alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gladstone FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, United States of America, Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB & Dime Savings Bank of New York, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 02-6022.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2002.

Gladstone Ford, pro se, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellant.

Thomas J. Clark, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, D.C., for United States of America and United States Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service (Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert J. Branman, on brief), for Appellees.

Andrew S. Fisher, Esq., Fisher & Fisher, New York, NY, for Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB.

Michael P. Versichelli, Esq., Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale, NY, for Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB.

*491Present CARDAMONE, MINER and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Gladstone Ford, *pro se*and *in forma pauperis,*appeals from the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine. *See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,*263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); *District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).

On an appeal from a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions *de novo. See Duckett v. Bure,*290 F.3d 493, 496 (2d Cir.2002).

The teachings of *Rooker-Feldman*and its progeny require this Court to affirm the district court’s dismissal of Ford’s action against Dime and Oewen. Ford’s claims regarding the alleged fraud and the statute of limitations with respect to the foreclosure judgment are inextricably intertwined with the state court’s underlying foreclosure judgment. *See Phifer v. City of New York.,*289 F.3d 49, 55 (2d Cir. 2002). In essence, Ford seeks a declaration that the foreclosure judgment is void, thereby requiring reversal of the state court foreclosure judgment. Ford has availed himself of all avenues of relief in state court, with the state court ruling against him in every instance. Ford now seeks relief from the state courts’ decisions, and, as a result, is barred by *Rooker-Feldman.*The district court, therefore, properly dismissed the action against Dime and Oewen.

Ford raises several additional arguments on appeal which we have considered, and find to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0000813 27-JUN-2014 08:49 AM
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6665 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6665

To direct the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the number of members 
  of the Armed Forces who are deployed by reason of the situation in 
 Ukraine does not exceed the number of members of the Armed Forces who 
       are deployed to the Southern Border of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 2022

 Mr. Cawthorn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the number of members 
  of the Armed Forces who are deployed by reason of the situation in 
 Ukraine does not exceed the number of members of the Armed Forces who 
       are deployed to the Southern Border of the United States.

    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 ``Ukraine and Southern Border Act'' or 
the ``USB Act''.

SEC. 2. DEPLOYMENT OF AT LEAST EQUAL NUMBERS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
              FORCES TO SOUTHERN BORDER OF UNITED STATES AS BY REASON 
              OF SITUATION IN UKRAINE.

    The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the number of members of 
the Armed Forces who are deployed by reason of the situation in Ukraine 
does not exceed the number of members of the Armed Forces who are 
deployed to the Southern Border of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
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 Lexington Energy Services Inc. (the "Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  November 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Robert Rosner,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (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 result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Robert Rosner ------------------- Robert Rosner President and Chief Executive Officer  March 14, 2008
##### 



Dental Care Plus, Inc. and DCP Holding Company
 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
 Originally Effective January 1, 2006
 Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2008




---



##### 



TABLE OF CONTENTS
 PageARTICLE I DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
    
    
    1ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY AND PARTICIPATION
    
    
    3ARTICLE III DEFERRED COMPENSATION
    
    
    4ARTICLE IV VESTING
    
    
    6ARTICLE V DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS
    
    
    6ARTICLE VI PLAN ADMINISTRATION
    
    
    7ARTICLE VII AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION
    
    
    9ARTICLE VIII MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
    
    
    9




---



##### 



Dental Care Plus, Inc. and DCP Holding Company
 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
  Background Information
    DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
 Definitions
 Account
 Administrative Committee
 Beneficiary
 Board
 Change of Control
  1




---



##### 



Code
 Company
 Compensation
 Distribution Options
 Effective Date
 Eligible Person
 ERISA
 Participant
 Plan
 2




---



##### 



Plan Year
 Retirement
 Separation from Service or Separate from Service
 Shares
 Total Disability
 General Provisions
 ELIGIBILITY AND PARTICIPATION
 General Eligibility Conditions
 Specific Conditions for Active Participation; Deferral Elections i.e. st
 Eligibility List; Suspension of Active Participation
 3




---



##### 



Termination of Participation
 Participation by Other Employers
 DEFERRED COMPENSATION
 Deferred Compensation Credits
 Suspension of Deferrals
 Record of Account
 4




