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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 740

To confer jurisdiction on the United States Court of Federal Claims with

respect to land claims of Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 30, 1995

Mr. SKEEN (for himself and Mr. SCHIFF) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To confer jurisdiction on the United States Court of Federal

Claims with respect to land claims of Pueblo of Isleta

Indian Tribe.

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

3 SECTION 1. JURISDICTION.

4 Notwithstanding sections 2401 and 2501 of title 28,

5 United States Code, and section 12 of the Act of August

6 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1052), or any other law which would

7 interpose or support a defense of untimeliness, jurisdiction

8 is hereby conferred upon the United States Court of Fed9 eral Claims to hear, determine, and render judgment on

10 any claim by Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe of New Mexico
2

•HR 740 IH

1 against the United States with respect to any lands or in2 terests therein the State of New Mexico or any adjoining

3 State held by aboriginal title or otherwise which were ac4 quired from the tribe without payment of adequate com5 pensation by the United States. As a matter of adequate

6 compensation, the United States Claims Court may award

7 interest at a rate of five percent per year to accrue from

8 the date on which such lands or interests therein were ac9 quired from the tribe by the United States. Such jurisdic10 tion is conferred only with respect to claims accruing on

11 or before August 13, 1946, and all such claims must be

12 filed within three years after the date of enactment of this

13 Act. Such jurisdiction is conferred notwithstanding any

14 failure of the tribe to exhaust any available administrative

15 remedy.

16 SEC. 2. CERTAIN DEFENSES NOT APPLICABLE.

17 Any award made to any Indian tribe other than the

18 Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe of New Mexico before, on,

19 or after the date of the enactment of this Act under any

20 judgment of the Indian Claims Commission or any other

21 authority with respect to any lands that are the subject

22 of a claim submitted by the tribe under section 1 shall

23 not be considered a defense, estoppel, or set-off to such
3

•HR 740 IH

1 claim, and shall not otherwise affect the entitlement to,

2 or amount of, any relief with respect to such claim.

Æ
EXHIBIT 31.3
                       CERTIFICATION

I, Edwin A. Guiles, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Southern
California Gas Company;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this Quarterly Report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this Quarterly Report fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this Quarterly Report;

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

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under
our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this Quarterly Report is being
prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this Quarterly Report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this Quarterly Report, based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting;

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

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
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 have a significant role in the
registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

November 4, 2004

/S/ EDWIN A. GUILES
Edwin A. Guiles
Chief Executive Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-16146

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:05-cr-00018-JRH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

JIMMY ANFIELD, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(September 7, 2017)

Before MARCUS, FAY, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-16146 Date Filed: 09/07/2017 Page: 1 of 3 
2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Anfield appeals the denial of his motion for reconsideration of his 

motion to reduce sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

As an initial matter, the government argues that we should dismiss the 

appeal because the motion for reconsideration was untimely and, therefore, the

appeal of its denial was also untimely. Although Anfield’s appeal is untimely for 

the denial of his initial § 3582(c)(2) motion, we do not dismiss his appeal on his 

motion for reconsideration; he filed his notice of appeal within 14 days of the 

district court denying it. 

About the substance of the appeal, Anfield argues that the district court 

abused its discretion because it based the denial on erroneous facts – to be specific, 

that he had already received a sentence reduction to 137 months’ imprisonment 

and that he was still serving a sentence for his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 

922(g)(1). His argument is incorrect. Assuming arguendo that the district court 

had jurisdiction to hear his untimely motion (i) the district court did not find that 

the total sentence had already been reduced; and (ii) the district court correctly 

concluded that his guideline range was controlled by the offense level for his § 

922(g)(1) conviction. 

Case: 16-16146 Date Filed: 09/07/2017 Page: 2 of 3 
3

To explain in more detail, we conclude that the district court did not abuse 

its discretion when it denied the motion to reconsider. First, contrary to Anfield’s 

argument on appeal, the district court found that his guideline range had been 

reduced to 110 to 137 months, not that his total sentence had been reduced to 137 

months. Second, Amendment 782 did not change Anfield’s guideline range. 

Although he may have completed the 120-month custodial term originally imposed 

for the firearm offense, the district court was required to apply the amendment as if 

it had applied on the day he was sentenced and leave all other guideline application 

decisions unaffected. 

So, we affirm the denial of Anfield’s motion to reconsider the denial of his 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-16146 Date Filed: 09/07/2017 Page: 3 of 3
Exhibit 4.4.12
 SERIES 2010-1 FLOATING RATE ASSET BACKED VARIABLE FUNDING
INVESTOR NOTE, CLASS A
 provided however
   A-1




---



##### 



Date:
    CHESAPEAKE FUNDING LLCBy:Name:Title:




---



##### 



THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as Indenture TrusteeBy:Authorized Signature




---



##### 



Issuer Class A Investor Notes Base Indenture Indenture Trustee Series 2010-1 Indenture
Supplement Indenture.
  Payment Date th
 Series 2010-1 Interest Period provided however
 provided however




---



##### 



Del.C et seq




---



##### 








---



#####
#### Moise Toupin and others, Appellants, *v.*Olivier Gargnier, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM ST. CLAIR.

