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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5278 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5278

 To make daylight savings time permanent for the State of Florida, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2018

   Mr. Buchanan (for himself, Mr. Yoho, and Mr. Soto) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To make daylight savings time permanent for the State of Florida, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sunshine State Act''.

SEC. 2. MAKING DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME PERMANENT FOR THE STATE OF 
              FLORIDA.

    Section 3 of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Permanent Advancement of Time for the State of Florida.--
            ``(1) In general.--The standard time of the State of 
        Florida shall be Coordinated Universal Time (as defined in 
        section 1 of the Act of March 19, 1918 (commonly known as the 
        `Calder Act') (15 U.S.C. 261)) retarded by 4 hours.
            ``(2) Inapplicability of temporary advancement.--Subsection 
        (a) shall not apply to the State of Florida.''.
                                 <all>
```
## FILED United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit
March 27, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

_______________



### m 02-30915 Summary Calendar

_______________



### A NTOINETTE 

### M. A NDERSON 

### , Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS



### U NITED 

### S TATES 

### P OSTAL 

### S ERVICE

AND 

### J OHN 

### E. P OTTER 

### , P OSTMASTER 

### G ENERAL 

### , Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana


### m 00-CV-1118-S

_________________________

Before H IGGINBOTHAM , S MITH , and C LEMENT , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM : * Antoinette Anders o n sued her former employer, th e United States Postal Service, for retaliation under title VII and for failure to

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published (continued...) * (...continued)

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.2

provide reasonable accommodations under the Rehabilitation Act. In its comprehensive Order and Reasons, entered August 28, 2002, the district court granted summary judgment.

The court concluded that “[t]he result of Anderson’s fit ness-for-duty exam indicate [ s ic ] that her condition is permanent and she cannotmeet the requirements for a mailhandler position.” This sufficiently resolves the issue of accommodation.

Regarding retaliation, the court noted that “Anderson does not address the nondiscriminatory reason which the Postmaster offered to explain her termination. She does not dispute that she had no seniority t o select a j ob on a specific unit and that she was subj ect to assignmen t as needed, usually to the less desirable positions.” Accordingly, as the court reasoned, “the record conc lusively reveals that the Postmaster had a nondiscriminatory reason for terminati ng Anderson’s employment, and Anderson has not produced evidence that her termination would not have occurred ‘but for’ her filing EEOC complaints.”

The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district
court.
Exhibit 32(f)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







|(1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.





|/s/ Jay A. LewisJay A. Lewis
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	August 7, 2008
# C_2010278EN.01002201.xml

| 15.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/22

---

Call for expression of interests for the ESPON 2013 Operational Programme

2010/C 278/13

In the framework of the ESPON 2013 Programme, a call for expression of interest for the Knowledge Support System (KSS) will open on 23 November 2010.

Please visit: http://www.espon.eu regularly for further information.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

QUINTUS H. BELTON,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:11cv7/SPM/EMT

WALTER McNEIL, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal of the instant

civil rights case, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, without prejudice (Doc. 12).

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) provides that an action may be dismissed without an order of the court

by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the adverse party serves an answer or files a motion

for summary judgment. Because Defendants have not yet been served in the instant case, it is clear

that Plaintiff is automatically entitled to a voluntary dismissal at this time.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal (Doc. 12) be GRANTED and this case be

DISMISSED without prejudice.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 24th day of March 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon the magistrate judge and all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope

of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d

698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No.: 5:11cv7/SPM/EMT
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated February 8, 2002, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Transcrypt International, Inc. and
subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
Transcrypt International, Inc. and subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-48834, effective October 27, 2000; File No. 333-48836,
effective October 27, 2000; File No. 333-48840 effective October 27, 2000; File No. 333-48880, effective October 27, 2000; and File
No. 333-30673, effective July 2, 1997).

|                                     |  | /s/GRANT THORNTON LLP
|------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------
|Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 4, 2002 |  |                      

---

QuickLinks
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Reynaldo Morales v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut

Appellate case number: 01-14-00429-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-54065

Trial court: 165th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: December 29, 2014

Party filing motion: Appellant Reynaldo Morales

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes, Higley, and Brown

Date: January 27, 2015
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE, ACCOUNTING ANDFINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Grant Hartford Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), I, Eric Sauve, President/Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 
Dated: May 20, 2011

/s/Eric Sauve
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STEPHANIE PAIGE STEELE,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:11cv310/RV/CJK

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

__________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated May 14, 2012. The plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the

report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), and I have made a de

novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been made.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:11-cv-00310-RV-CJK Document 13 Filed 06/01/12 Page 1 of 2
2. The applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental

security income is DENIED and the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2012. 

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 3:11-cv-00310-RV-CJK Document 13 Filed 06/01/12 Page 2 of 2
