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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3559 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3559

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of 
 higher education participating in Federal student assistance programs 
from giving preferential treatment in the admissions process to legacy 
                          students or donors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 2, 2022

Mr. Merkley (for himself and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of 
 higher education participating in Federal student assistance programs 
from giving preferential treatment in the admissions process to legacy 
                          students or donors.

    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 ``Fair College Admissions for Students 
Act''.

SEC. 2. BAN ON LEGACY OR DONOR PREFERENCES IN ADMISSIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(30)(A) The institution will not provide any manner of 
        preferential treatment in the admission process to applicants 
        on the basis of their relationships to--
                    ``(i) donors to the institution; or
                    ``(ii) except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
                alumni of the institution.
            ``(B) The Secretary may waive the limitation described in 
        subparagraph (A)(ii) for an award year for an eligible 
        institution described in section 371(a) if such institution 
        demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that 
        preferential treatment in the admission process to applicants 
        on the basis of their relationships to alumni of the 
        institution is in the best interest of students who have been 
        historically underrepresented in higher education.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the first day of the second award year (as defined in 
section 481(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1088(a))) 
that begins after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2
 
  1.
    
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, 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 result of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Howard M. SipznerHoward M. SipznerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate: November 7, 2008
 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Brandywine Realty Trust and will be retained by Brandywine Realty Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

558 

KA 08-01685 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LEROY BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NICOLE M. FANTIGROSSI

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P.

Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered May 21, 2008. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the first

degree and harassment in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal

Law § 215.51 [b] [v]) and harassment in the second degree (§ 240.26

[1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that

he was deprived of a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct

during summation (see People v McEathron, 86 AD3d 915, 916; People v

Lyon, 77 AD3d 1338, 1339, lv denied 15 NY3d 954). Specifically,

defendant either failed to object to the alleged instances of

misconduct (see People v Paul, 78 AD3d 1684, 1684-1685, lv denied 16

NY3d 834), or his objections thereto “were merely general objections

without a specified basis” (People v Beggs, 19 AD3d 1150, 1151, lv

denied 5 NY3d 803; see People v Parks, 66 AD3d 1429, 1430, lv denied

14 NY3d 804; see generally People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912). In any

event, defendant’s contention is without merit. The majority of the

comments in question were within “ ‘the broad bounds of rhetorical

comment permissible’ ” during summations (People v Williams, 28 AD3d

1059, 1061, affd 8 NY3d 854, quoting People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396,

399), and they were “either a fair response to defense counsel’s

summation or fair comment on the evidence” (McEathron, 86 AD3d at 916

[internal quotation marks omitted]). “Even assuming, arguendo, that

some of the prosecutor’s comments were beyond those bounds, we

conclude that they were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a 
-2- 558 

KA 08-01685 

fair trial” (id.).

Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3404

Enerpac:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Order filed April 25, 2022

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 21

- 00553

- CV

____________ MICHAEL MARONEY AND ANN MARONEY , Appellant

V.
MARICA KOCH , Appellee

On Appeal from the 149th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 92530

- CV



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed October 14, 2021. Our review has determined
that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain (1) The defendant’s str ike list and (2) The venire panel information forms.

The Brazoria County D istrict Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s
record on or before May 5, 2022 , containing (1) The defendant’s strike list and (2) The venire panel information forms.

I f the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Poiss ant, Wilson

.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2599

Speck Pumps-Pool Products, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12937-12938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5720]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. TM95-3-32-000 and TM94-4-32-002]


Colorado Interstate Gas Co.; Notice of Tariff Filing

March 3, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1995, Colorado Interstate Gas 
Company (CIG), filed Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 11 of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, reflecting a decrease in the 
quarterly fuel reimbursement percentage for Lost, Unaccounted-For and 
Other Fuel Gas from 0.46% to (1.08%) to be effective April 1, 1995.
    Take further notice that CIG's February 28, 1995 filing included 
Third Revised Sheet No. 230 in compliance with the February 15, 1995 
Order on Docket No. TM94-4-32-000, et al (70 FERC para.61,183), to 
provide for the use of the three-year average to compute storage fuel 
usage retention and the most recent twelve months data to compute the 
transportation fuel usage retention, effective April 1, 1995.
    CIG states that copies of this filing have been served on CIG's 
jurisdictional [[Page 12938]] customers and public bodies, and that the 
filing is available for public inspection at CIG's offices in Colorado 
Springs, Colorado.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Secs. 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and procedure (18 CFR Sections 385.214 and 385.211). 
All such motions or protests should be filed on or before March 10, 
1995. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5720 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit
32.1
 
 Ener1,
Inc.
 1540
Broadway, Suite 25C
 New York,
New York 10036
 
 January
19, 2010
 
 Securities
and Exchange Commission
 100 F
Street, NE
 Washington,
DC 20549
 
 Re:
Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350
 
 Dear
Ladies and Gentlemen:
 
 In
connection with the accompanying annual report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 2,
of Ener1, Inc., for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Charles Gassenheimer, Chief Executive
Officer of Ener1, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
 
 1)
              such
      annual report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 2, of Ener1, Inc., for the
      year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
      78m or 78o(d)); and
 
 2)
              the
      information contained in such annual report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No.
      2, of Ener1, Inc., for the year ended December 31, 2008, fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Ener1, Inc.
 
