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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5292 

To provide public safety officer disability benefits to officers disabled before 

the enactment of the Federal public safety officer disability benefits law. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2014 

Mr. REED (for himself and Ms. SLAUGHTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide public safety officer disability benefits to officers 

disabled before the enactment of the Federal public safety officer disability benefits law. 

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 ‘‘Disabled Public Safety 

5 Officers Fairness Act of 2014’’. 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5292 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISABILITY BENEFITS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY OFFI2 CERS DISABLED BEFORE ENACTMENT OF 

3 PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER DISABILITY LAW. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1201(b) of the Omnibus 

5 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

6 3796(b)) is amended— 

7 (1) by inserting after ‘‘determines that a public 

8 safety officer has’’ the following: ‘‘, whether before, 

9 on, or after the date of the enactment of this part,’’; 

10 and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following new sen12 tence: ‘‘In the case of a public safety officer seeking 

13 a benefit under the previous sentence on the basis 

14 of having been permanently and totally disabled as 

15 the direct result of a catastrophic injury sustained in 

16 the line of duty before the date of the enactment of 

17 this part, such officer may file a claim under this 

18 subsection during the same period that would be ap19 plicable to such an officer so disabled after the date 

20 of the enactment of this part, except that in lieu of 

21 such a period beginning on the date of the injury 

22 such period shall begin on the date of the enactment 

23 of the Disabled Public Safety Officers Fairness Act 

24 of 2014.’’. 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5292 IH

1 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub2 section (a) apply to any public safety officer alive on or 

3 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 544 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to change the 

permissible age variation in health insurance premium rates. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2013 

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia (for himself, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. 

BOUSTANY, Mr. WALDEN, Mr. JONES, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. 

ROE of Tennessee, Mr. HALL, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, 

Mr. TERRY, and Mr. ROKITA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act 

to change the permissible age variation in health insurance premium rates. 

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 ‘‘Letting Insurance 

5 Benefit Everyone Regardless of Their Youth (LIBERTY) 

6 Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 544 IH

1 SEC. 2. CHANGE IN PERMISSIBLE AGE VARIATION IN 

2 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM RATES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2701(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the 

4 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg(a)(1)(A)(iii)), 

5 as inserted by section 1201(4) of Public Law 111–148, 

6 is amended by striking ‘‘3 to 1 for adults (consistent with 

7 section 2707(c))’’ and inserting ‘‘5 to 1 for adults (con8 sistent with section 2707(c)) or such other ratio for adults 

9 (consistent with section 2707(c)) as the State involved 

10 may provide’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) shall apply as if it was included in the en13 actment of Public Law 111–148. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
----

|                      |              |
|---------------------------|-------------------|
|                      | Pubco:            |
|                      |              |
|                      | UTEC, Inc.        |
|                      |              |   |
| Dated: September 23, 2010 | By:               |      /s/ Ken Liebscher |
|                      |              | Ken Liebscher |
|                      |              | President and Chief Executive Officer  |
|                      |              |   |
|                      | Company:          |
|                      |              |
|                      | Jet Rink Oil, LLC |
|                      |              |   |
|                      | By:               |      /s/ Bill Herndon |
|                      |              | Bill Herndon |
|                      |              | Sole Member and Manager |
|                      |              |   |
|                      | Selling Member:   |
|                      |              |   |
|                      | By:               |      /s/ Bill Herndon |
|                      |              | Bill Herndon |
Project Category Exhibit

Total

Billed Hours

 Total Fees 

Requested 

Asset Management Services C1 2,869.7 995,889.00 $ 

Data Security Services C2 28,164.00 $ (1)

Legal Support Services C3 50,008.83 $ (2)

IT Software Services (Phase 1) C4 0.0 - $ 

Enterprise Project Management Tools Implementation Services C5 0.0 - $ 

Risk Assessment Services C6 0.0 - $ 

Retention Services C7 4.0 785.00 $ 

Fee Application Preparation Services C8 256.8 39,207.25 $ 

Total 3,130.5 1,114,054.08 $ 

(1) KPMG and the Debtors agreed to fixed-fee compensation for the Data Security Services. Payment of the fixed fee is dependent on an iterative process by 

which stages of the project go through a formal review, including a detailed walkthrough, modifications (if required) and formal acceptance. As of June 30, 

2019, KPMG is requesting the fixed-fee amount above for these services, as approved by the client. 

(2) These fees represent the recurring monthly charges as detailed in Appendix C of the Legal Support Services Agreement and further detailed on Exhibit 

C3.

EXHIBIT B

PG&E Corporation and PG&E Company, et.al.