---



##### 



Special Rules Applicable to Shares
   5




---



##### 



VESTING
 Vesting
 Confidentiality and Non-competition Agreement
 DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS
 Distribution Timing
 Distribution upon Separation from Service due to Retirement or Other Termination of
Employment or Service as a Director
 Distribution upon Death
 6




---



##### 



Distribution in the Event of Total Disability
  Lump Sum Distribution of Small Amounts or upon a Change of Control
 Distribution at a Fixed Date
 Distribution of Cash
 Time of Payment
 PLAN ADMINISTRATION
 Administration
 7




---



##### 



Administrative Committee
   Statement of Participants Account
 Filing Claims
 Notification to Claimant
     Review Procedure
 8




---



##### 



Payment of Expenses
 AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION
 Amendment
 Termination
 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
 Employment Relationship
 Facility of Payments
 Funding
 Anti-Assignment
 9




---



##### 



Unclaimed Interests
 References to Code, Statutes and Regulations
 Liability
 Tax Consequences of Compensation Reductions
 Company as Agent for Related Employers
 Governing Law; Severability
 Taxes
 DCP Holding Company
    
    Dental Care Plus, Inc.By:
    
    
    
    By:Title:
    
    
    
    Title:Date:
    
    
    
    Date:
 10
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6719 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6719

  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 and the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999 to provide assistance to non-Federal 
 interests for water-related environmental infrastructure projects in 
      northern and southern West Virginia, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2022

 Mr. McKinley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 and the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999 to provide assistance to non-Federal 
 interests for water-related environmental infrastructure projects in 
      northern and southern West Virginia, and for other purposes.

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

SEC. 1. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INFRASTRUCTURE 
              AND RESOURCE PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT PILOT PROGRAM.

    Section 340(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4856) is amended by inserting ``Gilmer, Mason, Putnam, Kanawha, 
Jackson, Roane, Clay, Wirt, Calhoun, Braxton, Pendleton,'' before 
``Raleigh''.

SEC. 2. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

    Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 371) is amended--
            (1) in the section heading by striking ``central'' and 
        inserting ``northern'';
            (2) by striking ``central'' and inserting ``northern'' each 
        place it appears; and
            (3) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
    ``(a) Definition of Northern West Virginia.--In this section, the 
term `northern West Virginia' means the counties of Lewis, Upshur, 
Randolph, Hardy, Hampshire, Morgan, Berkeley, Jefferson, Hancock, Ohio, 
Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, 
Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, Tucker, Mineral, Grant, 
Brooke, and Ritchie, West Virginia.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 15.2

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Shareholders of Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb and Service GmbH & Co. KG, Unterföhring:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of financial position of Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb and Service GmbH &
Co. KG, Unterföhring (and subsidiaries), as of March 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income, consolidated statements of cash flows and statements of changes in consolidated equity of the three years in
the period ended March 31, 2010. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements,
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position
of Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb and Service GmbH & Co. KG, Unterföhring (and subsidiaries), at March 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the
period ended March 31, 2010, in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB).

July 20, 2010

Ernst & Young
GmbH

Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft

Munich, Germany



|                  |  |  |  |                   |  | 
|----------------- |  |  |  | ----------------- |  | 
|/s/ Martin Dahmen |  |  |  | /s/ Josef Christ  |  | 
|Martin Dahmen     |  |  |  | Josef Christ      |  | 
|Wirtschaftsprüfer |  |  |  | Wirtschaftsprüfer |  |
EXHIBIT 10.06


 EXHIBIT 10.6


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE RESTATED

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE
RETIREMENT

AND LIFE PLAN OF 

AVON PRODUCTS, INC. 

