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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 605 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 605

To amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to require certain legal 
  aliens to reside in the United States for a period of 5 consecutive 
 years to be eligible for a preference for occupancy in public housing 
           or for the provision of rental housing assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 1995

Mr. Greenwood introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Banking and Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to require certain legal 
  aliens to reside in the United States for a period of 5 consecutive 
 years to be eligible for a preference for occupancy in public housing 
           or for the provision of rental housing assistance.

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

SECTION 1. PUBLIC HOUSING PREFERENCES.

    Section 6(c)(4)(A) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
U.S.C. 1437d(c)(4)(A)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after clause (iv) the following new 
        clause:
                            ``(v) prohibit any alien described in 
                        subsection (a) of section 214 of the Housing 
                        and Community Development Act of 1980 from 
                        having a preference under any provision of this 
                        subparagraph unless such alien has maintained 
                        continuous residence in the States for not less 
                        than 5 years;''.

SEC. 2. RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PREFERENCES.

    Section 8(d)(1)(A) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
U.S.C. 1437f(d)(1)(A)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in clause (iii), by inserting ``and'' after the 
        semicolon at the end; and
            (3) by adding after clause (iii) the following new clause:
                    ``(iv) prohibit any alien described in subsection 
                (a) of section 214 of the Housing and Community 
                Development Act of 1980 from having a preference under 
                any provision of this subparagraph unless such alien 
                has maintained continuous residence in the States for 
                not less than 5 years;''.
                                 <all>
```
### The Honorable George F. Gunn, Jr., United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-3484

___________ Lonnie D. Snelling, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Department of Housing and * Eastern District of Missouri. Urban Development; St. Louis * County Housing Authority; * [UNPUBLISHED] St. Louis City Housing * Authority, * *

Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 3, 1996 Filed: April 9, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
The District Court granted defendants judgment as a matter of law at 1 the close of Lonnie D. Snelling's case, and this Court affirmed. Snelling v. Pierce , Nos. 94-2039, 94-2087, 94-2088, 94-2290, 1995 WL 224031 (8t h Cir. Apr. 17, 1995) (unpublished per curiam), ce rt. denied , 116 S. Ct. 710 (1996). Snelling now appeals the District Court's award of costs to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Housing Authorityof St. Louis County. Having carefully reviewed the record and the p arties' submissions, we conclude the District Court's judgmen t awardingcosts was a proper exercise of its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

### -2- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
* Pursuant 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

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 17, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50155 Conference Calendar

CLARENCE LEE CALLIES, JR., Petitioner-Appellant,

versus NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CV-1149

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Clarence Lee Callies, Jr., federal prisoner # 13001-180, has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application as untimely. Callies seeks to challenge his 1996 Texas conviction and sentence for drug possession. Callies contends that he exercised “due diligence” in filing hisNo. 06-50155 -2- application and that the limitation period should be waived; he also argues the merits of the challenge to his conviction. Callies has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Callies’s motion for a COA is denied. Callies has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and for appointment of counsel. These motions are denied. This court recently warned Callies that frivolous filings would result in the imposition of sanctions. United States v. Callies , 158 F. App’x 585, 587 (5th Cir. 2005). Nonetheless, Callies has proceeded with an untimely application for relief from a conviction that is now more than 10 years old. Therefore, Callies is ordered to pay a sanction in the amount of $100, payable to the clerk of this court. The clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts within this circuit are directed to refuse to file any civil complaint or appeal by Callies unless Callies submits proof of satisfaction of this sanction. If Callies attempts to file any further notices of appeal or original proceedings in this court without such proof the clerk will docket them for administrative purposes only. Any other submissions which do not show proof that the sanction has been paid will be neither addressed nor acknowledged. ThisNo. 06-50155 -3- sanction is imposed in addition to all other sanctions currently in force against Callies.
COA DENIED; IFP DENIED; APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED;
SANCTION IMPOSED.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 154 (Friday, August 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46257-46258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18260]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1293-000]


Crystal Lake Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

August 1, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Crystal Lake Wind LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application 
includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of 
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is August 21, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any

[[Page 46258]]

FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#01474453424e6f6d686f64527471716e737541676473622f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b4d4e594844656762656e587e7b7b64797f4b6d6e7968256c647d">[email protected]</span></a>. or call 
