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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6547 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6547

To direct the Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban 
  Development to submit to the Congress a report on the New York City 
               Housing Authority, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2022

 Ms. Malliotakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban 
  Development to submit to the Congress a report on the New York City 
               Housing Authority, 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 ``NYCHA Accountability Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. REPORT TO THE CONGRESS ON NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development shall submit to the Congress a report that contains--
            (1) an analysis of health and safety conditions with 
        respect to dwelling units owned or administered by the New York 
        City Housing Authority;
            (2) an analysis of the New York City Housing Authority's 
        compliance with Federal, State, and local housing regulations;
            (3) an audit of the Federal funds received by the New York 
        City Housing Authority during fiscal years 2014 through 2022; 
        and
            (4) additional findings and recommendations of the 
        Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban 
        Development.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE ex rel. S. C. WINFREE et ux. v. VERNON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD (Miss Pearle PEACE, Intervener).

No. 1788.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 11, 1938.

Olin D. Moore and J. Reuel Boone, both of Many, for plaintiff.

Edwin M. Fraser, of Many, for defendant

Woosley & Cavanaugh, of Leesville, for intervener.

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons given in State ex rel. Austin L. Temple v. Vernon Parish School Board, Intervention of Miss Pearle Peace, La.App., 178 So. 176, this day decided, the motion to dismiss or remand the case is overruled;, and it is ordered that the judgment dismissing the intervention of Miss Pearle Peace is affirmed at her costs; and that the judgment in favor of relator and against the defendant school board is affirmed at the cost of defendant.
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
     10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
     report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2006-030
     (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 in order 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.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
     fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
     respects;

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 Rule 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.

In giving the certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

            JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents

Date:  August 29, 2006


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum


Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
#### Valdencio PEREIRA, aka Val Pereira Steil Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 01-70887.

INS No. [ AXX XXX XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 10, 2002.

Decided Nov. 8, 2002.

Before KLEINFELD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and QUACKENBUSH,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Justin L. Quackenbush, Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM**

Valdencio Pereira, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal and agreeing with the IJ that even though the petitioner’s testimony was credible, the petitioner had failed to establish he had suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution in Brazil to *384entitle him to asylum and withholding of deportation.

The BIA reviewed the IJ’s decision *de novo.*Thus our review is limited to the decision of the BIA. *Ghaly v. INS., 58*F.3d 1425 (9th Cir.1995). Because the transitional rules apply, *see Kalaw v. INS.,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s determination that an applicant has not established eligibility for asylum, and we must uphold the BIA’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary result. *Singh v. INS,*134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 1998). We deny the petition.

Pereira testified that, due to his participation in a student political organization, “O Sul E Meo Pais” with the purpose of gaming support for the secession of the southern regions of Brazil from the rest of the country, he was under constant police surveillance in Brazil. However, he admitted that he was never arrested, detained, or interrogated by police. Pereira also testified that he learned other members of “O Sul El Meo Pais” were being arrested, and feared he was also in danger. This stated fear was unsupported by any evidence that any member of “0 Sul E Meo Pais” was ever abducted, abused, or mistreated in any way.

Because the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Pereira was persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of an enumerated ground, the BIA’s determination that Pereira faded to establish eligibility for asylum is supported by substantial evidence. *See Acewicz v. INS,*984 F.2d 1056, 1060-62. It therefore follows that Pereira necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. *See Prasad v. INS,*47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1995).

PETITION DENIED.

**

 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.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 50334)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Mentored Clinical Scientist Development and Independent Scientist Awards.                    

*Date:*                         September 18-19, 2008.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Marriott Crystal City, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Rina Das, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Review Branch/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7200, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0297,                         *dasr2@nhlbi.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 19, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-19671 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### FOUNDATION FINANCE COMPANY, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Sam ROBBINS et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. 14075.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 30, 1932.

Benjamin Y. Wolf, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Guy J. D’Antonio, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee. . : ' .

