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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4846 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4846

 To adjust the boundary of the Arapaho National Forest, Colorado, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2014

  Mr. Polis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To adjust the boundary of the Arapaho National Forest, Colorado, 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 ``Arapaho National Forest Boundary 
Adjustment Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. ARAPAHO NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

    (a) In General.--The boundary of the Arapaho National Forest in the 
State of Colorado is adjusted to incorporate the approximately 92.95 
acres of land generally depicted as ``The Wedge'' on the map entitled 
``Arapaho National Forest Boundary Adjustment'' and dated November 6, 
2013, and described as lots three, four, eight, and nine of section 13, 
Township 4 North, Range 76 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado.
    (b) Bowen Gulch Protection Area.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
shall include all Federal land within the boundary described in 
subsection (a) in the Bowen Gulch Protection Area established under 
section 6 of the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 539j).
    (c) Land and Water Conservation Fund.--For purposes of section 7 of 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-9), 
the boundaries of the Arapaho National Forest, as modified under 
subsection (a), shall be considered to be the boundaries of the Arapaho 
National Forest as in existence on January 1, 1965.
    (d) Acquisition.--The Secretary is authorized to acquire non-
Federal lands within the boundary described in subsection (a).
    (e) Public Motorized Use.--The lands described within the boundary 
described in subsection (a) shall be closed to public motorized use.
    (f) Access to Non-Federal Lands.--Notwithstanding the provisions of 
section 6(f) of the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 539j(f)) 
regarding motorized travel, the owners of any non-Federal lands within 
the boundary described in subsection (a) who historically have accessed 
their lands through lands now or hereafter owned by the United States 
within the boundary described in subsection (a) shall have the 
continued right of motorized access to their lands across the exiting 
roadway.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

REX Stores Corporation
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned officers of REX Stores Corporation (the Company) hereby certify,
to their knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended July 31, 2009 which this certificate accompanies, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Stuart
 A. Rose      
|Stuart A.
 Rose          
|                         
|/s/ Douglas
 L. Bruggeman
|Douglas L.
 Bruggeman    
|                         
|Dated:
 September 9, 2009



---
#### SARAH A. ROGERS as Executrix, Etc., of PATRICK L. ROGERS, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*GEORGE W. ROGERS, Appellant, Impleaded with JOHN F. ROGERS and others.

*A trust is not void because the beneficiary is appointed a trustee.*

Appeal from a judgment, entered upon tbe trial of this action by the court without a jury, and also from certain orders made therein.

The action was brought to obtain a judicial construction of the will of Patrick L. Rogers, deceased.

The judgment sustained the trusts mentioned in the will, for the construction of which this action was brought, and the right of the beneficiary in the trust to execute the same as trustee thereof.

The court at General Term said : “ Patrick L. Rogers died in 1864, leaving a last will, whereby he devised and bequeathed to his executors named therein all the estate of the deceased, after the payment of debts, in trust to keep the estate invested, and to collect the rents, as follows: To pay to his wife during life or during widowhood, or during the minority of the testator’s youngest child, ‘whichever event should first happen, so much of the income and profit of my estate, as may be necessary for the comfortable support of herself and my mother, and the maintenance and education of my said children, and in case the whole of such income shall be insufficient for the support of my wife and mother, and the maintenance and education of my children, or such of them as may be minors, then and in that case I authorize my executors and executrix to apply to that purpose so much of the principal sum invested as may be necessary to make up the deficiency.’ The testator left real and personal estate. There were named in the will, as executors, the testator’s wife and four other persons. The wife alone has qualified. The argument made that the trusts contained in the will are void, because the same person is trustee and beneficiary, cannot be held good. It is a general rule that the same person cannot be trustee and *cestui que trust,*but no valid trust should tail *410because of the failure of a trustee to qualify. If all of the trustees named had qualified, then it would have been proper to direct that the trustees, other than the widow, should apply to her use what was her right under the will out of the trust estate. In *Bundy*v. *Bundy*(38 N. Y., 410), in a somewhat similar case, the court appointed a now trustee for that portion of the trust fund which was to be held for a beneficiary when the beneficiary was also trustee. The Court of Appeals approved of this saying that it was competent for the court to appoint a trustee. The trust must therefore be held good, unless it is in conflict with the statutes in relation to trusts.”

*O. K.*Corliss, for the appellant. *Samuel V. Speyer,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.