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18260 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LUZAY WATSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 351 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of January, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Exhibit 21



Subsidiaries of the Registrant





|Name                           | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|------------------------------ | -----------------------------
|                               |                              
|                               |                              
|MapInfo Australia Pty. Limited | Australia                    
|                               |                              
|                               |                              
|MapInfo Canada Inc.            | Canada                       
|                               |                              
|                               |                              
|MapInfo GmbH                   | Germany                      
|                               |                              
|                               |                              
|MapInfo Limited                | England                      
|                               |                              
|                               |                              
|MapInfo UK Limited             | England                      
|                               |                              
|MapInfo Japan KK               | Japan
ex_172529.htm


Exhibit 4.2


Description of Securities


 


As of January 1, 2020, US Alliance Corporation (“USAC” or the “Company”) has one class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”): Common Stock, par value $0.10 per share (the “Common Stock”). The Company is also authorized to issues 20,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $5.00 per share (“Preferred Stock”). As of January 1, 2020, no shares of Preferred Stock are issued or outstanding, and no class of Preferred Stock is registered under Section 12 of the Act.


 


 


The Company is authorized to issue 9,000,000 shares of Common Stock. Holders of Common Stock are entitled, subject to the prior right of any preferred stock outstanding (none at this time), to such dividends as the Board of Directors, in its discretion, may declare out of legally available funds. In the event of liquidation, holders of Common Stock are entitled, subject to the prior rights of holders of any preferred stock then outstanding and any creditors, to participate pro rata in all assets, if any, of USAC remaining after the payment of liabilities. Holders are entitled to one vote for each share of Common Stock held by them, and may not vote cumulatively in the election of directors. Holders of the Common Stock do not have preemptive rights.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 23.1

The Board of Directors
Natural MicroSystems Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-09135) on Form S-8 of Natural MicroSystems Corporation of our report dated
January 14, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Natural
MicroSystems Corporation as of December 31, 1996, and 1995, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flow for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, which
report appears in the December 31, 1996, annual report on Form 10-K of Natural
MicroSystems Corporation.

                                    KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Boston, MA
March 26, 1997
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Defendant in Error, v. Elmer L. Smith, Defendant-Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 10,735. (Abstract of Decision.)

Fourth District.

August 11, 1966.

Walter J. Simhauser, of Springfield, for plaintiff in error; Raymond L. Terrell, State’s Attorney, of Springfield (Richard A. Hollis and Bruce I. Gordon, of counsel), for defendant in error.

Opinion by JUSTICE SMITH. Not to be published in full.
#### Charles A. Nichols v. Ezra A. Shaw.

1. *Evidence—Supporting a Verdict—Slander.—The*court after considering the evidence, instructions and rulings of the court, holds that the evidence supports a verdict.

Trespass on the Case, for slander. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign County; the Hon. Francis M. Wright, Judge presiding.1 *115Heard in this court at the May term, 1902.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 1, 1902.

A. J. Miller, attorney for appellant; R. Wright, of counsel.

F. M. Green & Son and Gere & Philbrick, attorneys for appellee.

Mr. Justice Burroughs

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action on the case by the appellant, Charles A. Nichols, against the appellee, Ezra A. Shaw, to recover damages, which the former claimed he had sustained by reason of certain slanderous statements alleged to have been made of him by the latter. The appellee denied making the statements and the jury found a verdict in his favor, upon which the Circuit Court of Champaign County, where the case was tried, after having denied appellant’s motion for a new trial, gave judgment.

The appellant prosecutes an appeal to this court from the judgment, and to effect a reversal thereof argues that the court erred in ruling upon the evidence and instructions, and that the verdict is not supported by the evidence.

We have carefully read and considered all the evidence and all the instructions and the rulings of the trial court complained of, and upon due consideration thereof, are of the opinion that the evidence supports the verdict, and that the rulings of the court are all fair and in accordance with the law of the case, and therefore the judgment ought to and will be affirmed.

Mr. Presiding Justice Wright, having presided at the trial of this case in the Circuit Court, took no part in the decision of it in this court.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 686 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 686

To designate the maintenance facility and future visitor center at the 
  Big Thicket National Preserve as the ``Ralph W. Yarborough Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 1995

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the maintenance facility and future visitor center at the 
  Big Thicket National Preserve as the ``Ralph W. Yarborough Center''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the maintenance 
facility and future visitor center at the Big Thicket National 
Preserve, located off U.S. Route 69 on FM 420, north of Kountze, Texas, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Ralph W. Yarborough Center''.
                                 <all>
```
[Cite as Assn. of Cleveland Fire Fighters IAFF Local 93 v. Cleveland Dept. of Law , 2020-Ohio-4902.]

