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

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on January 11, 2010 at 9:30 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002, to hear oral argument in an appeal by Diane M. Keefe (“Keefe”), a former employee of Pax World Management Corp. (“Pax Management”), a registered investment adviser, from the decision of an administrative law judge. The law judge found that Keefe, a portfolio manager of the Pax World High Yield Fund (“Fund”), an investment company registered with the Commission and advised by Pax Management, willfully violated Section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The law judge suspended Keefe for twelve months from association with an investment adviser, broker, or dealer. 

Among the issues likely to be argued are whether Keefe willfully violated Investment Company Act Section 34(b) and, if so, whether and to what extent sanctions should be imposed on her. 

Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible. 

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

Dated: January 5, 2010. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary.

 [FR Doc. 2010-117 Filed 1-5-10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
EXHIBIT 23




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
--------------------------------------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-20137 of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Preferred Capital Trust II
and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding II, L.P. on Form S-3 of our reports dated
March 29, 2005, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust II and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding II, L.P. for the
year ended December 31, 2004.

/s/  Deloitte & Touche LLP

New York, New York
March 29, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2407 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2407

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the record 
  of admission for permanent residence in the case of certain aliens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 12, 2000

 Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the record 
  of admission for permanent residence in the case of certain aliens.

    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 ``Date of Registry Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. RECORD OF ADMISSION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN THE CASE OF 
              CERTAIN ALIENS.