Case No. 19-30088

Summary of Hours and Discounted Fees Incurred by Category

June 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019

KPMG LLP Monthly Fee Statement Page 3 of 217

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4101-2 Filed: 10/04/19 Entered: 10/04/19 09:29:22 Page 1

of 1
Exhibit 4.1


 


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


July 6, 2016


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 250


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect
our evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on July 5, 2016, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in
the Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the
party performing the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-211078) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an
exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                             


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5419 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 17 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 16), 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations. 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5419 RFS

1 SECTION 1. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL RELATING TO AD2 VERSE DETERMINATIONS OF TAX-EXEMPT 

3 STATUS OF CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7123 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(c) ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL RELATING TO AD8 VERSE DETERMINATION OF TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF

9 CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS.— 

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall pre11 scribe procedures under which an organization de12 scribed in section 501(c) may request an administra13 tive appeal (including a conference relating to such 

14 appeal if requested by the organization) to the Inter15 nal Revenue Service Office of Appeals of an adverse 

16 determination described in paragraph (2). 

17 ‘‘(2) ADVERSE DETERMINATIONS.—For pur18 poses of paragraph (1), an adverse determination is 

19 described in this paragraph if such determination is 

20 adverse to an organization with respect to— 

21 ‘‘(A) the initial qualification or continuing 

22 qualification of the organization as exempt from 

23 tax under section 501(a) or as an organization 

24 described in section 170(c)(2), 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 5419 RFS

1 ‘‘(B) the initial classification or continuing 

2 classification of the organization as a private 

3 foundation under 509(a), or 

4 ‘‘(C) the initial classification or continuing 

5 classification of the organization as a private 

6 operating foundation under section 

7 4942(j)(3).’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) shall apply to determinations made after 

10 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 16, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 Task Total Total

Code Hours Fees

3 Financial Analysis (Requested by Counsel, or Otherwise) 530.7 $ 360,796.50

4 13-Week Cash Flow / MOR / Liquidity Analysis 164.1 107,669.50

5 Due Diligence of Debtor's Assets and Liabilities 314.8 220,606.00

6 Due Diligence of Wildfire Safety Plan and Related Analysis 321.5 250,882.50

7 Debtor Professionals - Diligence / Meetings / Calls 100.5 89,547.50

8 UCC Professionals - Diligence / Meetings / Calls 10.5 9,707.50

9 Other Professionals / Interested Parties - Diligence / Meetings / Calls 112.2 128,179.00

10 Tort Claimants (Counsel/FA) - Diligence / Meetings / Calls 197.0 212,625.00

11 Assist Counsel in Responses / Objections to Bankruptcy Court Motions 99.5 80,272.50

12 Committee Related Matters - Diligence / Meetings / Calls 444.8 459,046.00

13 Bankruptcy Filings, Motions and Other Document Review 471.9 319,065.75

14 Review of Executory Contracts and Related Analysis 156.7 102,776.50

15 Review of Employee-Related Matters, Including Retention Plans 182.5 126,627.50

16 Review of Claims and Related Analysis 178.3 138,548.50

17 Asset Sale(s), Strategic Alternatives, and Related Analysis 112.3 85,088.50

18 Analysis of New Debt or Equity Capital 159.6 118,262.00

19 Analysis of Pro-Forma Capital Structure, and Related Analysis 161.6 103,972.00

20 Benchmarking and Related Analysis 311.8 183,851.00

21 Term Sheets, Plan, and Disclosure Statement Analysis 1,087.4 886,123.00

22 Review of Discovery Documents and Deposition Preparation (Witnesses) 39.5 39,932.50

23 Deposition(s), Testimony, Court Hearing(s), and Related Preparation / Attendance 131.2 123,284.00

24 Business Plan 119.1 100,874.50

25 Regulatory and Legislative Matters, and Related Financial Analysis 347.8 239,651.00

26 Travel Time - Non Working Travel 107.5 119,562.50

27 Project Administration 183.3 143,492.00

31 Fee Application Preparation 309.8 177,151.00

Subtotal 6,355.9 4,927,594.25

Less: 50% Discount for Non-Working Travel Time (59,781.25)

Grand Total 6,355.9 $ 4,867,813.00

Task Description

EXHIBIT C

COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE 

FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1, 2019 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4724-3 Filed: 11/14/19 Entered: 11/14/19 14:13:06 Page 1

of 1
#### Norris Winslow, as Trustee, etc., v. The Carthage, Watertown and Sacketts Harbor Railroad Company, Appellant; In the Matter of the Application of Addison L. Upham, County Treasurer, etc., Respondent.

