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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6039 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6039

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 501 Charles Street in Beaufort, South Carolina, as the ``Harriet 
                     Tubman Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2021

 Ms. Mace (for herself, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, Mr. 
   Timmons, Mr. Norman, Mr. Clyburn, and Mr. Rice of South Carolina) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 501 Charles Street in Beaufort, South Carolina, as the ``Harriet 
                     Tubman Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. HARRIET TUBMAN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 501 Charles Street in Beaufort, South Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Harriet Tubman Post Office Building''.
    (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 ``Harriet 
Tubman Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

  I, Jacquelyn Kimball, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D
     required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
     on Form 10-K/A of New York Mortgage Trust 2006-1 (the "Exchange Act
     periodic reports");

  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

  4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
     servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
     conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in
     this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
     in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled
     their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects;
     and

  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
     criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
     reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
     asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
     accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
     13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
     except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances
     of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
     this report on Form 10-K/A.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
     information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
     ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. as Servicer and Cenlar, FSB as
     Sub-Servicer.


     Dated: May 30, 2008

     /s/ Jacquelyn Kimball
     Signature

     Vice President
     (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master
     servicer)
     Title
<table>

EXHIBIT 12.1
PACIFIC ENTERPRISES
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Dollars in millions)
<caption>


                                                                              For the three
                                                                              months ended
                                                                              March 31,
                                1999        2000        2001        2002        2003
                              --------    --------    --------    --------    --------

                           <c>         <c>         <c>         <c>         <c>
Fixed Charges:

Interest                          $ 82        $ 72        $ 88        $ 63        $ 17
Interest portion of
  annual rentals                     3           4           3           2           0
Preferred dividends
  of subsidiaries (1)                2           2           2           2           0
                              --------    --------    --------    --------    --------
Total Fixed Charges
  for Purpose of Ratio            $ 87        $ 78        $ 93        $ 67        $ 17
                              ========    ========    ========    ========    ========

Earnings:

Pretax income from
  continuing operations           $350        $396        $377       $383         $104
Total Fixed Charges
  (from above)                      87          78          93         67           17
                              --------    --------    --------    -------    ---------
Total Earnings for
  Purpose of Ratio                $437        $474        $470       $450         $121
                              ========    ========    ========    =======    =========
Ratio of Earnings
  to Fixed Charges                5.02        6.08        5.05       6.72         7.12
                              ========    ========    ========    =======    =========

(1)	In computing this ratio, "Preferred dividends of subsidiaries" represents the
before-tax earnings necessary to pay such dividends, computed at the effective tax
rates for the applicable periods.

</table>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6170 

To prohibit any entity from imposing a mandate that individuals be vaccinated 

against COVID–19, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2021 

Mr. VAN DREW introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit any entity from imposing a mandate that individuals be vaccinated against COVID–19, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No COVID–19 Vac5 cination Mandate Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NO MANDATES FOR VACCINATION AGAINST COVID– 

7 19. 

8 Notwithstanding any Federal or State law, no institu9 tion or other entity, including any such Federal, State, 

10 local, Tribal, or private entity, may establish, implement, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6170 IH

1 or enforce any mandate (including as a condition of em2 ployment, enrollment or attendance at school, or receipt 

3 of services) that any individual be vaccinated against 

4 SARS–Cov–2 or COVID–19. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.3

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of
Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2004 (the "Quarterly Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



November 4, 2004
                                                /S/ EDWIN A. GUILES
                                              ______________________
                                               Edwin A. Guiles
                                               Chief Executive Officer
#### HERRING v. PRICE.

No. 5282.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 26, 1936.

C. B. Prothro and Robt. J. Newson, both of Shreveport, for appellant.

J. B. Crow, of Shreveport, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

On October 5, 1935, appellee recovered judgment against appellant in the lower court, and on March 14, 1936, appellant, by motion in open court, asked for and was granted a devolutive appeal to this court, which he is now prosecuting.

Appellee has filed a motion here to dismiss the appeal for the following reasons:

> “That, although said appeal was asked for some several months after the judgment became final in this cause in the District Court, there was neither petition for nor citation of appeal and that no citation of appeal has ever issued and no other legal notice thereof has been given either appellee or his counsel and there has been no waiver of citation.”

