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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5095 

To mandate all Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner of the 

House of Representatives to complete annual ethics training conducted 

by the Committee on Ethics. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2014 

Mr. CICILLINE (for himself and Mr. RIGELL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To mandate all Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner of the House of Representatives to complete 

annual ethics training conducted by the Committee on 

Ethics. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MANDATORY ANNUAL ETHICS TRAINING FOR 

4 MEMBERS. 

5 Title V of the Honest Leadership and Open Govern6 ment Act of 2007 is amended by redesignating sections 

7 555 and 556 as sections 556 and 557 and by inserting 

8 after section 554 the following new section: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5095 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 555. MANDATORY ANNUAL ETHICS TRAINING FOR 

2 MEMBERS. 

3 ‘‘(a) TRAINING PROGRAM.—The Committee on Eth4 ics of the House of Representatives shall conduct ongoing 

5 ethics training and awareness programs for Members, Del6 egates, and the Resident Commissioner of the House of 

7 Representatives. 

8 ‘‘(b) REQUIREMENTS.—The ethics training program 

9 conducted by the Committee on Ethics shall be completed 

10 by— 

11 ‘‘(1) new Members, Delegates, and the Resident 

12 Commissioner not later than 60 days after com13 mencing service; and 

14 ‘‘(2) Members, Delegates, and the Resident 

15 Commissioner serving on or after noon, January 3, 

16 2015, during each session of a Congress, beginning 

17 with the 1st session of the 114th Congress. 

18 ‘‘(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take ef19 fect on noon, January 3, 2015.’’. 

20 SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENT. 

21 The table of contents for title V of the Honest Lead22 ership and Open Government Act of 2007 is amended by 

23 redesignating the items relating to sections 555 and 556 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5095 IH

1 as 556 and 557 and by inserting after the item relating 

2 to section 554 the following: 

‘‘Sec. 555. Mandatory annual ethics training for Members.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 30386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13115]


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

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION


Cancellation Notice of a Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

ACTION: Notice to cancel EAC public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission has cancelled the EAC 
Public Meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 27, 2010, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. 
EDT. The meeting was announced in a sunshine notice that was published 
in the Federal Register on Friday, May 21, 2010 in Volume 75, Number 
98.

Person to Contact for Information:  Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 
566-3100.

Thomas R. Wilkey,
Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-13115 Filed 5-27-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


MIDSOUTH BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES                               EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE  (Unaudited)
FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND 1999


				    Third Quarter    Third Quarter    Year-to-Date     Year-to-Date
				    September 30,    September 30,    September 30,    September 30,
BASIC                                   2000             1999             2000             1999
				    _____________    _____________    _____________    _____________
<S>                                 <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>
Earnings:
    Income applicable to common
      stock                            $655,626         $680,328       $1,921,989       $1,878,749
				    ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
Shares:
    Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding       2,489,829        2,448,731        2,484,202        2,435,075
				    ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========

Earnings per common share:
    Income applicable to common
      stock                               $0.26            $0.28            $0.77            $0.77
				    ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========


DILUTED

Earnings:
    Net income as adjusted             $688,281(FN1)    $712,976(FN2)  $2,028,108(FN1)  $1,977,683(FN2)
				    ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========

Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding         2,489,829        2,448,731        2,484,202        2,435,075

    Assuming exercise of options,
      reduced by the number of
      shares which could have
      been purchased with the
      proceeds from exercise
      of such options at the
      average issue price                25,281           49,500           29,196           54,183

    Assuming conversion of
      preferred stock at a
      conversion rate of 1 to
      2.998 shares                      386,088          459,668          402,620          464,504
				    ___________      ___________      ___________      ___________
    Weighted average number of
      common shares
      outstanding, as adjusted        2,901,198        2,957,899        2,916,018        2,953,762
				    ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========


Diluted earnings per common share         $0.24            $0.24            $0.70            $0.67
				    ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========

</TABLE>


(FN1)   Represents net income reduced by a $107,250 charge relating to the
	repurchase of preferred shares which are anti-dilutive.

(FN2)   Represent net income
#### Edwin A. Bradley, Plaintiff, v. Ward B. Chamberlain, Defendant.

Order affirmed. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**Certification
      of Principal Executive 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 Annual Report of Vision Acquisition III, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Antti William Uusiheimala, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





/s/
                Antti William UusiheimalaAntti
                William UusiheimalaPrincipal
                Executive OfficerJanuary
                10, 2008
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2066 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 11:27:20 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2066 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 11:27:20 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2066 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 11:27:20 Page 3 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13046 Filed: 10/05/22 Entered: 10/05/22 16:08:24 Page 1

of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

STATEMENT 

 On August 18, 2022 Abrams filed the “Motion of William B. Abrams Pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004 for Entry of an Order Authorizing Discovery and Hearings 

Regarding the Acts and Conduct of JAMS Neutrals Given New Evidence” [Dkt.12766] (the 

“Motion” or “Motion for JAMS Discovery”). Objections to this Motion were filed on September 3, 

2022 by the Fire Victim Trustee [Dkt. 13035], Steven J. Skikos Esq. [Dkt. 13036] and Former 

Trustee John K. Trotter [Dkt. 13039]. 