    (a) In General.--Section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1259) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``January 1, 1972'' and 
        inserting ``January 1, 1986''; and
            (2) by striking ``january 1, 1972'' in the heading and 
        inserting ``january 1, 1986''.
    (b) Effective Dates.--
            (1) General rule.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
        shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
            (2) Extension of date of registry.--
                    (A) Period beginning january 1, 2002.--Beginning on 
                January 1, 2002, section 249 of the Immigration and 
                Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1259) is amended by striking 
                ``January 1, 1986'' each place it appears and inserting 
                ``January 1, 1987''.
                    (B) Period beginning january 1, 2003.--Beginning on 
                January 1, 2003, section 249 of such Act is amended by 
                striking ``January 1, 1987'' each place it appears and 
                inserting ``January 1, 1988''.
                    (C) Period beginning january 1, 2004.--Beginning on 
                January 1, 2004, section 249 of such Act is amended by 
                striking ``January 1, 1988'' each place it appears and 
                inserting ``January 1, 1989''.
                    (D) Period beginning january 1, 2005.--Beginning on 
                January 1, 2005, section 249 of such Act is amended by 
                striking ``January 1, 1989'' each place it appears and 
                inserting ``January 1, 1990''.
                    (E) Period beginning january 1, 2006.--Beginning on 
                January 1, 2006, section 249 of such Act is amended by 
                striking ``January 1, 1990'' each place it appears and 
                inserting ``January 1, 1991''.
                                 <all>
```
## NO. 12

- 23

- 00088

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:

EXPRESS DELIVERY ENTE R PRISE LLC ,

RELATOR §

§

§ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Express Delivery Enterprise, LLC (Express) file d this original proceeding to challenge Respondent’s refusal to dismiss the claims against Express when the parties ente red a contractual agreement to litigate any dispute under the contract in an Id aho court

. 1 O n July 21, 2 023 , this Court conditionally g ranted the petition and directed Re spondent to vacate his order denying Express’s motion to dismiss and, in its stead, t o si gn an order granting Express’s motion to dismiss . By an order signed on August 1 , Respondent c omplied with this Court’s opinion and order, ren dering th is proceeding moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot

. Opinion deli ver ed August 9 , 2023. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

1 Respondent is the Honorable Vincent Dulweber, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 2 in Gregg County , Texas. Roger s & Doty Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Redline Transport is the Real Party in Interest.

## COURT OF APPE A LS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 9 , 2023

NO. 12

- 23

- 00088

- CV

EXPRESS DELIVERY ENTERPRISE LL C , Relator V.

HON. JUDGE VINCENT DULWEBER , Respondent

O RIGINAL P ROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of man d amus filed by Express Delivery Enterprise LLC ; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12

- 23

- 00088

- CV
and the defen dan t in trial court cause numbe r 2022

- 1438

- CCL2 , pending on the docket of the County Court at Law No

. 2 of Gregg County , Texas. Said p etition for writ of mandamus having
been filed h erein on March 30, 2023 , and the same having been duly considered, becaus e i t is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue , it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petit i on for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby
dismi ssed as moot

. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C. J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 10, 2015 106281 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SUSAN J. FILION,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 21, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________

Rebecca L. Fox, Plattsburgh, for appellant.

Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Ashley M.

Monette of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton

County (McGill, J.), rendered August 15, 2013, convicting

defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal

possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and

attempted unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third

degree.

In full satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant

pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a

controlled substance in the second degree. The charge in

question stemmed from defendant's unlawful possession of

methamphetamine on or about September 10, 2012. Defendant also

waived indictment and, in satisfaction of a superior court

information, pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted
-2- 106281 

unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree

stemming from an incident that occurred on or about March 14,

2013. Consistent with the terms of the underlying plea

agreement, which included a waiver of the right to appeal, County

Court sentenced defendant as a second felony offender to an

aggregate prison term of nine years followed by five years of

postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, contending only

that the waiver of the right to appeal was invalid and that the

sentence imposed was harsh and excessive.

We affirm. Initially, the People concede – and our review

of the record confirms – "that defendant did not knowingly,

intelligently and voluntarily waive her right to appeal her

conviction and sentence" (People v Cloutier, 120 AD3d 1462, 1463

[2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1042 [2014]; see People v Larose, 120

AD3d 1442, 1442 n [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1045 [2014]). As a

result, defendant is not precluded from challenging the perceived

severity of her sentence (see People v Cloutier, 120 AD3d at

1463). That said, upon reviewing the record as a whole and

taking into account defendant's lengthy criminal history, we

cannot say that County Court abused its discretion in imposing

sentence, nor do we find any extraordinary circumstances that

would warrant a reduction of defendant's sentence in the interest

of justice (see People v Cloutier, 120 AD3d at 1463; People v

Howard, 111 AD3d 1021, 1021-1022 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1199

[2014]; People v Ladieu, 105 AD3d 1265, 1266 [2013], lv denied 21

NY3d 1017 [2013]). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is

affirmed.

Lahtinen, J.P., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
Just i ces

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 20, 2010

y1213 

# Order

December 20, 2010

141057

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141057 COA: 296470 Livingston CC: 87-004894-FC JOHN MARK HALCOMB, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 22, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 24, 2010

d0317 

# Order

March 24, 2010

139910