{¶1} On June 11, 2020, a special master issued a report and recommen dation (R&R) in this public-records case. The special master recommen ds that the court find that (1) requester's claim for production of the requested reco rd has been rendered moot; (2) respondent failed to provide information and opportun ity for requester to revise an allegedly ambiguous request; (3) respondent failed to provide the requested record within a reasonable period of time; (4) requester is ent itled to recover from respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that were incurred by requester; and (5) court costs should be assessed to respondent. {¶2} Neither party has filed timely written objections to the R&R, a s permitted by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) and tolled by 2020 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 197. Pur suant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects to a special mas ter’s report and recommendation, this court is required to “promptly issue a fin al order adopting the report and recommendation, unless it determines that there is a n error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation.” {¶3} Upon review, the court determines that there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the R&R of June 11, 2020. The co urt therefore adopts the special master’s R&R, including the special master’s findings o f fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations contained in the R&R. Judgment is rendered in favor of ASSOCIATION OF CLEVELAND FIRE FIGHTERS IAFF LOCAL 93

Requester

v.

CITY OF CLEVELAND, DEPARTMENT OF LAW

Respondent Case No. 2020-00103PQ

Judge Patrick M. McGrath

JUDGMENT ENTRYCase No. 2020-00103PQ -2- ENTRY

requester. Requester is entitled to recover from respondent th e amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that are incurred by requester, but requester is not entitled to recover attorney fe es. Court costs are assessed against respondent. The clerk shall serve upon all pa rties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

PATRICK M. MCGRATH Jud g e

Filed August 11, 2020 Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/12/20
Order entered May 14, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 00191 - CV BALTASAR D. CRUZ, Appellant V. JAMES VAN SICKLE, ET AL . , Appellee s On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 12 - 09275 

### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s May 10, 2013 unopposed motion for extension of time to file his brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellant to file his brief by June 17, 2013. No further extensions will be granted without a showing of exceptional circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
job_ex102.htm

EXHIBIT 10.02
 
FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE
 
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Amendment”), dated as of February 8, 2020, is entered into by GEE GROUP, INC., an Illinois corporation (the “Maker”) and ENOCH S. TIMOTHY and DOROTHY TIMOTHY (collectively, the “Payee”). 
 
WHEREAS, the Maker and the Payee executed that certain Subordinated Nonnegotiable Promissory Note, dated as of January 20, 2017 (the “Promissory Note”); and 
 
WHEREAS, the Maker and the Payee desire to amend the Promissory Note to change the maturity date and interest rate. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed by each party hereto as follows: 
 
	1.	Amendment to the Promissory Note. It is hereby agreed and understood that the Promissory Note shall be amended as follows:


 
	 
	a.	Interest Rate. The interest rate shall remain at an annual rate of 5.5% (applicable to the unpaid and outstanding principal balance of the Promissory Note as of the date hereof for the remaining amended term of the Promissory Note).
	 
	 
	 

	 
	b.	Interest Payments. Interest only will continue to be paid in consecutive monthly payments as before until the “Amended Maturity Date” (as defined below).
	 
	 
	 

	 
	c.	Maturity Date. The balloon payment of principal is changed from the third (3rd) anniversary of the date of the Promissory Note to be the fifth (5th) anniversary of the date of the Promissory Note (the “Amended Maturity Date”), and the prior failure to pay on the third (3rd) anniversary shall be treated as cured and shall not be a default.
	 
	 
	 

	 
	d.	Subordination. The Promissory Note indebtedness and obligations thereunder remain subordinated, and payments under the Promissory Note remain restricted as prior to this Amendment.


 
	2.	Miscellaneous.


 
	 
	a.	Except as expressly amended and modified by this Amendment, the Promissory Note is and shall continue to be in full force and effect in accordance with the terms thereof.
	 
	 
	 

	 
	b.	This Amendment may be executed by the parties hereto in counterparts, and all of such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument.
	 
	 
	 

	 
	c.	The Amendment shall be construed in accordance and governed by the internal laws of the state of Florida.
	 
	 
	 

	 
	d.	The headings contained in this Amendment are for ease of reference only and shall not be considered in construing this Amendment.


 
	 
	1
	
 
	 


 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to the Promissory Note to duly executed as of the day and year first written above.
 
	 	MAKER:
	
	 
	 
	 

	 
	GEE GROUP, INC., an Illinois corporation
	 

	 	 	 	 
		By: 
		
	 
	Print name: 
		 
	 	Title: 
		 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	PAYEE:
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	ENOCH S. TIMOTHY 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	DOROTHY TIMOTHY
	 



 
	 
	2