The Order setting the schedule for this Motion was issued on September 13, 2022 and states 

the following: 

“Hearing Held. Movant William Abrams appeared. David Molton appeared for Fire Victim 

Trust and Cathy Yanni as Trustee of FVT. Matthew French appeared for fire claimants 

Majesti Mai Bagorio, et al. The FVT shall file a response to the motion by 10/3/22. The 

matter will then stand submitted. (related document(s): 12766 Motion for Examination filed 

by William B. Abrams)” 

Although, Ms. Yanni did not follow a similar order by filing the “Letter to Honorable Judge Dennis 

Montali and Certificate of Service” [Dkt. 12623], I feel bound by this Order and will not provide 

further briefing at this point. However, I do feel it is important for the Court and parties to be aware 

that I very much want to respond to the false statements and unfounded character assaults contained 

within these objections. I hope that the Court will afford me the opportunity to reply before passing 

judgement and ruling on this Motion for JAMS Discovery. 

Executed on October 5, 2022, at Santa Rosa, CA. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 ______________________________ 

William B. Abrams 

Pro Se Claimant 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13046 Filed: 10/05/22 Entered: 10/05/22 16:08:24 Page 2

of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re |

| Case No.

| Chapter 

|

| APPLICATION FOR 

| ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY

Debtor(s). | PRO HAC VICE

. |

Pursuant to B.L.R. 1001-2(a) and Civil L.R. 11-3, _____________________________, an

active member in good standing of the bar of ____________________, hereby applies for admission

to practice in the Northern District of California on a pro hac vice basis representing

_____________________________ in the above-entitled action.

In support of this application, I certify on oath that:

1. I am an active member in good standing of a United States Court or of the highest court

of another State or the District of Columbia, as indicated above;

2. I agree to abide by the Standards of Professional Conduct set forth in Local Rule 11-4,

and agree to become familiar with the Local Rules and the Bankruptcy

Dispute Resolution Program of this Court; and,

3. An attorney who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who

maintains an office within the State of California has been designated as co-counsel in

the above-entitled action. The name, address and telephone number of that attorney is:

________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: _ ___________ ____________________________________

Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP

1251 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10020

(212) 597-2800

Michael St. James, CSB No. 95653

St. James Law, P.C.

22 Battery Street, Suite 810

San Francisco, California 94111

(415) 391-7566

PG&E CORPORATION,

-andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

19-30088

11

Frank T.M. Catalina

New York

Various Rescission or Damage Claimants

Michael St. James, St James Law, P.C.

22 Battery Street, Suite 810, San Francisco, CA 94111

(415) 391-7566

9/15/2022

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12964 Filed: 09/15/22 Entered: 09/15/22 14:49:04 Page 1

of 1
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

876 

KA 09-00188 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JACK Z. SWEET, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

KATHLEEN E. CASEY, BARKER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JACK Z. SWEET, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of

the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of

the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.),

entered October 31, 2008. The appeal was held by this Court by order

entered December 30, 2010, decision was reserved and the matter was

remitted to Supreme Court, Niagara County, for further proceedings (79

AD3d 1772). The proceedings were held and completed (Sara S.

Sperrazza, A.J.). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: We previously held this case, reserved decision and

remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing on defendant’s CPL

440.10 motion to determine whether the People established 

“ ‘sufficient excludable time’ ” based upon our conclusion that

defendant made a prima facie showing that the People failed to comply

with CPL 30.30 (1) (a) (People v Sweet, 79 AD3d 1772, 1772). The

evidence adduced at the hearing on remittal establishes that the

criminal action was commenced on April 9, 2002 by the filing of the

indictment in Niagara County Court, and that the People declared their

readiness for trial on June 17, 2002, well within the six-month limit

provided in CPL 30.30 (1) (a). We therefore reject defendant’s

contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based

upon defense counsel’s failure to seek dismissal of the indictment on

the ground that defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial (see

generally People v Manning, 52 AD3d 1295, 1295-1296, lv denied 14 NY3d

803). 

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions in his main

and pro se supplemental briefs and conclude that none requires 
-2- 876 

KA 09-00188 

modification or reversal of the order denying defendant’s motion. 

Entered: September 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Entered on Docket 

February 06, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 345 Filed: 02/06/19 Entered: 02/06/19 16:30:42 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Exhibit A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13747-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:18:12 Page 1

of 2
4,658 Resolved Securities Claims 4,190 Unresolved Securities Claims

8,848 Securities Claims Filed

Exhibit A

• As of May 12, 2023, 4,658 Securities Claims have been resolved, including 2,580 Securities Claims settled, 1,877 Securities Claims 

expunged, and 201 Securities Claims withdrawn.