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139910 COA: 289151 Wayne CC: 08-002525-FC HARVEY MALONE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 15, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2332

To amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to permit a producer

to lock in a loan deficiency payment rate for a portion of a crop.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 30, 2000

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

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to permit

a producer to lock in a loan deficiency payment rate

for a portion of a crop.

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

3 SECTION 1. FLEXIBLE LOAN PAYMENT RATE FOR LOAN DE4 FICIENCY PAYMENTS.

5 Section 135 of the Agricultural Market Transition

6 Act (7 U.S.C. 7235) is amended by striking subsection

7 (b) and inserting the following:

8 ‘‘(b) COMPUTATION.—
2

•S 2332 IS

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para2 graph (2), a loan deficiency payment under this sec3 tion shall be computed by multiplying—

4 ‘‘(A) the loan payment rate determined

5 under subsection (c) for the loan commodity; by

6 ‘‘(B) the quantity of the loan commodity

7 that the producers on a farm are eligible to

8 place under loan but for which the producers

9 forgo obtaining the loan in return for payments

10 under this section.

11 ‘‘(2) ALTERNATIVE COMPUTATION.—

12 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—During the period be13 ginning on the date on which the Secretary de14 termines that a fall- or spring-planted loan

15 commodity is beginning to be harvested in the

16 United States and ending on the date on which

17 the producers on a farm begin harvesting the

18 loan commodity, the producers on the farm may

19 make an irrevocable election to have a loan defi20 ciency payment for the loan commodity under

21 this section computed in accordance with this

22 paragraph on an amount not to exceed 85 per23 cent of the quantity of the loan commodity for

24 a crop year that the producers on the farm will
3

•S 2332 IS

1 be eligible to place under loan for that crop

2 year.

3 ‘‘(B) AMOUNT.—A loan deficiency payment

4 under this paragraph shall be computed by

5 multiplying—

6 ‘‘(i) the loan payment rate determined

7 under subsection (c) for the loan com8 modity, as of the date of the election by

9 the producers on a farm under subpara10 graph (A); by

11 ‘‘(ii) the quantity of the loan com12 modity that the producers on the farm

13 elect to have computed under subpara14 graph (A).

15 ‘‘(C) NOTICE.—Not later than 10 days

16 after making the determination described in

17 subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall publicize

18 the determination through means determined

19 appropriate by the Secretary.

20 ‘‘(D) TIMING OF PAYMENT.—The pro21 ducers on a farm shall receive a loan payment

22 under this paragraph after—

23 ‘‘(i) the total quantity of loan com24 modity on the farm is harvested; and
4

•S 2332 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) sufficient documentation regard2 ing the total quantity of loan commodity

3 harvested has been provided to the Sec4 retary.’’.

Æ
Order entered August 20, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00849-CR

No. 05-15-00850-CR

SHAQUANDALOND SHAVONN HAWKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-11897-T, F12-62917-T

ORDER

The Court GRANTS court reporter Mary Snider’s motion for extension of time to file the 

reporter’s record.

We ORDER Ms. Snider to file the reporter’s record within THIRTY (30) DAYS from 

the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles Ray, Appellant, Respondent, v. George W. Benham, as Agent and Warden of State Prison at Auburn, Respondent, Appellant.

Order affirmed.

All concurred, except Kruse, J., who voted for a modification of the order by requiring the warden to return the relator forthwith to-the custody of the sheriff of the county of Oneida and that judgment be pronounced by the County Court of Oneida county against said relator according to law, as provided by said order.
CASE 2 —

7.

#### Heffren vs. Commonwealth.

APPEAL PROM THE CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

See the opinion for a case in which the facts stated in an indictment for accepting a challenge to fight in single combat with deadly weapons, were held sufficient.

Jambs R. Hallam, for appellant,

cited *Grim. Code, secs.*121, 349, 273; 13 *E. Mon.,*4156; *Goddard vs. Maddock, Mss. Opin. Dec.*1854; *Tomlin vs. Commonwealth, Mss Opin., Dec.*1855; 16 *B. Mon.,*34; 17 *B. Mon.,*409; *Constitution of*Kentucky, *art.*8, *sec.*20; 3 *Dana,*419; 6 *J. J. Marshall,*119; 1 *Dana,*524; 1 *Greenleaf Ev.,secs.*82, 88; 3 *Dana,*396.

A. J. James, Attorney General, for Commonwealth.

JUDGB BU1LITT,

delivered the opinioh oé the court:

Heffren was indicted for accepting a challenge to fight G. C. Moody in single combat with deadly weapons. There was a verdict against him for a fine of $250; a motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial were overruled, and a judgment was rendered upon the verdict, from which he appealed.

The indictment contains a copy of a note from Moody to Heffren, which is averred to be a challenge to fight a duel in single combat with deadly weapons, and which refers to G. P. Buell as Moody’s friend, who will receive and answer all communications from Heffren; and avers that Heffren accept*6ed said “challenge in the words following, to-wit:” and then sets forth what purports to be a copy of a note from Heffren to Moody, and of a note from J. C. Walker to G. P. Buell.

It is contended upon the authority of *the Commonwealth vs.*Rowan, 3 *Dana,*395, that the indictment is defective because it fails to aver that Moody intended his note as a challenge, or that Heffren accepted it as such. If the indictment had only set forth the note from Moody to Heffren, and that from Heff-ren to Moody, the objection would have been valid, as an acceptance of a challenge is not the necessary import of those notes. But the note from Walker to Buell designates the time at which the parties should meet, the weapons to be used, the mode of determining the choice of ground and the right to give the words of command, the distance at which the parties should stand from each other, and the manner in which they should take positions, fire and cease firing. That note shows clearly that Heffren accepted Moody’s note as a challenge to fight in single combat with deadly weapons. Hence, no averment that he intended to accept it as such was necessary. The fact that said note vims signed by Walker and addressed to Buell is immaterial, as it is set forth as part of the words by which Heffren is averred to have accepted the challenge.

The other points relied upon for a reversal were pronounced insufficient in our opinion in the case of *Moody vs. Commonwealth,*decided at this term.

The judgment is, affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of
Brinks Home Security Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 (the Report), I, Robert B. Allen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATED this 5th day of November 2009.



/s/ Robert B. AllenRobert B. AllenPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Brinks Home Security Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Brinks Home Security Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.