 /s/
      Charles GassenheimerCharles
      Gassenheimer
                    Chief
      Executive Officer
                    (Principal
      Executive Officer and
                    Duly
      Authorized Officer)
 
 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 Ener1, Inc. and will be
retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
 
 This
certification is being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.1 to Ener1, Inc.’s annual
report and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the
liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as
expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6539]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Advisory Committee for Polar Programs; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Polar Programs (#1130).
    Date and Time: April 4-5, 1995; 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, Room 310 & 310.2, 4201 
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Mr. Erick Chiang, Manager, Polar Operations, OD/
OPP, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 
22230. Phone: (703) 306-1032.
    Purpose of Meeting: To carry out Committee of Visitors (COV) 
review including examination of decisions on proposals, reviewer 
comments, and other privileged materials.
    Agenda: To provide oversight review of the OPP, Polar Operations 
Section.
    Reason for Closing: This meeting is closed to the public because 
the Committee is reviewing proposal and contract actions that will 
include privileged intellectual property and personal information 
that could harm individuals if they were disclosed. If discussion 
were open to the public, these matters that are exempt under 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act 
would be improperly disclosed.

    Dated: March 13, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-6539 Filed 3-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6546]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families


President's Committee on Mental Retardation; Notice of Meeting

    Agency holding the meeting: President's Committee on Mental 
Retardation.
    Time and date: Full Committee Meeting, May 2-3, 1995, 9:00 a.m.-
5:00 p.m.
    Place: Georgetown Child Development Center, 3307 ``M'' Street, 
NW.--Suite 401, Washington, DC 20007.
    Status: Meetings are open to the public. An interpreter for the 
deaf will be available upon advance request. All locations are barrier 
free.
    Matters to be considered: The Committee plans to discuss critical 
issues concerning Federal policy, Federal research and demonstration, 
State policy collaboration, minority and cultural diversity and mission 
and public awareness.
    The PCMR: (1) Acts in an advisory capacity to the President and the 
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services on matters 
relating to programs and services for persons with mental retardation; 
and (2) is responsible for evaluating the adequacy of current practices 
in programs for citizens with mental retardation, and reviewing 
legislative proposals that affect persons with mental retardation.
    Contact person for more information: Gary H. Blumenthal, Wilbur J. 
Cohen Building, Room 5325, 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20201-0001, (202) 619-0634.

    Dated: March 10, 1995.
Gary H. Blumenthal,
Executive Director, PCMR.
[FR Doc. 95-6546 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
I, Joseph G. McGuire, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tweeter Home Entertainment Group, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 10, 2005    /s/ Joseph G. McGuire   Chief Financial Officer and Interim Chief Executive Officer
20
#### Wheeler *et al. v.*Zorn, tax-collector, *et al.*

Gilbert, J.

1. The Civil Code (1910), § 1531, provides that, as soon as practicable, it shall be the duty of the county board of education of each county in Georgia to lay off the county into districts, the lines of which shall be clearly and positively defined by boundaries, such as creeks, public roads, land lotá; district lines or county lines'. As construed in the case of *Tolbert*v. *Teal,*146 *Ga.*644 (92 S. E. 46), this statute “ con*482templates that the whole territorial limits of the county shall be laid off into districts.” Under the evidence in this case it appears that there has not been a substantial compliance with the law; St. Catherine’s Island, about 2% miles wide and 12 miles in length, and returned for taxation at $100,000, having been entirely omitted. This defect invalidates the entire proceeding undertaken by the county board of education to lay off the county into school districts; and for this reason it was error to refuse to enjoin the tax levy as prayed.

No. 3270.

November 16, 1922.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Sheppard. Liberty superior court. April- *22, 1922.*

Wheeler et al. filed a petition seeking to enjoin the collection of a tax levied for the purpose' of supplementing the funds received from the State for educational purposes in Lambert School District, Liberty County. One ground upon which the petition alleges that injunction should be granted is that the County of Liberty has not been laid off in school districts as require by law. The court refused to grant injunction upon the ground stated, and the plaintiffs assigned error upon that judgment.

*Ben A. Way*and *W. G. Hodges,*for plaintiffs.

*Darsey & Mills,*for defendants.

*(a)*The reason assigned by the defendants for not including St. Catherine’s Island was that it was, in its entirety, a game preserve, that the owner did not wish a school, and that there were not a sufficient number of children of school age residing thereon to justify a school. These reasons afford no legal justification for the omission by the school board to include the omitted territory in laying off the county as a whole.

2. Since the judgment refusing an injunction is reversed on the ground stated in the preceding headnote, it is unnecessary to rule upon the other grounds assigned as reasons why the injunction should be granted.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*