HIGGINS, J.

This matter is before us on motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the return day was not within the time limit fixed by law.

We find that the judgment was rendered on November 9, 1931. On November 18, 1931, an order was rendered granting a suspensive appeal. The return day, as fixed in the order, was November 28, 1931. The transcript was filed in this court on November 27, 1931.

It is contended by mover that, under Act No. 128 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.), in cases such as this, where the amount in dispute is more than $100 and less than $300¡- and appeals from city courts are taken to this court, the record must be lodged in this court within ten days from the date on which the judgment was rendered.

For the reasons given by us in Calvin Evans v. First National Life Insurance Company, 142 So. 356, this day decided, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Motion to dismiss denied.

WESTERFIELD, J.,

dissents for written reasons. See Calvin Evans v. First National Life Ins. Co. (La. App.) 142 So. 356, this day decided.
EX-33 (c)
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK

SERVICER'S REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE


Washington Mutual Bank (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing
compliance as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006
through December 31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period") of the Platform Transactions
(as defined below) with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of
Regulation AB (12 CFR part 229.1122), except the following criteria 1(iii) and
3(i)(C) and (D), which we have concluded are either (i) not applicable to the
servicing of the mortgage loans included in the Platform Transactions (each, a
"Mortgage Loan"), or (ii) performed by other parties with respect to the
Mortgage Loans (such criteria, after giving effect to the foregoing exceptions,
the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). The transactions covered by this
Servicer's Assessment are those securitizations of pools of mortgage loans that
were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and prior to January 1, 2007 for
which the Asserting Party performed servicing functions set forth in Item
1122(d), that included one or more classes of publicly offered securities
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the
Securities Act of 1933, and for which the Asserting Party has an obligation to
deliver an Assessment of Compliance pursuant to Item 1122 (the "Platform
Transactions").

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period, using the Applicable Servicing
Criterion, and has concluded that it has complied in all material respects with
the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Mortgage Loans.

Deloitte & Touche LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an
attestation report on the Asserting Party's assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.

Dated: March 14, 2007

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK


By:    /s/ H. John Berens
Name:  H. John Berens
Title: Senior Vice President
PM-EX10.3_03.31.14-Q1




Exhibit 10.3


EXECUTION VERSION




The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, as Administrative Agent
for the Lenders party to the Credit Agreement
referred to below




Ladies and Gentlemen:


The undersigned (the “Extending Lender”) hereby agrees to extend, effective 31 January 2014 (the “Extension Date”), its Commitment and the Maturity Date under the Credit Agreement, dated as of 12 February 2013 (as amended or modified from time to time, the “Credit Agreement,” the terms defined therein being used herein as therein defined if not defined herein), among Philip Morris International Inc. (“PMI”), the Lenders party thereto and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, as Administrative Agent, for an additional 364-day period to 10 February 2015 (the “Extended Maturity Date”) pursuant to Section 2.19 of the Credit Agreement.


The Extending Lender, PMI and the Administrative Agent hereby agree that, from and after the Extension Date, all references to the “Maturity Date” in the Credit Agreement shall be deemed to refer to the Extended Maturity Date as such references relate to the Extending Lender and its Commitments (including, without limitation, for purposes of Sections 2.4(b) and 2.19(a) of the Credit Agreement). For the avoidance of doubt, in no event shall references to the “Maturity Date” in the Credit Agreement be deemed to refer to the Extended Maturity Date as such references relate to a Non-Extending Lender and its Commitments.


The Extending Lender, PMI and the Administrative Agent hereby further agree that, from and after the Extension Date, Schedule 4 to the Credit Agreement shall be amended and restated in its entirety as set forth in Exhibit A hereto.


Except as expressly provided hereby, all of the terms and provisions of the Credit Agreement are and shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed.


This Extension Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York. This Extension Agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which when executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.






[Signature pages omitted]
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00241

- CV

BILREYNA MOORE , Appellant

v.

