: dpmoore3@ver1able.cam 

is admitted to practice pro hac vice as counsel for Merck LP. Cu.. lnc. in thc above captioncd cast 

Court for the Southern Districl of Ncw Yorli. 

Dated: b, 2008 

Ticw York. N~N: York \\ , - -7 

1- --. . . .- 

United Stales L)lstr~ct Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03462-JFK Document 36 Filed 09/02/2008 Page 1 of 2
Certificate of Good 

Standing 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 

I, Felicia C. Cannon, Clerk of the United States District Court for the District 

of hlaryland, 

DO HEREBY CERTIFY that DANA PETERSEN MOORE, ESQ., 

BAR NUMBER 03632, was duly admitted to practice in the United States 

District Court for the District of hlaryland on DECEMBER 9, 1983, and is currently 

in good standing as a member of the bar of this Court. 

Dated at Baltimore, Maryland 

Date: August 19,2008 

FELlClA C. CANNON 

Clerk 

Catherine Scaffidi - ~dput~aerk 

Case 1:07-cv-03462-JFK Document 36 Filed 09/02/2008 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit21.01**

**Listof Subsidiaries**

Whitney EducationGroup, Inc.

WealthIntelligence Academy, Inc.

Whitney U.K.Limited

Whitney Canada,Inc.

WhitneyInternational Limited

Whitney ConsultingServices, Inc.

Whitney LeadershipGroup, Inc.

WhitneyDevelopment Limited.

WhitneyInternational (Singapore) PTE Limited.

Whitney(Australia) PTY Limited.

Mortgage ReductionSystem Equity Corp

EduTrades, Inc.

Rich DadEducation, LLC

American HomeBuyers Alliance, Inc. (AHBA)

Coral Aviation,Inc (Owned by AHBA).

SCB Building, LLC.

Ouress Investment, LLC.

----
Case 1:06-cv-15074-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2099 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 223
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2099

 To redesignate the Sullys Hill National Game Preserve in the State of 
      North Dakota as the White Horse Hill National Game Preserve.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 11, 2019

Mr. Cramer (for himself and Mr. Hoeven) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

                           September 25, 2019

              Reported by Mr. Barrasso, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To redesignate the Sullys Hill National Game Preserve in the State of 
      North Dakota as the White Horse Hill National Game Preserve.

    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 ``White Horse Hill National Game 
Preserve Designation Act''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WHITE HORSE HILL NATIONAL GAME PRESERVE, NORTH 
              DAKOTA.

    (a) Redesignation.--The first section of the Act of March 3, 1931 
(46 Stat. 1509, chapter 439; 16 U.S.C. 674a), is amended by striking 
``Sullys Hill National Game Preserve'' and inserting ``White Horse Hill 
National Game Preserve''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2 of the Act of March 3, 1931 
(46 Stat. 1509, chapter 439; 16 U.S.C. 674b), is amended by striking 
``Sullys Hill National Game Preserve'' and inserting ``White Horse Hill 
National Game Preserve''.
    (c) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Sullys Hill National 
Game Preserve shall be considered to be a reference to the ``White 
Horse Hill National Game Preserve''.
                                                       Calendar No. 223

116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 2099

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To redesignate the Sullys Hill National Game Preserve in the State of 
      North Dakota as the White Horse Hill National Game Preserve.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 25, 2019

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### IN RE COX

No. 131 PC.

Case below: 32 N.C. App. 765.

Petition by executor for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 13 June 1977.
#### DAVIS v. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

No. 10 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 190.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 March 1979.
#### PLOW v. BUG MAN EXTERMINATORS

No. 308P82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 159.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 August 1982.
#### HALE v. POWER CO.

No. 105 PC.

Case below: 40 N.C. App. 202.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1979.
#### DiBerardino’s, Inc., Plaintiff, v Rome Consolidated School District, Defendant. DiBerardino’s, Inc., Plaintiff, v Vernon-Verona-Sherrill Central School District, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Oneida County,

June 10, 1986

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Hancock & Estabrook*for defendants. *Francis P. Valone*for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

John R. Tenney, J.

The defendants have moved for summary judgment on both these claims, or in the alternative, a joint trial.

*289Since both these claims present the same fact situation and the same legal problem, the motions should be considered together.

The substance of each argument for summary judgment is that the proper remedy to contest an award of a public contract is by a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The argument continues that there can be no action for damages for failure to award a public contract after a bid procedure has been followed.