Where the parties to a suit, agree to dismiss the same, in the absence of all-reasonable doubt as to the making of the agreement, the Court should carry the agreement into effect; whether it be reduced to writing and signed by the parties, or exists in parol.

This was an action of trespass, *vi et armis,*brought in the St. Clair Circuit Court by the appellee, which was tried by a jury Underwood, Judge, presiding, at the September term, 1850. A verdict was found for the appellee for sixty dollars. A motion for a new trial was entered by appellants. Before judgment, the appellees entered a motion to dismiss the suit, and produced and filed two affidavits in support of the motion, showing that an agreement had been made between appellee and one of the appellants, that the case should be dismissed as to all the appellants and that each party should pay his own costs. This motion was resisted, upon the ground that the verdict had been assigned by the appellee, and affidavits were produced and filed with the assignment of the verdict, showing the date of the transaction. The motion to dismiss was overruled, and judgment was rendered upon the verdict. Thereupon the defendants below instituted this appeal.

G. ICoerxer, for Appellants.

J. Uxderwood, for Appellee.

Treat, C. J.

In our opinion the Court erred in not sustaining the motion to dismiss. It clearly appeared that the parties had agreed, while the case was pending and undetermined, and before the assignment to Underwood and Snyder was executed, that the suit should be dismissed, each party to pay his own costs. Two witnesses swore positively that sneli an agreement was made, and there was nothing in the case calculated to impeach the correctness of their statements. The existence of the agreement was not even denied by the plaintiff, as it probably would have been, if there had been any question respecting the true character of the transaction between the párties. The *82- Court, in the absence of all reasonable doubt as to the making of agreement, was: as much bound to carry it into effect as if it'had been reduced to writing and signed by the parties.

The judgment of the Circuit Court,., must be reversed with costs; and the cause will be -remanded, with instructions to that Court,--to enter an order of dismissal, pursuant td the agreement of the 'parties', •'

*Judgment' reversed.*
GRANT MICHAEL CAMADINE

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 2852

_ ____________________________/

Opinion filed November 3, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark J. Borello , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee , for Ap pellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., BENTON and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
H. R. 6220 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100 3rd 

Avenue Northwest in Perham, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Charles P. Nord Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CHARLES P. NORD POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 100 3rd Avenue Northwest in Perham, Minnesota, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Charles P. Nord 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 subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Charles P. Nord Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Orient Paper, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Winston C. Yen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated: September 26,2011
By:
/s/Winston C. YenWinston C. Yen

Chief Financial Officer

(principal financial and accounting officer )
EXHIBIT 31(a)

I, Thomas M. Patrick, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Peoples Energy Corporation;

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

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

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

(b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and 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 financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  August 9, 2005

/s/  Thomas M. Patrick
#### Joseph FULD v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY.*

No. 1773.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 11, 1938.

Weiss & Weiss, of New Orleans, and Jacob S. Landry, of New Iberia, for appellant.

Walter J. Burke and Lawrence Simon, both of New Iberia, for appellee.

*

Rehearing denied Feb. 15, 19S8; writ of certiorari denied March 7, 1938.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons assigned this day in the above case and the consolidated case of Mrs. Bernice F. Fuld against the same defendant, La.App., 178 So. 201, it is ordered that the judgment appealed from be, and the same is hereby, affirmed at the cost of appellant.
EXHIBIT 11
                                        
                      SPARTECH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      (In thousands, except per share data)
                                        

                                                    QUARTER ENDED
                                                January 31, February 1,
                                                    1998        1997
NET EARNINGS
  Basic and diluted net earnings                   $ 7,021     $ 5,478


WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING
  Basic weighted average common shares
       outstanding                                  26,398      26,382
  Add: Shares issuable from assumed exercise
       of options                                    1,703       1,355

  Diluted weighted average shares                   28,101      27,737
       outstanding


NET EARNINGS PER SHARE :

  Basic                                            $   .27     $   .21

  Diluted                                          $   .25     $   .20
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 811 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 811

                  For the relief of Peggi M. Houston.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 1995

Mr. Ballenger introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  For the relief of Peggi M. Houston.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO FILE CLAIM.

    Notwithstanding--
            (1) any law barring an action against the United States for 
        injuries sustained incident to service by any member of the 
        Armed Forces of the United States; and
            (2) section 2680(k) of title 28, United States Code,
Peggi M. Houston of Newland, North Carolina, may present a claim and 
commence an action under chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, 
for the wrongful death of her husband, Captain Thomas C. Houston, in 
connection with the allegedly negligent medical diagnosis and treatment 
by United States Army personnel at the aid station and Medical 
Dispensary for the Eleventh Army Calvary Regiment in Fulda, Germany, in 
1993.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 34.1.3.2

 

[Letterhead of ERNST and YOUNG LLP]

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that ZC Sterling Insurance Agency, Inc. (the Company) complied with certain servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the ZC Sterling Integrated Product Solution (ZIPS) hazard insurance outsourcing Platform (Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. The Company has determined that only certain servicing criteria 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)4(xi), 1122(d)4(xii) and 1122(d)4(xiii) are applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’sRegulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by this report. See Appendix A of management’s assertion for the Platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during theperiod covered by this report for the Platform. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006 for the ZIPS Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

 

February 20, 2007