In appellee’s brief, he sets out tlje grounds upon which the motion is based, that is, he contends that the motion for appeal was made at a different term of court from that in which the judgment was rendered, and therefore a petition for appeal should have been filed and citation had on fippellee. If it were true that the motion was made at a subsequent term of court, the motion to dismiss would be good. The rules of court for the First judicial district are not attached to the motion to dismiss and we doubt our authority to take judicial notice of the rules, in so far as they fix the term of court for the district. Without this authority, the motion would have to be overruled as there is nothing in the record to disclose when the term of court for the First judicial district begins or ends. If we had the authority to take judicial notice of the beginning and ending of the term of court, *350we would find that it begins on September 15th and ends July 15th of each year. The motion to dismiss will have to - be overruled, however, for the reason it is not shown that the motion for appeal was made at a subsequent term to the signing of the judgment. We are sure, however, that counsel for appellee has confused a session of the court with a term of the court. The term of the district courts of this state is ten months, although - they hold different sessions during that term. If a judgment ’is rendered during the same ten-month term in which the appeal is taken, the appeal may be had by mere motion in open court, without the necessity of petition and citation. David v. Roubion, 8 La.App. 689; Code Prac. art. 573.

Appellee has also filed a second motion to dismiss, based upon the allegation that appellant had acquiesced in the judgment by executing it, and sets out many acts of appellant to show acquiescence. The record does not disclose the correctness of the allegations made in this motion. We must therefore follow the usual rule in such cases by remanding the case in order that the question of acquiescence vel non may be tried contradictorily between the parties.

It is therefore ordered that the case be remanded to the lower court with instructions to hear evidence on the question of acquiescence, and send up the record thereof, in accordance with the law.
Exhibit
23.1   Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-135777) pertaining to the Houston Wire & Cable Company 2000
Stock Plan and the Houston Wire & Cable Company 2006 Stock Plan of our
report dated March 15, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Houston Wire & Cable Company, and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of Houston Wire & Cable Company
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2009.
  /s/Ernst
      & Young LLP
 
 Houston,
Texas
 March 15,
2010
Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed July 2, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00008-CR

____________

EX PARTE ISIDRO RUIZ

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 789378-A

ABATEMENT ORDER

The trial court failed to submit findings of fact and conclusions of law on the 

denial of appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. Article 11.072, section 

7(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to make 

written fact findings and conclusions of law when denying application for writ of 

habeas corpus unless the court denies the application as frivolous. Tex. Code 

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.072 ' 7(a). The statute is mandatory and the proper 

procedure to correct the error is to abate the appeal and direct the trial court to 

make the required findings and conclusions. See Ex parte Enriquez, 227 S.W.3d 
779, 784 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, pet. ref’d). Appellant filed a motion to abate, 

which is granted.

Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of 

fact and conclusions of law on the denial of appellant’s application for writ of 

habeas corpus and have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings 

filed with the clerk of this Court on or before August 1, 2012.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will 

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party. 

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
AGREEMENT



THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on this 1st

day of

October , 2007 ,  by and between Blackcomb Minerals Inc.( Client ),  2120 - 1066 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC V6E 3X2), and Orko Silver Corp. (ORKO),  Suite 2120  1066 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC V6E 3X2.



HEREINAFTER, the Client and ORKO are collectively referred to as Parties and singularly as Party.



WHEREAS, the Parties desire to set forth the terms and conditions under which certain services shall be performed;



NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these promises of the mutual covenants herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows:



ARTICLE I  SCOPE OF SERVICES



ORKO agrees to provide office space for the Client described as follows:



1.

Office space

ORKO agrees to provide the Client with office space to accommodate its corporate presence, and its staff and consultants.

2.

Equipment

ORKO agrees to provide the Client with the use of a fax machine, and photocopier.



ARTICLE II  PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE



The period of performance under this Agreement shall be month-to-month until terminated by 30 days written notice given by either the Client or ORKO.



ARTICLE III  COMPENSATION



As full consideration for the performance of services described herein, the Client shall pay ORKO compensation as follows:



1.

Rent: ($6,130) Cdn. Dollars cash, plus GST paid monthly, in advance.





ARTICLE IV  NOTICES



Notices provided for hereunder may be served personally to the representative of either Party at its respective place of business, or by fax or registered mail to the address of each Party shown on the face hereof.



ARTICLE V  ARBITRATION



Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by binding arbitration in the Province of British Columbia.





ARTICLE VI ENTIRE AGREEMENT



This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties. Any changes or amendments will not be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by both parties.



This Agreement is construed under the laws of British Columbia.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers.



SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED

)

ORKO SILVER CORP.