Plaintiff contends that it was the low bidder in both cases, and that it should have been awarded the contract. Madison-Oneida BOCES supervised the bid offering and made the award to another bidder on behalf of the defendants in each of the above actions. Plaintiff claims that the bidding procedures were irregular, and it is entitled to damages.

The bidding process has been described as a quasi-judicial governmental function. Also, the awarding of a bid is a discretionary act of the responsible official. Generally, it has been held that there is no waiver of immunity by the State and, thus, no suit for damages is permitted. *(Mason Stationery Prods. v State of New York,*65 AD2d 859; *Latin Belly v State of New York,*83 AD2d 706; *Gross v State of New York,*33 AD2d 868.)

This same rule applies to the defendants in this case. The awarding of bids is a discretionary function of a public official.

Under General Municipal Law § 100-a, all public contracts are to be covered and construed under the definition of General Municipal Law article 5-A. General Municipal Law § 103 (1) states that public contracts shall be awarded to the “lowest responsible bidder” or the responsible officer may, in his discretion, reject all bids. Thus, this is a clear statement that the awarding of public contracts following a bid procedure is a matter of discretion.

Discretionary matters are reviewable only by an article 78' proceeding. A damage suit is not the proper or allowable method of seeking redress.

Plaintiffs actions have no legal basis and, therefore, the motions to dismiss are granted.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10173

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AURLIANO CARDENAS, 

also known as Aureliano Cardenas,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CR-112-9-A

- - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Aurliano Cardenas, also known as Aureliano Cardenas, appeals 

from his sentence following conviction for possession with intent

to distribute cocaine. Cardenas argues that the district court

erred in applying a two-level upward adjustment to his offense

level, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). A determination that a

defendant is an organizer under § 3B1.1 is a finding of fact,

which is reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Giraldo,

111 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1997). Factual findings are not 
No. 98-10173

-2-

clearly erroneous if plausible in light of the record as a whole. 

See id.

Examination of the evidence contained in the record

indicates that the district court did not clearly err in applying

the two-level organizer adjustment to Cardenas, pursuant to

§ 3B1.1(c). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2029 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 

Indian coal production tax credit, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2019 

Mr. DAINES introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 

extend the Indian coal production tax credit, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF INDIAN COAL PRO4 DUCTION TAX CREDIT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 45(e)(10) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

7 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘the appli8 cable dollar amount per ton of Indian coal’’ and all 

9 that follows and inserting the following: ‘‘$4.00 per 

10 ton of Indian coal— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2029 IS

1 ‘‘(i) produced by the taxpayer at an 

2 Indian coal production facility, and 

3 ‘‘(ii) sold (either directly by the tax4 payer or after sale or transfer to one or 

5 more related persons) to an unrelated per6 son during such taxable year.’’, and 

7 (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting 

8 the following: 

9 ‘‘(B) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the 

10 case of any calendar year after 2018, the dollar 

11 amount in subparagraph (A) shall be equal to 

12 the product of such dollar amount and the in13 flation adjustment factor determined under 

14 paragraph (2)(B) for the calendar year, except 

15 that such paragraph shall be applied by sub16 stituting ‘2017’ for ‘1992’.’’. 

17 (b) DEFINITION OF INDIAN COAL.—Subparagraph 

18 (A) of section 45(c)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

19 1986 is amended to read as follows: 

20 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘Indian coal’ 

21 means coal which is produced from coal re22 serves which are— 

23 ‘‘(i) owned or controlled by an Indian 

24 tribe, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 2029 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) owned or controlled by an en2 rolled member of an Indian tribe, or 

3 ‘‘(iii) held in trust by the United 

4 States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or 

5 its members.’’. 

6 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply to coal produced and sold after 

8 January 1, 2018. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

NETWORK TALLAHASSEE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv38-RH/WCS

EMBARQ CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING THE CLASS-CERTIFICATION DEADLINE

The parties have filed a joint motion to extend the deadline for a classcertification motion. This order grants the motion and sets a new deadline.

One of the grounds for the motion warrants attention. According to the

motion, a discovery request was met with blanket objections and a statement that

discovery would be provided “subject to and without waiving” the objections. 

This is an abusive practice that has become commonplace but should end. 

A party met with a response of this kind may insist that the objections be

explicitly waived or withdrawn in writing and, if they are not, may move to

compel. The motion will always be granted, and fees will always be assessed, at

Case 4:10-cv-00038-RH-WCS Document 73 Filed 09/20/10 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No: 4:10c38-RH/WCS

least absent a reasonable explanation that is difficult to imagine. 