      THIS
    FIRST AMENDMENT, made on this 26th day of October 2000, by AVON PRODUCTS,
    INC. (the “Company”), a corporation duly organized and existing
    under the laws of the State of New York; 

WITNESSETH: 

      WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Supplemental Executive Retirement and Life Plan of Avon Products, Inc. (the “Plan”) which was last amended and restated as of July 1, 1998; and 


       WHEREAS, the Company desires to further amend the Plan with respect to the interest rate used to determine actuarial equivalence in certain circumstances; 


       NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective November 1, 2000, by amending Section 2.1 in its entirety to read as follows: 


  
              “2.1   ‘Actuarial Equivalent’ shall mean a benefit of equivalent value, when computed on the basis of the same mortality table and the rate or rates of interest and/or the empirical tables which are being used to determine the
    Participant’s benefit under the Retirement Plan.  However, in the case of lump sum distributions of a Participant’s Supplemental Retirement Allowance, the conversion factor used to determine the actuarial equivalent shall be the same as
    specified in Section (e) of Appendix 1 of the Retirement Plan.” 



      Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as to this First Amendment. 

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed on the day and year first above written. 

 



  	AVON PRODUCTS, INC.
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Andrea Jung
	 	

	Title:	President and Chief Executive Officer 




ATTEST: 

_____________________ 

  Title: Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>
<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>                     This schedule contains summary financial
                             information extracted from Hondo Oil & Gas
                             Company's Form 10-Q for the period identified
                             below.  This information is qualified in its
                             entirety by reference to such financial
                             statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                          1,000
       
<S>                          <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<CASH>                                  186
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                           300
<ALLOWANCES>                            205
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        608
<PP&E>                               31,302
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       34,889
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                71,802
<BONDS>                              28,686
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             13,781
<OTHER-SE>                         (100,055)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         34,889
<SALES>                                   1
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         20
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           335
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    2,878
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (5,444)
<INCOME-TAX>                             (2)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (5,442)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         (5,442)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.40)
        




















</TABLE>
VIII 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 680 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 8 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 2022 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

For the relief of Arpita Kurdekar, Girish Kurdekar, and 

Vandana Kurdekar. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 680 RFS

1 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ARPITA 

2 KURDEKAR, GIRISH KURDEKAR, AND 

3 VANDANA KURDEKAR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

5 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

6 Act, Arpita Kurdekar, Girish Kurdekar, and Vandana 

7 Kurdekar shall each be eligible for issuance of an immi8 grant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien 

9 lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an 

10 application for issuance of an immigrant visa under sec11 tion 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful 

12 permanent resident. 

13 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Arpita Kurdekar, 

14 Girish Kurdekar, or Vandana Kurdekar enters the United 

15 States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 

16 he or she shall be considered to have entered and remained 

17 lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for ad18 justment of status under section 245 of the Immigration 

19 and Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of 

20 this Act. 

21 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

22 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap23 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica24 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

25 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 680 RFS

1 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

2 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res3 idence to Arpita Kurdekar, Girish Kurdekar, and Vandana 

4 Kurdekar, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 

5 officer to reduce by 3, during the current or next following 

6 fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 

7 made available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth 

8 under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

9 Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 

10 that are made available to natives of the country of the 

11 aliens’ birth under section 202(e) of such Act. 

12 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

13 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

14 parents, brothers, and sisters of Arpita Kurdekar, Girish 

15 Kurdekar, and Vandana Kurdekar shall not, by virtue of 

16 such relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or sta17 tus under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 7, 2022. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50314-50315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19685]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13190-000]


Ceresco Power and Light; Notice of Application for Preliminary 
Permit Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to 
Intervene, and Protests

August 19, 2008.
    On April 18, 2008, Ceresco Power and Light filed an application, 
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), to study the 
feasibility of Ceresco Hydroelectric Project. The proposed project 
would be located on the Kalamazoo River in Calhoun County, Michigan. 
The existing Ceresco Dam is owned by the applicant. No lands of the 
United States are within the proposed project boundary.
    The proposed project using the existing Ceresco Dam would consist 
of: (1) A proposed powerhouse, containing four turbine-generator units, 
switchgears, circuit breakers, transformers, and a control panel; (2) a 
proposed service building; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The proposed 
project would have a total installed capacity of 800 kilowatts and an 
average annual generation of 2.6 gigawatt-hours, to be sold to a local 
utility, Consumers Energy, or the City of Battle Creek, MI.
    Applicant Contact: William Morris, 544 West Columbia Avenue, Suite 
B,

[[Page 50315]]

Battle Creek, MI 49015, (269) 968-4242 ext. 105.
    FERC Contact: Jake Tung, (202) 502-8757.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13190) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-19685 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P