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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6299 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6299

   To prohibit the disbursement of Federal funds to State and local 
 governments that allow individuals who are not citizens of the United 
        States to vote in any Federal, State, or local election.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 16, 2021

Mr. Duncan (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Balderson, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Budd, 
   Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Cawthorn, Mr. Cline, Mr. Davidson, Mr. 
 Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. Donalds, Mr. Ellzey, Mr. Feenstra, Mr. 
  Gaetz, Mr. Garbarino, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Tony Gonzales of 
   Texas, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. 
Jacobs of New York, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mr. Lamborn, Mrs. Miller 
of Illinois, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, Mr. Norman, Mr. Pfluger, Mr. Posey, Mr. 
    Rutherford, Mr. Smith of Missouri, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Ms. 
Stefanik, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Timmons, Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Weber 
  of Texas, and Mr. Zeldin) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the disbursement of Federal funds to State and local 
 governments that allow individuals who are not citizens of the United 
        States to vote in any Federal, State, or local election.

    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 ``Protecting Our Democracy by 
Preventing Foreign Citizens from Voting Act''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL PAYMENT RESTRICTION.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
Federal funds may be made available to any State or local government if 
such State or local government allows individuals who are not citizens 
of the United States to vote in any Federal, State, or local election.
    (b)  Certification.--Upon application, approval, and receipt of any 
Federal funds, a State or local government shall certify that the State 
or local government does not permit individuals who are not citizens of 
the United States to vote in any Federal, State, or local election.
    (c) Applicability.--The requirements of this section shall only 
apply with respect to any contract entered into or grant made on or 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Sam BUSBEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

July 20, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10(a)

 

CONTRACT NO.
016774
AMENDMENT NO.
00004
 
284G

 

AMENDMENT TO TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT

 

Parties: 
PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY and
 
PEOPLES GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY (THE)
 

The above parties, by their execution of the Exhibit A referenced below, hereby agree to amend their Transportation Agreement dated 04/01/2000 designated as Contract Number 016774 as follows:

1.	Exhibit A is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the Exhibit A attached hereto.

2.	This Amendment shall be effective from the Effective Date as set out on Exhibit A.

3.	Except as provided herein, all other terms and conditions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect.

 

 

 

AMENDMENT NO.
00004

 

SUPERSEDING
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-14 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6427 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6427

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 13, 2022

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act to modify the 
   boundary of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Boundary Modification Act''.

SEC. 2. RED RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.

    Section 3(a)(1) of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act 
(Public Law 106-300; 114 Stat. 1055) is amended by striking ``map 
entitled `Red River National Wildlife Refuge--Selection Area', dated 
September 5, 2000'' and inserting ``map entitled `Red River National 
Wildlife Refuge Acquisition Boundary' and dated March 21, 2022''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 12, 2022.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.

                               By Kevin F. McCumber,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 10.1

       AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK GRANT AGREEMENT WITH JAMES B. NELSON


<PAGE>
                                    AMENDMENT

                                       TO

                        RESTRICTED STOCK GRANT AGREEMENT


         This Amendment to Restricted Stock Grant Agreement (the "Amendment") is
made as of this 1st day of May 2014 by and  between  Solar3D,  Inc.,  a Delaware
corporation  ("Solar3D"),  and James B. Nelson  ("Grantee")  with respect to the
following facts:

                                    RECITALS

         A.       Solar3D and Grantee have entered into that certain  Restricted
                  Stock Grant  Agreement,  dated as of  September  23, 2013 (the
                  "Agreement").

         B.       Solar3D and  Grantee  believe it is in the best  interests  of
                  both  Solar3D and Grantee to amend the timing for  issuance of
                  vested Shares under the Agreement.

         C.       The  terms  used in this  Amendment  will  have  the  meanings
                  ascribed to them in the  Agreement  unless  otherwise  defined
                  herein.