)

in the presence of:

)

)



)

)

)

)

)



Witness

)

Gary Cope

)

)

)



Address

)

)

)

)

Date

)





SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED

)

Blackcomb Minerals Inc.

)

in the presence of:

)

)

)

)

)

_____

Witness

)

Ross Wilmot

)

)

)

Address

)

)

)

)

Date



#
#### The New York and New Jersey Telephone Company, Respondent, v. Alexander S. Rosenthal, Individually, and as Justice of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, and Others, Appellants.

Motion denied. Present—Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: November 5, 2015 5 20346

________________________________ In the Matter of JOSE A. ROMAN, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ALBERT PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: September 22, 2015 Before: Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________ Jose A. Roman, Brocton, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. After petitioner's urine twice tested positive for the presence of synthetic marihuana, he was charged in a misbehavior report with use of an intoxicant. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty and that determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive test results and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to-2- 520346

support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Harriot v Annucci, 131 AD3d 754, 754 [2015]). A review of the record establishes that petitioner was given all relevant documentary evidence (see Matter of Paddyforte v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2014]; Matter of Jones v Venettozzi, 114 AD3d 980, 981 [2014]). Furthermore, the chain of custody and adherence to proper testing procedures were established through the documentary evidence and testimony from the correction officer who performed the urinalysis tests (see Matter of Cagle v Fischer, 108 AD3d 913, 913 [2013]). To the extent that petitioner asserts that he was improperly charged with use of an intoxicant, we find his contention to be unpersuasive (see Matter of Ralands v Prack, 131 AD3d 1334, 1335 [2015]). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit. Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.2



Statement of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Sempra Energy (the "Company") certifies that:



(i)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







May 5, 2009



/S/  Mark A. SnellMark A. SnellChief Financial Officer
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 638 

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide that any estimate 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee 

on Taxation shall include costs relating to servicing the public debt, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2021 

Mr. CLOUD (for himself, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. PERRY, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. 

BUDD, Mr. PALMER, Mr. BROOKS, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mrs. HINSON, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas, Mr. 

WRIGHT, Mrs. LESKO, Mr. ROY, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. BISHOP of North 

Carolina, Mr. BUCK, Mr. BERGMAN, Mr. HICE of Georgia, Mr. TAYLOR, 

and Mr. GOODEN of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on 

the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide 

that any estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget 

Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation shall include 

costs relating to servicing the public debt, and for other 

purposes. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 638 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cost Estimates Im3 provement Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CBO AND JCT ESTIMATES TO INCLUDE DEBT SERV5 ICING COSTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Congressional Budget and 

7 Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) 

8 is amended by inserting after section 406 the following: 

9 ‘‘ESTIMATES TO INCLUDE DEBT SERVICING COSTS AND A

10 LIST OF DUPLICATIVE ACTIVITIES

11 ‘‘SEC. 407. (a) COST OF DEBT SERVICE.—Any esti12 mate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budg13 et Office under section 402, and any estimate prepared 

14 by the Joint Committee on Taxation, shall include, to the 

15 extent practicable, the costs (if any) of servicing the public 

16 debt. 

17 ‘‘(b) LIST OF DUPLICATIVE ACTIVITIES.—Any esti18 mate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budg19 et Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation shall include 

20 a list of any Federal agencies, programs, and initiatives 

21 with fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative goals or ac22 tivities covered by the legislation.’’. 

23 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

24 of such Act is amended by inserting after the item relating 

25 to section 402 the following: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 638 IH

‘‘407. Estimates to include debt servicing costs and a list of duplicative activities.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### E. Reinhold ROGERS, Jr., Intervenor, Appellant, v. CITY OF CLEARWATER, Florida, the State of Florida and others, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

July 30, 1954.

Robert R. Tench, Clearwater, for appellant.

Charles M. Phillips, Jr., Clearwater, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of State v. City of Pensacola, Fla., 40 So.2d 569; Schmeller v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 38 So.2d 36; State v. City of Clearwater, 124 Fla. 354, 168 So. 546; State v. City of Coral Gables, Fla., 72 So.2d 48; State v. City of Jacksonville, 53 So.2d 306; and State v. City of Miami, Fla., 72 So.2d 655. The case of North Shore Bank v. Town of Surfside, Fla., 72 So.2d 659, is distinguishable in that it concerned an express legislative prohibition against the issuance of bonds in the manner there attempted.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, SE-BRING and HOBSON, JJ., concur.