THE HARTNETT LAW FIR M , Appellee

From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. D14

- 23554

- CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Bilreyna Moore, filed her notice of appeal on July 22, 2016, challenging

the trial court’s Final Judgment in favor of appellee, The Hartnett Law Firm. The required

docketing statement was not received. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.1. On August 26, 2016, we

sent a letter explaining that the docketing statement must be filed and warning that the

Court would dismiss the appeal if a docketing statement was not filed within twenty

- one
days. See id. at R. 42.3(c).Moore v. The Hartnett Law Firm Page 2

More than twenty

- one days have passed, a nd we have not received the docketing

statement. 1 Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See id. at R. 32.1, 42.3(c); see also Hensley

v. W.M. Specialty Mortgage, LLC , 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 9614, at **1

- 2 (Tex. App.

— Waco

Nov. 16, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( dismissing a case for failure to file a docketing

statement).

AL SCOGGINS Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed December 14, 2016 [CV06]

1 The record also reflects that appellant has not made arrangements to pay for the Clerk’s and Reporter’s Records. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3. On August 30, 2016, we informed appellant that her appeal would be dismissed within twenty

- one days after the date of the letter if she did not pay or make arrangements to pay for the records. On September 27, 2016, more than twenty

- one days after our A ugust 30, 2016 letter, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file the record, requesting a thirty

- day extension and asserting that the parties had entered into a verbal settlement of the claims at issue. On October 4, 2016, we granted appellan t’s motion for extension of time to file the record and ordered that the record be filed by October 31, 2016. We have received no response to our October 4, 2016 order. Additionally, on November 8, 2016, we requested an update from appellant regarding th e purported settlement of this case. In our November 8, 2016 letter, we informed appellant that this case would be dismissed if a response was not filed within twenty

- one days. See id. at R. 42.3(b)

- (c), 44.3. Like before, appellant did not respond to o ur request for a status update regarding settlement. Accordingly, in addition to the failure to file the docketing statement, this case could also be dismissed for a failure to respond to this Court’s orders or for want of prosecution for failing to pay o r make arrangements to pay for the record. See id. at R. 42.3(b)

- (c).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2551

MR. JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. 

(1:12-cv-03485-ELH)

Submitted: March 21, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr. appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his civil case. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. See Brown v. U.S. 

District Courts, No. 1:12-cv-03485-ELH (D. Md. filed Dec. 3, 

2012; entered Dec. 7, 2012). We grant Brown leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis but deny his motion to seal the case. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Albert Rodler v. Deutscher Krieger Bund, New York.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Settle order on notice.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6398 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6398

 To increase the rates of pay under the statutory pay systems and for 
   prevailing rate employees by 5.1 percent, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 2022

    Mr. Connolly (for himself, Ms. Norton, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Brown of 
 Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Trone, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Beyer, and 
 Ms. Wexton) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To increase the rates of pay under the statutory pay systems and for 
   prevailing rate employees by 5.1 percent, 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 ``Federal Adjustment of Income Rates 
Act'' or the ``FAIR Act''.

SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT TO RATES OF PAY.

    (a) Statutory Pay Systems.--For calendar year 2023, the percentage 
adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, in the 
rates of basic pay under the statutory pay systems (as defined in 
section 5302 of title 5, United States Code) shall be 4.1 percent.
    (b) Prevailing Rate Employees.--Notwithstanding the wage survey 
requirements under section 5343(b) of title 5, United States Code, for 
fiscal year 2023, the rates of basic pay (as in effect on the last day 
of fiscal year 2022 under section 5343(a) of such title) for prevailing 
rate employees in each wage area and the rates of basic pay under 
sections 5348 and 5349 of such title shall be increased by 4.1 percent.

SEC. 3. ADJUSTMENT TO LOCALITY PAY.

    For calendar year 2023, the percentage adjustment under section 
5304 of title 5, United States Code, shall be an increase of 1.0 
percent.
                                 <all>
```