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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5425 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

Mr. MCNERNEY (for himself, Mr. BERA of California, Mr. GARAMENDI, and 

Mr. THOMPSON of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the Bay Delta 

Conservation Plan. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS. 

4 No Federal funds made available for fiscal year 2015 

5 may be used for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**Certificationof the Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuantto**

**Rules13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) under the Exchange Act**

 

I,Paul Pluschkell, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of HyperFeed Technologies, Inc.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a)           designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)           evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)           disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)           all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)           any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date:November 9, 2004

 

 
|   | /s/  Paul Pluschkell                   |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Paul  Pluschkell                       |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5050 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5050

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
       To repeal the Act of May 31, 1918, 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 ``May 31, 1918 Act Repeal Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) 1918 act.--The term ``1918 Act'' means the Act of May 
        31, 1918 (40 Stat. 592, chapter 88).
            (2) Fort hall townsite.--The term ``Fort Hall Townsite'' 
        means the land that was taken out of trust by being set aside 
        or set apart under the 1918 Act on the Fort Hall Reservation, 
        consisting of approximately 120 acres in the East Half of the 
        Northeast Quarter in Section 35 and the West Half of the West 
        Half of the Northwest Quarter in Section 36, Township 4 South, 
        Range 34 East, Boise Meridian, Idaho, based upon a survey 
        completed on May 19, 1921, and depicted on the document 
        entitled ``Plat of the Townsite of Fort Hall'' on file with 
        Bingham County, Idaho and the Tribes.
            (3) Tribes.--The term ``Tribes'' means the Shoshone-Bannock 
        Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation.

SEC. 3. REPEAL.

    The 1918 Act is repealed.

SEC. 4. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.

    (a) In General.--The Tribes shall have the exclusive right of first 
refusal to purchase at fair market value any land--
            (1) within the Fort Hall Townsite; and
            (2) offered for sale.
    (b) Acquired Land Held in Trust.--The United States shall hold in 
trust for the benefit of the Tribes or a member of the Tribes, as 
applicable--
            (1) any land owned or acquired by the Tribes or a member of 
        the Tribes within the Fort Hall Townsite before the date of 
        enactment of this Act; and
            (2) any land owned or acquired by the Tribes or a member of 
        the Tribes within the Fort Hall Townsite on or after the date 
        of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. EFFECT.

    Nothing in this Act affects any valid right to any land set aside 
or set apart under the 1918 Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 2, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5050

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

       To repeal the Act of May 31, 1918, and for other purposes.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5602 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5602

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 21350 Avalon Boulevard in Carson, California, as the ``Juanita 
                   Millender-McDonald Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2014

   Ms. Hahn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 21350 Avalon Boulevard in Carson, California, as the ``Juanita 
                   Millender-McDonald Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 21350 Avalon Boulevard in Carson, California, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Juanita Millender-McDonald 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 section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Juanita 
Millender-McDonald Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00419-CV

James Ernest WALLACE Sr.,

Appellant

v.

Letitia Ann WALLACE,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-CI-10056

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. Costs of appeal are assessed against appellant James Ernest Wallace, Sr.

SIGNED February 28, 2024.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

EXHIBIT 1-R

EBO Reorganization Support Services

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 1

of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 2

of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 3

of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 4

of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 5

of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 6

of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 7

of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 8

of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 9

of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page

10 of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page

11 of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page

12 of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page

13 of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page

14 of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page

15 of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page

16 of 17
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-19 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page

17 of 17
#### FLONNIE GULLEY v. ALTON SMITH et al.

(Filed 5 October, 1932.)

1. Evidence D lb — Testimony in this case held not incompetent under O. S., 1795.

*Held,,*in an action to declare a deed void on the ground that it was never delivered to the grantee who died prior to the institution of the action, testimony offered by the grantor tending to show that the deed had not been delivered is properly admitted and is not incompetent under O. S., 1795.

2. Deeds and Conveyances *A*e — Deed is not effectual until actual or constructive delivery to grantee.

A deed, although signed by the grantor, is not effectual until actual or constructive delivery to the grantee, and the presumption of' delivery arising from registration may be rebutted by evidence that the registration was inadvertent or fraudulent.

Appeal by defendants from *Sinclair, J.,*at June Term, 1932, of LeNOIe.

No error.

This is an action to have a deed recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Lenoir County declared void, and canceled of record on the ground that said deed was not delivered by the plaintiff, the grantor named therein, to the grantee, under whom the defendants claim, and that said deed was recorded after the death of the grantee.

The jury found that the deed was not delivered by the grantor to the grantee, and upon this finding it was ordered, adjudged and decreed that the deed is void, and that same be canceled on the record by the clerk of the Superior Court of Lenoir County. From the judgment, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors at the trial.