Present — BaRNaed, P. J., and DykmaN, J. j Gilbert, J., not sitting.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	U.S. Military Health Team will visit Guatemala in August
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4619" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/DOD2/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/7/Images/SOUTHCOM_logo_thumb.jpg?ver=SIvIeRRofyrg5ZHPpvvh6Q%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">U.S. Military Health Team will visit Guatemala in August</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div><b>By Public Affairs Office</b> <span class="date">/ Published Aug. 18, 2022</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text">SOTO CANO AIR BASE, Honduras, </span>
    <p>The 2022 Health Engagements Assistance Response Team (HEART 22) will visit hospitals in Guatemala City and Quetzaltenango in mid-August 2022.  HEART 22 is a team of U.S. Army and Air Force medical and support personnel assigned to the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM).  Approximately 25 members will travel to Guatemala. </p>

<p>The goal of HEART 22 is to address critical medical needs of communities, by providing high-impact medical services together with partner nation medical professionals.  The medical professionals on the team will work side-by-side with Guatemalan medical professionals for two weeks, providing orthopedic, ophthalmic, and dental services.  Surgical patients were pre-selected by Guatemala to ensure that the combined medical teams are able to treat patients as efficiently as possible.  The visit also includes the donation of medical equipment and volunteer services by non-federal U.S. entities.</p>

<p>HEART 22 already visited Honduras.  U.S. Army CH-47 Chinook helicopters assigned to Joint Task Force-Bravo at Soto Cano Air Base, Honduras will transport the team and medical materials. </p>

<p>This operation is an example of the U.S.’s enduring commitment to work with partner nations.  Through collaboration, the U.S., Guatemalan and Honduran teams will increase medical readiness, strengthen relationships, and support the well-being of communities together.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><big><span style="font-size:12px;">For more information, please contact: </span></big></p>

<p><big><span style="font-size:12px;">Capt. Patrick Gargan                                      </span></big></p>

<p><big><span style="font-size:12px;">JTF-Bravo Public Affairs Office                   </span></big></p>

<p><big><span style="font-size:12px;">(504) 2713-5123, ext. 4494640/4494150</span></big></p>
<br />
</div>

    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
#### T. JULIAN WARREN v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.

(Filed 2 July, 1930.)

State E b — Supreme Court will not pass upon a claim against the State when no question of law is involved therein.

A claimant against the State is not entitled to the recommendatory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court upon petition presented tout under the provisions of Const., Art. IV, sec. 9, when no question of law is presented by the facts alleged in the petition.

This is a proceeding to enforce a claim against the State of North Carolina for services rendered by claimant to the State Board of Elections, under a contract alleged to have been made with claimant by the assistant secretary of said board. Constitution of North Carolina, sec. 9, Art. IY, C. S., 1410.

The proceeding was duly heard upon the pleadings, consisting of the petition filed by the claimant and the answer filed by the Governor of the State. It appearing from said pleadings that claimant is not entitled to a decision by this Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction with respect to claims against the State, the proceeding was dismissed.

*T. Julian Warren for claimant.*

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorneys-General Nash and Siler for the State.*

CoNNOR, J.

For the purpose of disposing of this proceeding, begun in this Court (Const, of N. C., sec. 9, Art. IY), it may be conceded that the facts are as alleged in the petition, to wit: (1) That claimant performed services for the State Board of Elections, as alleged in the petition; (2) that said services were performed pursuant to a contract of employment made with claimant by the Assistant Secretary of said Board; (3) that said Assistant Secretary had authority to make said contract; and (4) that claimant has not been paid the compensation for said services agreed upon by said contract.

*212Upon these facts, however, no question of law is presented, the decision of which by this Court would aid the General Assembly in determining whether or not an appropriation should be made for the payment of the claim. For this reason in accordance with authoritative decisions of this Court with respect to its jurisdiction in proceedings for the enforcement of claims against the State, the proceeding was dismissed. *Lacy v. State,*195 N. C., 284, 141 S. E., 886, and cases cited and reviewed in the opinion of the Court. Where the facts upon which a claim against the State is founded, are in .controversy and no question of law is involved, this Court will not, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, conferred by the Constitution of the State, with respect to claims against the State, pass upon the validity of the claim, with a view to recommending payment or rejection of the claim by the General Assembly. In such case, the claimant is not entitled to the aid of this Court in presenting his claim to the General Assembly, nor should he be prejudiced by an adverse decision.

Dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7489

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus TREVOR LITTLE, a/k/a Tragedy, a/k/a Trag, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-198, CA-99-123-2) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: February 22, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Trevor Little, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, MonicaKaminski Schwartz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order denying the Rule 59 motion is marked as “filed” on October 13, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on October 14, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2 PER CURIAM: Trevor Little seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (1) denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999); and (2) denying his motion to alter or amend judgment filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to dismiss Little’s § 2255 motion and find no reversible error. We also find that Little has failed to present any claims that would require the district court to alter or amend its judgment under Rule 59(e). See Hutchinson v. Staton , 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Little , Nos. CR-95-198; CA-99- 123-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 30 & Oct. 14, 1999). * 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. DISMISSED
Exhibit 23
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements ofSunrise Senior Living, Inc. (formerly Sunrise Assisted Living, Inc.), as listed below, of our report datedFebruary 26, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of SunriseSenior Living, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended December 31, 2003.     **Registration**    **Statement**    **Number** **Form** **Description**333-05257 Form S-8 1995 Stock Option Plan, as amended, 1996Directors’ Stock Option Plan, Stock OptionAgreement entered into, effective January 4,1995, by and between Sunrise Assisted Living,Inc. and David W. Faeder333-38430 Form S-8 1996 Non-Incentive Stock Option Plan, as Amended333-26837 Form S-8 1997 Stock Option Plan333-57291 Form S-8 1996 Directors’ Stock Option Plan, as Amended333-57293 Form S-8 1998 Stock Option Plan333-78313 Form S-8 1999 Stock Option Plan333-78543 Form S-8 Karrington Health, Inc. 1996 Incentive Stock Plan333-38432 Form S-8 2000 Stock Option Plan333-61918 Form S-8 2001 Stock Option Plan333-88570 Form S-8 2002 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan333-61914 Form S-8 Employee Stock Purchase Plan333-85622 Form S-3 $125 million of 5 1/4% ConvertibleSubordinated Notes due February 1, 2009 and the common stock issuable upon conversion of the note333-109228 Form S-8 2003 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
McLean, VA
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4919 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4919

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 715 Shawan Falls Drive in Dublin, Ohio, as the ``Lance Corporal 
    Wesley G. Davids and Captain Nicholas J. Rozanski Memorial Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL WESLEY G. DAVIDS AND CAPTAIN NICHOLAS J. 
              ROZANSKI MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 715 Shawan Falls Drive in Dublin, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lance Corporal Wesley G. Davids and Captain 
Nicholas J. Rozanski Memorial Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lance 
Corporal Wesley G. Davids and Captain Nicholas J. Rozanski Memorial 
Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 28, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4919

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 715 Shawan Falls Drive in Dublin, Ohio, as the ``Lance Corporal 
    Wesley G. Davids and Captain Nicholas J. Rozanski Memorial Post 
                               Office''.
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00468-CV

David F. Henges, M.D., Appellant

v.

Texas Workers= Compensation Commission, Medical Review Division; and

Service Lloyds Insurance Company, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 97-12800, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING

The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal. The portion of the regulatory 

provision which this suit sought to challenge has been otherwise eliminated. Therefore, this appeal is moot. 

This Court lacks jurisdiction when an appeal is moot. State v. Ruiz Wholesale Co., 901 S.W.2d 772, 775 

(Tex. App.CAustin 1995, no writ).

The joint motion of the parties is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

 

Lee Yeakel, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed on Joint Motion

Filed: October 10, 2002
Do Not Publish
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 106 (Thursday, June 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 31477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12974]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Neighborworks America; Regular Board of Directors Sunshine Act 
Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 1 p.m., Tuesday, June 1, 2010.

PLACE: 1325 G Street, NW., Suite 800, Boardroom Washington, DC 20005.

STATUS: Open.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Erica Hall, Assistant Corporate 
Secretary (202) 220-2376; [email protected].

Agenda

I. Call To Order.
II. Approval of the Minutes.
III. Approval of the Minutes.
IV. Summary Report of the Audit Committee.
V. Summary Report of the Finance, Budget and Program Committee.
VI. Summary of the NHSA Special Board Committee Meeting.
VII. Summary of the NHSA Special Board of Directors Meeting.
VIII. Summary Report of the Corporate Administration Committee.
IX. Board Appointments.
X. Code of Conduct.
XI. Investment Policy.
XII. Strategic Planning Process Timeline.
XIII. Financial Report.
XIV. Corporate Scorecard.
XV. NHSA Update.
XVI. Chief Executive Officer's Quarterly Management Report.
XVII. Adjournment

Erica Hall,
Assistant Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12974 Filed 6-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7570-02-M
```
* P ursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 98-10434 Summary Calendar

____________________ ALLEN McDANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary, United States Department of the Interior, Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(3:96-CV-3423-G)

_________________________________________________________________ November 12, 1998 Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Allen McDaniel appeal s the summary judgment dismissing his
Title VII retaliation action contending that his non-selection for

a promotion was the result of his prior complaint of
discrimination. He asserts that he presented substantial evidence
to establish a material fact issue as to whether he was the most qualified candidate for the promotion and, therefore, whether the

reason given for his non-selection was a pretext for unlawful
retaliation. Pursuant to our review of the record and the briefs,- 2 -

we AFFIRM essentially for the reasons stated by the district court.
See McDaniel v. Babbitt , No. 3:96-CV-342 3-G (N.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 1998) (unpublished).

AFFIRMED