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1] 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of the issuers listed below. For each issuer, questions have arisen regarding the adequacy and accuracy of press releases and other publicly-disseminated information concerning, among other things: (1) The companies' assets; (2) the companies' current business operations; (3) the companies' current financial condition; (4) the issuance of the companies' securities; and (5) transactions in the companies' securities by insiders, consultants, and other individuals and entities. 

                    1.                     *Score One, Inc.*                     is a Nevada corporation headquartered in Hong Kong. The company is dually quoted on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board and Pink Sheets under the ticker symbol “SREA.” The company has recently been the subject of spam e-mails touting the company's shares.                 

                    2.                     *Physical Property Holdings, Inc.*                     is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Hong Kong. The company is dually quoted on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board and Pink Sheets under the ticker symbol “PPYH.” The company has recently been the subject of spam e-mails touting the company's shares.                 

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of Score One, Inc. and Physical Property Holdings, Inc. 

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of Score One, Inc. and Physical Property Holdings, Inc. is suspended for the period commencing at 9:30 a.m. EST, December 19, 2007, and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EST, on January 3, 2008. 

By the Commission. 

Nancy M. Morris, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07-6174 Filed 12-19-07; 10:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
# C_2010009EN.01000101.xml

| 15.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5617 — General Motors/Delphi Corporation)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 9/01

On 2 October 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5617. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5617. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2009263EN.01002001.xml

| 5.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/20

---

Winding-up proceedings

Decision to open winding-up proceedings against Geniki Pisti Anonimi Elliniki Eteria Yenikon Asfaliseon

(Publication pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

(Publication pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

2009/C 263/09

| Insurance undertaking | Yeniki Pisti Anonimi Elliniki Eteria Yenikon Asfaliseon, head office in Piraeus, odos Papastratou 51-53 and Dervenakion, GREECE. |
| --- | --- |
| Date, entry into force and type of decision | Decision No 156 of the Board of Directors of the Private Insurance Supervisory Committee of 16 and 21 September 2009 relating to the definitive withdrawal of the company's operating licence and its winding-up.
  Entry into force: 21 September 2009. |
| Competent authorities | Private Insurance Supervisory Committee |
| Ipatias 5 |
| 105 57 Athens |
| GREECE |

Insurance undertaking

Yeniki Pisti Anonimi Elliniki Eteria Yenikon Asfaliseon, head office in Piraeus, odos Papastratou 51-53 and Dervenakion, GREECE.

Date, entry into force and type of decision

Decision No 156 of the Board of Directors of the Private Insurance Supervisory Committee of 16 and 21 September 2009 relating to the definitive withdrawal of the company's operating licence and its winding-up.

Entry into force: 21 September 2009.

Competent authorities

Private Insurance Supervisory Committee

Ipatias 5

105 57 Athens

GREECE

Supervisory authorities

| Private Insurance Supervisory Committee |
| --- |
| Ipatias 5 |
| 105 57 Athens |
| GREECE |

Private Insurance Supervisory Committee

Ipatias 5

105 57 Athens

GREECE

Appointed liquidator

| Vasiliki Sakka (winding-up supervisor) |
| --- |
| Lawyer in Athens |
| Satovriandou 57 |
| 105 57 Athens |
| GREECE |

Vasiliki Sakka (winding-up supervisor)

Lawyer in Athens

Satovriandou 57

105 57 Athens

GREECE

Applicable law

Greek law; Articles 3(3), 7 to 9, 10, 12(a) and 17(a) to 17(c) of Legislative Decree No 400/1970.

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5436 

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to provide that grand 

and petit jurors serving in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia 

shall receive fees and expenses at the same rates paid to grand and 

petit jurors appearing in the district courts of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2018 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to 

provide that grand and petit jurors serving in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia shall receive fees 

and expenses at the same rates paid to grand and petit 

jurors appearing in the district courts of the United 

States. 

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 ‘‘District of Columbia 

5 Juror Pay Parity Act’’. 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5436 IH

1 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHING FEES FOR JURORS SERVING IN SU2 PERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUM3 BIA AT SAME RATES PAID FOR JURORS SERV4 ING IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS. 

5 (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES.—Section 11– 

6 1912(a), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended 

7 to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(a) Grand and petit jurors serving in the Superior 

9 Court shall receive fees and expenses at rates equivalent 

10 to the rates provided under section 1871 of title 28, 

11 United States Code, for fees and allowances paid to grand 

12 and petit jurors appearing in the district courts of the 

13 United States.’’. 

14 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 15–718, 

15 District of Columbia Official Code, is repealed. 

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

17 this Act shall apply with respect to fees and expenses paid 

18 on or after the first day of the first fiscal year which be19 gins after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
# C_2010292EN.01000101.xml

| 28.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5919 — Apollo/Alcan)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 292/01

On 21 October 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5919. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5919. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Case 4:11-cv-00083-RH-WCS   Document 15   Filed 04/14/11   Page 1 of 14

Case 4:11-cv-00083-RH-WCS   Document 15   Filed 04/14/11   Page 2 of 14

Case 4:11-cv-00083-RH-WCS   Document 15   Filed 04/14/11   Page 3 of 14

Case 4:11-cv-00083-RH-WCS   Document 15   Filed 04/14/11   Page 4 of 14

Case 4:11-cv-00083-RH-WCS   Document 15   Filed 04/14/11   Page 5 of 14

Case 4:11-cv-00083-RH-WCS   Document 15   Filed 04/14/11   Page 6 of 14

Case 4:11-cv-00083-RH-WCS   Document 15   Filed 04/14/11   Page 7 of 14

Case 4:11-cv-00083-RH-WCS   Document 15   Filed 04/14/11   Page 8 of 14

Case 4:11-cv-00083-RH-WCS   Document 15   Filed 04/14/11   Page 9 of 14

Case 4:11-cv-00083-RH-WCS   Document 15   Filed 04/14/11   Page 10 of 14

Case 4:11-cv-00083-RH-WCS   Document 15   Filed 04/14/11   Page 11 of 14

Case 4:11-cv-00083-RH-WCS   Document 15   Filed 04/14/11   Page 12 of 14

Case 4:11-cv-00083-RH-WCS   Document 15   Filed 04/14/11   Page 13 of 14

Case 4:11-cv-00083-RH-WCS   Document 15   Filed 04/14/11   Page 14 of 14