*275*Sutton & Greene for plaintiff.*

*D. H. Willis and Shaw & Jones for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

There was no error in the rulings of the trial court on defendants’ objections to evidence offered by the plaintiff, or in the instructions of the court to the jury.

The evidence was properly admitted as tending to support the contention of plaintiff that the deed was not delivered by ber to the grantee named therein. The evidence was not incompetent under C. S., 1795.

Tbe instructions to which defendants excepted are in accordance with well settled principles of law. In tbe absence of a delivery, actual or constructive, a deed, although signed by tbe grantor named therein, is not valid as a conveyance of tbe land described therein. Tbe presumption of a delivery arising from tbe registration of tbe deed may be rebutted by evidence showing tbat tbe registration was inadvertent or fraudulent. Tbe judgment is affirmed. There is

No error.
#### JOSEPH L. AUTEN v. CITY OF ASHEVILLE.

(Filed 3 November, 1937.)

Attorney and Client §§ 9, 10—

Allegations that plaintiff! attorney was employed by certain taxpayers of a municipality, and succeeded in having a judgment obtained against the municipality in the action reversed on appeal, to the municipality’s great benefit, are insufficient to support an action against the municipality for the services rendered upon implied contract, nor would plaintiff be entitled to a lien for his services.

*381Appeal by defendant from *Sink, J.,*at April Term, 1937, of Buir-COMBB.

Civil action instituted in tbe General County Court of Buncombe County to recover for services rendered as counsel in litigation resulting in benefit to tbe defendant.

Tbe gravamen of tbe complaint is tbat in December, 1934, plaintiff was employed by a number of citizens and taxpayers to intervene in tbe case of *“W.*C. Moreland *v.*City of Asheville,” then pending in tbe Superior Court of Buncombe County, for tbe purpose of appealing from a judgment rendered therein adverse to tbe defendant, the city having abandoned its appeal, which intervention was allowed and resulted in great benefit to tbe defendant, tbe judgment having been reversed, 208 N. C., 35; wherefore, plaintiff demands $6,600, counsel fees as upon implied contract or *quantum meruit.*

A demurrer was interposed by tbe defendant on tbe ground tbat tbe complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Tbe demurrer was overruled in tbe General County Court and this ruling was affirmed on appeal to tbe Superior Court. Defendant appeals, assigning error.

*J. Will Pless, Sr., for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Philip 0. Gocke, Jr., for defendant, appellant.*

Stacy, C. J.

It is not alleged in tbe complaint tbat plaintiff was one of tbe interveners in tbe case of *“Moreland v. Wamboldt ”*reported in 208 N. C., 35. Tbe allegation is tbat be represented certain citizens and taxpayers who intervened therein for tbe purpose of appealing from tbe judgment rendered against tbe city of Asheville. True, be alleges tbe intervention resulted in great benefit to tbe defendant, but this was brought about by tbe action of bis clients, tbe interveners. It would seem tbat tbe plaintiff has sued tbe wrong party. His right of action, if any be have, is against those who employed him. *Grant v. Lookout Mountain Co.,*93 Tenn., 691, 28 S. W., 90, 27 L. R. A., 100; *Meeker v. Winthrop Iron Co.,*17 Fed., 48. An implication upon an implication, such as plaintiff here invokes, finds no support among tbe authorities to sustain bis action. He is not permitted to take this short cut. *Non constat*tbat tbe interveners may not be content to bear their loss or to defray tbe expenses which they incurred. Tbe plaintiff has no lien for bis services. *Stephens v. Hicks,*156 N. C., 239, 72 S. E., 313.

Tbe complaint is bad as against a demurrer.

Eeversed.
#### Jacob Schwartz and others v. John Wood.

Motion denied, wdth ten dollars costs.
EXHIBIT B

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4579-2 Filed: 11/05/19 Entered: 11/05/19 14:28:11 Page 1

of 2
COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE FOR

SERVICES RENDERED BY KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP

SEPTEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2019

TASK 

CODE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT

002 Omnibus & Miscellaneous Court Appearances 27.3 $10,240

004 General Case Administration 17.1 $5,340

005 Automatic Stay Proceedings 61 $39,020

006 Initial Debtor Interview, Meeting of Creditors, Creditor Inquiries 4.6 $3,295

007 Professional Retention and Compensation – Keller & Benvenutti 8.9 $3,815

008 Professional Retention and Compensation – Other Professionals 16.9 $9,140

014 Employee Matters 4.1 $2,880

015 Supplier Issues 5.6 $2,850

016 General Asset Analysis and Recovery .5 $400

017 Sale or Use of Property – Motions 2.6 $1,415

018 Executory Contract Issues 7 $2,900

021 Plan – Advice, Strategy and Negotiation 26.2 $14,735

022 Plan and Disclosure Statement – Preparation of Documents 21.7 $15,000

026 Wildfire Litigation 18.2 $9,640

027 Claims Review 2.3 $1,810

028 Claim Disputes and Resolution 5.2 $3,665

032 USDC Probation Compliance 3.6 $2,160

036 Miscellaneous Litigation Issues and Advice 40.1 $20,595

037 Appeals 18.1 $9,720

TOTAL 291 $158,620

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4579-2 Filed: 11/05/19 Entered: 11/05/19 14:28:11 Page 2

of 2
Unassociated Document


    CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT

    OF

    CERTIFICATE
OF INCORPORATION

    OF

    OPTIMUM
INTERACTIVE (USA) LTD.