         NOW,   THEREFORE,   for  one  dollar   and  other  good  and   valuable
consideration, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

         1.       AMENDMENT.
                  ---------

         The last sentence of Section 2.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended and
restated as follows:  "The monthly vested Shares, if any, shall be issued to the
Grantee  on the later of (i) the  first day of the  fiscal  year  following  the
fiscal year during which the Shares vest or (ii) within five (5)  business  days
after the last day of the month during which the Shares vest."

         2.       EFFECT OF AMENDMENT.
                  -------------------

         The  Agreement   will  remain  in  full  force  and  effect  except  as
specifically  modified by this Amendment.  In the event of any conflict  between
the Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this Amendment will govern.

         3.       COUNTERPARTS.
                  ------------

         This  Amendment  may  be  executed  simultaneously  in  any  number  of
counterparts,  each of which  counterparts  will be deemed to be an original and
such counterparts will constitute but one and the same instrument.


                                      -1-
<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  this  Amendment  is executed as of the date first
above written.

SOLAR3D:               SOLAR3D, INC.


                       By:/s/ Abe Emard
                        ------------------------------------------
                           Abe Emard, Director


GRANTEE:

                          /s/ James B. Nelson
                        ------------------------------------------
                           James B. Nelson






























                                      -2-
#### BRADY v. HOLLANDSWORTH.

No. 6836.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 29, 1945.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1946.

Dhu Thompson, of Monroe, for appellant.

Hudson, Potts, Bernstein & Davenport, of Monroe, for appellee.

McINNIS, Judge.

Plaintiff is appealing from a judgment of the district court rejecting his demand for the sum of $583. Of this amount $505 is for repairs to his automobile and $78 for loss of use of it while having it repaired.

The automobile is the same one his daughter, Mrs. Ethel Howze, was driving at the time there was a collision with the Ford automobile being driven by defendant. The facts in reference to this accident are stated in Howze v. Hollandsworth, La.App., 26 So.2d 381.

Reading of the opinion in that case discloses that both defendant and plaintiff are held to be negligent, and the demands of the plaintiff in that case were rejected, affirming the judgment of the lower court.

 It does not follow, however, that because Mrs. Howze was negligent, her father cannot recover for the damage to his automobile. There is no question of defendant’s negligence. It was not negligence for Mr. Brady to loan his automobile to his daughter, who was twenty-six years old, and apparently competent to drive it. Conceding that the combined negligence of Mrs. Howze and defendant caused the damage to plaintiff’s automobile, it was optional with him to sue only the defendant. Woodruff et ux. v. Stewart, La.App., 6 So. 2d 796.

There is no proof of any definite sum that it cost plaintiff to be deprived of the use of his automobile while it was *114broken down, and the proof of the cost of repairing it is rather meager, but such proof as he offered is not rebutted. He says he bought parts for it and did most if not all the work himself. Harlan Landers, a mechanic who owned a half interest in Dortman’s Garage, estimated that it would require parts and labor to the amount of $505 to repair it, and as this evidence is not rebutted, plaintiff has made at least a prima facie case.

For these reasons the judgment of the district court is reversed and it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that there be judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Benjamin W. Brady, and against the defendant, Hubert Hollandsworth, in the full sum of $505 with legal 5% interest from October 9, 1944, until paid, and for the costs of the suit in both courts.
#### Armin Fraenkel, Appellant, v. Jonathan Friedmann, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Houghton, J., dissented.
188 La. 421

#### DREHER v. GUARANTY BOND & FINANCE CO., Inc., et al.

No. 34423.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 2, 1937.

Normann & McMahon and Harold M. Rouchell, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Gamble & Gamble, of New Orleans, for appellee.

ODOM, Justice.

On January 6, 1936, this case was remanded to the district court for a' new trial, for the reasons stated in the opinion reported in 184 La. 197, 165 So. 711.

The case was again tried in the district court, testimony adduced, and there was judgment rejecting plaintiff’s demands. The case was again appealed to this court.