• There are outstanding settlement offers covering 2,270 Securities Claims which have not yet been accepted or declined. As of Friday, 

May 12, 2023, only 136 settlement offers covering 147 Securities Claims had been declined.

Resolutions Since Inception:

Resolutions During Fifth Extension Period:

• During the Fifth Extension Period, the Reorganized Debtors made settlement offers covering 3,597 Securities Claims and settled 

1,552 Securities Claims. A further 41 claims have been withdrawn. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13747-1 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 20:18:12 Page 2

of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12996 Filed: 09/22/22 Entered: 09/22/22 15:01:35 Page 1

of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12996 Filed: 09/22/22 Entered: 09/22/22 15:01:35 Page 2

of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12996 Filed: 09/22/22 Entered: 09/22/22 15:01:35 Page 3

of 3
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PennantPark Investment Corporation for the annual period ended September 30, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Arthur H. Penn, as Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge 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 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

| /s/ Arthur H. Penn |
|--------------------|
| Name:              |   | Arthur H. Penn |
| Title:             |   | Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:              |   | November 15, 2018 |
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134351 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134351 

 COA: 264235 

Macomb CC: 2004-000440-FC 

BASHAR FARRAJ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 22, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0830 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
#### CLINTON J. BURROUGHS v. H. D. MORRISON and J. M. McMANUS, Partners, Trading as MOR-MAC MOTOR COURT, and RULANE GAS COMPANY, a Corporation.

(Filed 19 May, 1954.)

Appeal by defendant Rulane Gas Company from *Hubbard, Special Judge,*November Extra Civil Term, 1953, of MeckxeNburg.

This is a civil action instituted by the plaintiff to recover for personal injuries sustained from the inhalation of monoxide poisoning while a guest of the Mor-Mae Motor Court.

The allegations against the appellant, with respect to its negligence, are identical with those set out and discussed in the case of *Caldwell, Admr., v. Morrison, et al.,*decided herewith.

The appellant demurred''to the complaint on the same grounds set out in the above case. The demurrer was likewise overruled and it appeals, assigning error.

*Bell, Horn, Bradley & Gebhardt for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Covington & Lobdell for defendant, appellant.*

Per. Curiam.

The ruling of the court below is reversed for the reasons set out in the opinion in *Caldwell, Admr., v. Morrison, et al., ante,*324.

Reversed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL LEE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 16-2106 (KBJ)

)

MANPOWER US INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

Complaint [ECF No. 5]. Defendants filed their motion on October 28, 2016, and on 

October 31, 2016, the Court issued an Order [ECF No. 6] that advised Plaintiff of his 

obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local civil rules of this 

Court. (See Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Fox v. Strickland, 837 

F.2d 507, 509 (D.C. Cir. 1988).) Specifically, the Court notified Plaintiff that, if he 

failed to file an opposition or other response to Defendants’ motion by November 28, 

2016, the Court would treat their motion as conceded. 

To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion, or requested more 

time to file an opposition, or advised the Court of any change of address. Therefore, 

this Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion as conceded, and will dismiss this action. 

An Order is issued separately.

DATE: December 13, 2016 KETANJI BROWN JACKSON

United States District Judge
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2916 Filed: 07/10/19 Entered: 07/10/19 10:39:37 Page 1 of

6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2916 Filed: 07/10/19 Entered: 07/10/19 10:39:37 Page 2 of

6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2916 Filed: 07/10/19 Entered: 07/10/19 10:39:37 Page 3 of

6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2916 Filed: 07/10/19 Entered: 07/10/19 10:39:37 Page 4 of

6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2916 Filed: 07/10/19 Entered: 07/10/19 10:39:37 Page 5 of

6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2916 Filed: 07/10/19 Entered: 07/10/19 10:39:37 Page 6 of

6
#### Julia B. Shearwood, as Executrix, etc., of Jacob B. Shearwood, Deceased, Appellant, v. Eleanor Shearwood, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.—

Dykman, J.:

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon the dismissal of the complaint at the Trial Terra, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the minutes of the court. The action was brought to recover the sum of $2,000 upon an allegation that in the year 1891 the defendant promised to give the plaintiff’s testator, Jacob B. Shearwood, the sum of $3,000 out of the money received by her from her mother in consideration of services which he had performed for the defendant and for her mother prior to her death, and for services which he promised to perform, and did thereafter perform, and for other good and valuable considerations. The answer denied the promise and the other material allegations in the complaint. The case was tried at the Circuit before a jury, and at the close of the testimony on the part of the plaintiff the complaint was dismissed on the ground of failure to prove the promise upon which the action was based, and further because there was no consideration for such promise. The dismissal was right. The case is destitute of proof of any promise to pay any specific sum, and the law will not imply a promise to pay for the services on account of relationship of the parties. The judgment and order denying a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

Brown, P. J., and Pratt, J., concurred.