Order reversed, without costs to either party.—

Martin, J.:

Upon a former appeal from this order by the plaintiff Norris Winslow, as trustee, this court modified it by striking out the second paragraph, beginning with the words, “It is further ordered,” and ending with the words, “ shall be discharged from all further liability in relation to the said fund,” thus leaving the order as modified so that it directed the present appellant, the railroad company, to pay to the respondent $500 for his fees, and two dollars and sixty-seven cents for his disbursements, with that portion of the order which required the respondent upon this appeal to deliver to the appellant herein its bonds to the amount of $150,000, which was in his hands, upon payment of such fees, stricken out, at least so far as the plaintiff, the then appellant, was concerned. The whole order was not reversed upon the former appeal for the sole reason that the Carthage, Watertown and Sacketts Harbor Railroad Company had not appealed, and it was, therefore, assumed that it was satisfied with it-. Upon this appeal the question is presented whether the whole order should not be reversed. Although it is difficult to discover any principle upon which the Special Term could properly require the appellant to pay the respondent $50J for his fees, yet, without discussing that question, and independent of it, we are of the opinion that the whole order should be reversed so as to avoid any complications that may arise by reason of the reversal of a portion of the order and leaving the rest undisturbed; as, under such circumstances, it may perhaps be claimed with some show of reason that the respondent is entitled to recover his fees and disbursements without complying with that portion of the order whicn required him upon the payment of his fees to deliver the bonds in his hands to the railroad company. It is manifest from the opinion of this court delivered upon the former appeal that if the present appellant had then appealed from the whole order it would have been reversed. As it is now appealed from, in view of our former decision, we think it should be reversed, thus leaving the whole matter open to future action by the court below, thereby avoiding the complications suggested. But, as the appellant did not join in the former appeal, we think no costs should be allowed. Order reversed, without costs to either party.

Hardin, P. J., concurred; Merwin, J., concurred in result.
#### Edith W. Crawford, Plaintiff, *v.*Robert L. Brewer, Jr., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

November 17, 1936.

*Adler & Colson,*for the plaintiff.

*John F. Foley, Jr.,*for the defendant.

McLaughlin (Charles B.), J.

The defendant became a student of correspondence school of plaintiff’s assignor He failed to make payment required by his contract and has been sued to recover balance of $207 due on his written contract. He pleads that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest and also claims to have rescinded his agreement because of unreliable information furnished by plaintiff’s assignor recommending purchase of certain common stock and lastly claims the contract is executory; therefore, the measure of damages is not the amount remaining unpaid on contract. There is no merit to any of the defenses. As to the first defense, it is no concern of defendant as to how assignment was made so long as there is a real assignment as here. *(Spencer*v. *Standard Chemical Co.,*237 N. Y. 479, 480; *Hoppe*v. *Russo Asiatic Bank,*200 App. Div. 460, 465.) As to the second defense, assuming that it is true it still could not defeat the plaintiff’s action. The only breach that would serve defendant would be one that goes to the essence of the contract because only then could he be justified in rescinding. *(Trainor Co.*v. *Amsinck & Co., Inc.,*236 N. Y. 392, *156394; *Rosenwasser*v. *Blyn Shoes, Inc.,*246 id. 340, 346.) As to the third proposition, the plaintiff is entitled to contract price of $207 as a true measure of damages. *(Van Brink*v. *Lehman,*199 App. Div. 784.)

Motion is granted. Settle order.
#### Greater Bright Light Home Care Services, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v Joseph Jeffries-El et al., Defendants, El Equity Corporation, Appellant, and Citibank, N.A., Respondent. (And Other Titles.)

[772 NYS2d 535]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, in which the defendant El Equity Corporation counterclaimed, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and conversion, El Equity Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated August 8, 2002, as granted the motion of the additional counterclaim-defendant Citibank, N.A., pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) and CPLR 3212 to dismiss the additional counterclaim insofar as asserted against it. *351Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

This Court has not considered those materials contained in the appellant’s appendix which were not presented to the Supreme Court in connection with the motion to dismiss the additional counterclaim, as they are dehors the record *(see Devellis v Lucci,*266 AD2d 180, 181 [1999]; *Matter of Anonymous,*182 AD2d 617 [1992]).

The appellant’s additional counterclaim against the defendant Citibank, N.A. (hereinafter the bank), premised on the bank’s failure to recognize the appellant’s adverse claim to an account on its books in the name of another party, was properly dismissed since the appellant failed to procure a restraining order or other appropriate process as required by the Banking Law *(see*Banking Law § 134 [5]; *Ciriello v Eastchester Sav. Bank,*74 Misc 2d 425 [1973], *affd*45 AD2d 823 [1974]; *Shafran v Shafran,*57 Misc 2d 485 [1968]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit      32.0**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

|   | (1) | The                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months                ended                September 30, 2006 (Report) fully complies with the requirements                of                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15                U.S.C                78m(a) or 78o(d), and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | November                9, 2006 | By:    | /s/                Thomas F. Prisby                                                  |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                            |   | Thomas                F. Prisby* *                                              |
|   |                            |   | *Chairman                of the Board and Chief Executive Officer*                   |
|   |                            |   |                                                                                 |
|   |                            |   |                                                                                 |
|   |                            |   |                                                                                 |
| Date:  | November                9, 2006 | By:    | /s/                Charles V. Cole                                                   |
|   |                            |   | Charles                V. Cole* *                                               |
|   |                            |   | *Executive                Vice President and Chief Financial                Officer* |

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to CFS Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained      by CFS Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission      or      its staff upon request.*