Stenographic notes were made of the evidence adduced at the second trial, but these notes were never transcribed. According to a certificate made by the clerk of court, which we find in the record, the stenographer who took the testimony left the state soon after the trial and now resides in the city of Washington, D. C. The clerk of court certifies that the stenographer has informed him that his stenographic notes have been lost. The record before us contains no testimony whatever except certified copies of certain correspondence alleged to have passed between the policy holder and the insurance company. We therefore have nothing before us to review. It does not appear that the absence of the testimony taken at the trial of the case is attributable to appellant.

In view of these conditions and circumstances, it is necessary' to reverse the judgment and again remand the .case for a trial de novo. Code Prac. art. 906; Duprat v. Powell, 162 La. 859, 111 So. 259.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be reversed and set aside and that the case be remanded to the trial court for trial de novo, all costs, including cost of this appeal, to await the final disposition of the suit.

HIGGINS, J., takes no part.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00331-CR

John Thomas Shewmaker, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 03-0178-1, HONORABLE SUZANNE BROOKS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After his notice of appeal was received by this Court, the trial court granted John Thomas 

Shewmaker=s motion for new trial and dismissed the prosecution. The appeal is dismissed as moot.

 

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed

Filed: June 26, 2003

Do Not Publish
183 La. 498

#### TOWN OF MELVILLE v. Rosa POLOTZOLA. In re Rosa POLOTZOLA, Applying for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition.

No. 33622.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

*Nov.*4, 1935.

W. C. Perrault and Alfred M. Guilbeau, both of Opelousas, for relator.

L. L. Perrault, of Opelousas, for respondent.

BRUNOT, Justice.

This case is identical, except for the defendant, and the provision of the ordinance of the town of Melville she is charged with violating, with defendant procedure and results in the case of Town of Melville v. Dominic Polotzola (La. Sup.) 164 So. 257, this day decided, and, for the reasons assigned in that case, it is decreed that the writ of certiorari issued in this case is maintained, the verdict, judgment, and sentence complained of herein are annulled, and the town of Melville, its may- or, officers, and agents, are prohibited from executing said verdict, judgment, and sentence.

ROGERS, J., dissents.
EX-35 (c)


OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
CENTERLINE SERVICING, INC.

The undersigned, James L. Duggins, the Chief Executive Officer of Centerline
Servicing Inc. (formerly known as ARCap Servicing, Inc.), the Special Servicer
under that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing
Agreement") dated as of January 1, 2006 ("Transaction Closing Date"), relating
to the Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2006-TOP21, hereby certifies as follows:


1. a review of the activities of the Special Servicer during the preceding
calendar year or portion thereof commencing from and after the Transaction
Closing Date and of the performance of the Special Servicer under the Pooling
and Servicing Agreement has been made under the undersigned officer's
supervision; and


2. to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, based on such review, the Special
Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement in all material respects throughout such year, or portion thereof
commencing from the Transaction Closing Date


Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given
them in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, as of the 1st day of November, 2007, I have hereunto signed
my name.


/s/ James L. Duggins
James L. Dugggins
Chief Executive Officer of
Centerline Servicing, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated July 25, 2003 on our review of interim
financial information of Phelps Dodge Corporation (the "Company") as of and for
the period ended June 30, 2003 and included in the Company's quarterly report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is incorporated by reference in its
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-104627, 333-67606, 333-61624 and
333-43890), its Registration Statement and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 on
Form S-3 (Nos. 33-44380 and 333-36415), its Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Nos. 33-26442, 33-6141, 33-26443, 33-29144, 33-19012, 2-67317, 33-34363,
33-34362, 33-62648, 333-42231, and 333-52175) and its Post-Effective Amendment
No. 4 on Form S-8 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-86061).

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
July 28, 2003
Exhibit 4.4.5
  No.
    