    a
Delaware Corporation

     

    (pursuant
to Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law)

     

    OPTIMUM
INTERACTIVE (USA) LTD. (the “Corporation”), a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
“GCL”), through its duly authorized officers and by authority of its Board of
Directors does hereby certify:

     

    FIRST:
That in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the GCL, the Board of
Directors of the Corporation duly adopted resolutions setting forth proposed
amendments to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, declaring
said amendments to be advisable and directing that said amendments be submitted
to the stockholders of the Corporation for consideration thereof. The
resolutions setting forth the proposed amendments are as follows:

     

    RESOLVED,
that Article IV of the Corporation’s Certificate of Incorporation be amended in
its entirety as follows:

     

    “FOURTH:
The total number of shares that the Corporation shall have the authority to
issue is five hundred million (500,000,000) shares of common stock, having a par
value of $0.0001 per share, and twenty million (20,000,000) shares of blank
check preferred stock, having a par value of $0.0001 per share (the “Blank Check
Preferred”), of the Blank Check Preferred, eight million (8,000,000) shares will
be designated as Series A Preferred Stock, and one (1) share will be designated
as Series B Preferred Stock.

     

    SECOND:
That the Amendments were duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 of the GCL.

     

    THIRD:
That the foregoing Amendments shall become effective on July 21,
2009.

     

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be
signed by Robert M. Rubin, its duly authorized President this 21st day of July,
2009.

     

     

    
      
        	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                 

              	
                By:
      

              	/s/ Robert
      M. Rubin	 
	 	 	Robert
      M. Rubin	 
	 	 	President
EX-35.2
(logo)WELLS FARGO


Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc.
2 World Financial Center
Building B
New York, NY 10281


RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance


The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows for the calendar year
2007 or applicable portion thereof (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) a review of Wells Fargo's activities as Master Servicer and/or Securities
Administrator under the servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the
"Servicing Agreement(s)") has been made under my supervision; and

(b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review Wells Fargo has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects
throughout the Reporting Period.


February 25, 2008


/s/ Jacquelyn E Kimball
Jacquelyn E Kimball
Vice President


(page)


(logo)WELLS FARGO


Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


Schedule A

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series


1 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc. Asset-Backed
Certificates, Series 2007-3, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer and
Securities Administrator, as applicable

2 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for NHEL2006-HE3, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
Master Servicer and Securities Administrator, as applicable

3 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for NHEL2006-HE1, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
Master Servicer and Securities Administrator, as applicable

4 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for NHEL2006-FM1, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
Master Servicer and Securities Administrator, as applicable

5 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for NHEL2006-WF1, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
Master Servicer and Securities Administrator, as applicable

6 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for NHEL 2006-HE2, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
Master Servicer and Securities Administrator, as applicable

7 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for NHEL2006-FM2, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
Master Servicer and Securities Administrator, as applicable

8 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for NHEL2006-AF1, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
Master Servicer and Securities Administrator, as applicable

9 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc. Asset-Backed
Certificates, Series 2007-2, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer and
Securities Administrator, as applicable
EXHIBIT A 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3486-1 Filed: 08/09/19 Entered: 08/09/19 09:01:28 Page 1

of 2
Exhibit A

Compensation by Professional

For the Period March 20, 2019 to May 31, 2019

Professional Title Rate Hours Total

Bradley Sharp President & CEO $  685.00 122.40 $    77,165.25

R. Brian Calvert Sr. Managing Director 640.00      148.10        88,384.00

Thomas Jeremiassen Sr. Managing Director 575.00      115.20        59,915.00

Eric Held Managing Director     495.00 12.00          5,940.00

Nicholas Troszak Managing Director     485.00 121.20        52,307.25

Shelly Cuff Director 360.00      88.90        30,384.00

Spencer Ferrero Director 350.00      127.60        41,457.50

Andrew Wagner Director 350.00      4.90          1,715.00

Cathy Vance Associate 375.00      58.40        21,900.00

Rowen Dizon Associate 230.00      5.70          1,311.00

         380,479.00 804.40 $  

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3486-1 Filed: 08/09/19 Entered: 08/09/19 09:01:28 Page 2

of 2