The reason is this. A full response to a discovery request waives an

objection. When an ethical attorney fully responds to a discovery request, the

assertion that the response is made “subject to and without waiving the objection”

is simply meaningless language. That apparently is the situation in this case. But

an unscrupulous attorney could withhold properly discoverable information—a

smoking-gun document, for example—and assert later that he did nothing

dishonest because he had, after all, objected to the discovery request and simply

withheld the information based on the (unwaived) objection. In order to ensure

that this does not occur, the party seeking discovery may insist that unfounded

objections be withdrawn and, if they are not, may move to compel, thus obtaining

an order requiring the adverse party to provide the full discovery as requested. 

No motion to compel has been filed, perhaps because the parties now have

worked out the discovery issue. But this order provides fair warning: a party

cannot properly engage in this practice. The party may object to discovery or not,

but the party cannot have it both ways. 

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED:

The joint motion to extend the deadline for filing a class-certification

motion, ECF No. 72, is GRANTED. The deadline is extended to October 15,

Case 4:10-cv-00038-RH-WCS Document 73 Filed 09/20/10 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No: 4:10c38-RH/WCS

2010.

SO ORDERED on September 20, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00038-RH-WCS Document 73 Filed 09/20/10 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM I2CORP.COM
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         113,634
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,657
<PP&E>                                          90,790
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,934)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 287,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          595,617
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (338,072)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   287,545
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,170
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  224,655
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,297
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (228,782)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (228,782)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (228,782)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.010
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.010


</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 14 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 14 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 27-4 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 27-4 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 27-4 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 3 of 3
# C_2011010EN.01000302.xml

| 14.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/3

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 10/04

| Member State | Germany |
| --- | --- |
| Route | Hof/Plauen–Frankfurt am Main |
| Duration of the contract | 1.5.2011-31.3.2013 |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | Two months after the date of publication of this notice |
| Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained | Bavarian Ministry of Economic Affairs, Infrastructure, Transport and Technology (Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie) |
| Prinzregentenstraße 28 |
| 80538 München |
| DEUTSCHLAND |
| Tel. +49 892162-2392 / 892162-2350 |
| Fax +49 892162-2588 |

Member State

Germany

Route

Hof/Plauen–Frankfurt am Main

Duration of the contract

1.5.2011-31.3.2013

Deadline for submission of tenders

Two months after the date of publication of this notice

Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained

Bavarian Ministry of Economic Affairs, Infrastructure, Transport and Technology (Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie)

Prinzregentenstraße 28

80538 München

DEUTSCHLAND

Tel. +49 892162-2392 / 892162-2350

Fax +49 892162-2588

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2
                                KMART CORPORATION
                  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

         In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kmart
Corporation for the period ended July 31, 2002, I, Albert A. Koch, Chief
Financial Officer of Kmart Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:

         1. this Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2002 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 this Form 10-Q for the period ended
July 31, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Kmart Corporation.


         Date:   September 16, 2002


/s/ Albert A. Koch
-----------------------
Albert A. Koch
Chief Financial Officer
Case 1:07-cv-03540-LTS-JCF Document 62 Filed 09/28/09 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-03540-LTS-JCF Document 62 Filed 09/28/09 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-03540-LTS-JCF Document 62 Filed 09/28/09 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-03540-LTS-JCF Document 62 Filed 09/28/09 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-03540-LTS-JCF Document 62 Filed 09/28/09 Page 5 of 5
#### STATE v. BEAN

No. 182 PC.

Case below: 55 N.C. App. 247.

Petition by State for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 March 1982.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Mustafa Khamosh Group ) ASBCA No. 60120 ) Under Contract No. W912PB-15-P-3154 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Mustafa Wali ChiefExecutive Officer APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. Army ChiefTrial Attorney CPT Meghan E. Mahaney, JA

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 

### MAY 02 2016

f' 

## MARK N. STEMPLER Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60120, Appeal ofMustafa Khamosh Group, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

136141 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. FREDERICK D. ADAMS, KAREN L. ADAMS, Stephen J. Markman, SARAH JO ADAMS, DAVID J. ADAMS and Justices SUSAN A. ADAMS, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 136141 COA: 275376 Oakland CC: 2005-071418-CZ CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF ORION, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 21, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s0616 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 23, 2008

Clerk
Case 1:07-cv-03546-VM Document 2 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03546-VM Document 2 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 2 of 2