    $[]
  
 SECURITIES ACT RESALE
RESTRICTION TERMINATION DATE ISSUER RULE 144A QIB




---



##### 



ERISA BENEFIT PLAN INVESTOR CODE SECTION 6.2(c) AB INITIO




---



##### 



Issuer   provided however However Series 2009-3 Interest Period provided however
 VMS




---



##### 








---



##### 



CHESAPEAKE FUNDING LLCBy:Name:Title:
   THE BANK OF NEW YORK 
     MELLON, as Indenture TrusteeBy:Authorized Signatory




---



##### 



Class B Investor Notes Base Indenture Indenture Trustee Series 2009-3 Indenture Supplement Indenture
  Payment Date
  provided however
 plus Class
B Note Rate One-Month LIBOR




---



##### 



provided however provided further One-Month LIBOR provided finally One-Month LIBOR




---



##### 



et seq Section 6.9




---



##### 



Issuer




---



##### 



provided Section 6.2




---



##### 



1
 Signature Guaranteed:
 
 1
    
    NOTE: The signature to this assignment must
correspond with the name of the registered owner as it appears on the face of
the within Class B Investor Note, without alteration, enlargement or any change
whatsoever.
#### Pedro Villarama JUNIO, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 00-70965.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 17, 2003.

Decided Aug. 1, 2003.

Before: REINHARDT, SILER,* and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior Judge for the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

We grant Pedro Villarama Junio’s petition for review. Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s conclusion that Junio could not establish eligibility for suspension of deportation because he had given false testimony during a naturalization interview, thus precluding the necessary finding of good moral character. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6), 1254(a)(1)(1992).

Junio had participated in two marriage ceremonies to the same woman; the first, a civil ceremony prior to his immigration to the United States and, the second, a religious ceremony that occurred approximately two years later. In the naturalization interview, Junio was asked only whether he was married on the latter date. Junio truthfully responded “yes,” but did not volunteer that he had also participated in the earlier marriage ceremony. Although Junio was not entirely forthcoming, his response to the narrow question posed was not “false.” Junio’s case is thus vastly different from that of *Bernal v. INS,*in which the petitioner falsely stated that he had never been married in either a civil or *722religious ceremony prior to immigrating to the United States. 154 F.3d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir.1998).

Because Junio did not provide “false testimony” within the meaning of Section 1101(f)(6), the BIA erroneously concluded that Junio was statutorily ineligible for suspension of deportation. To the extent this conclusion may also have affected the BIA’s decision on Junio’s claim for waiver of deportability, we remand for a new determination on this issue as well. We therefore GRANT Junio’s petition and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 3(b)
 
 BYLAWS
 OF
 OXFORD INDUSTRIES, INC.
 ARTICLE I
 STOCKHOLDERS
 Annual Meetings
 Special Meetings
 Notice of Meeting
 Quorum
 Proxies
 Record Date




---



##### 



Business at Annual Meetings of Stockholders
  th




---



##### 








---



##### 



ARTICLE II
 DIRECTORS
 Powers of Directors
 Number of Directors
 Meeting of Directors
 Notice of Meeting
 Executive Committee




---



##### 



Compensation
 Retirement of Directors
 Nominations of Directors
  th




---



##### 



th




---



##### 



Election of Directors
 ARTICLE III
 OFFICERS
 Officers
 Chairman of the Board of Directors
 Chief Executive Officer
 President
 Vice President
 Treasurer
 Secretary




---



##### 



Other Duties and Authorities
 Removal
 ARTICLE IV
 DEPOSITORIES, SIGNATURES AND SEAL
 Form and Execution of Certificates
 Contracts
 Seal




---



##### 



ARTICLE V
 STOCK TRANSFERS
 Form and Execution of Certificates
 Transfer of Shares
 Lost, Destroyed or Mutilated Certificates
 Transfer Agent and Registrar
 ARTICLE VI
 INDEMNITY
 Indemnity
 ARTICLE VII
 AMENDMENTS
 Amendments




---



##### 



ARTICLE VIII
 BUSINESS COMBINATIONS
 Business Combinations
 ARTICLE IX
 FISCAL YEAR
 Fiscal Year
Exhibit 35.2

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

                               GMAC Mortgage, LLC

                RAMP Series 2006-RZ2 Trust (the "Issuing Entity")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
    Name: Anthony N. Renzi
    Title: Executive Vice President