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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 80 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. J. RES. 80

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 20 (legislative day, December 18), 2001

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Appointing the day for the convening of the second session of the One 
                       Hundred Seventh Congress.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DAY FOR CONVENING OF SECOND REGULAR SESSION OF ONE HUNDRED 
              SEVENTH CONGRESS.

    The second regular session of the One Hundred Seventh Congress 
shall begin at noon on Wednesday, January 23, 2002.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR CALLING SPECIAL SESSION BEFORE CONVENING OF 
              SECOND REGULAR SESSION.

    If the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority 
Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the 
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives and the Minority Leader 
of the Senate, determine that it is in the public interest for Congress 
to assemble before the convening of the second regular session of the 
One Hundred Seventh Congress as provided in section 1--
            (1) the Speaker and Majority Leader shall notify the 
        Members of the House and Senate, respectively, of such 
        determination and of the place and time for Congress to so 
        assemble; and
            (2) Congress shall assemble in accordance with such 
        notification.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 20, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### John McNamara, Respondent, v Vincent Heinlein, as Executor of Carl E. Bartels, Deceased, Appellant.

Weiss, J.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Patsalos, J.), entered December 8, 1989 in Orange County, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

This is an action for specific performance of a contract dated November 29, 1987 which provides for the purchase of defendant’s land by plaintiff. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that plaintiff had assigned his interest in the contract to Houshang and Soraya Namvar and that he therefore had no further interest in the contract. The Nam-vars commenced a separate action against defendant and plaintiff seeking specific performance and damages, alleging *676that they (the Namvars) had purchased an assignment of the aforesaid contract from plaintiff. In an order made September 13, 1989 in the Namvar action, Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that a document signed by plaintiff together with a check from the Namvars was sufficient for Statute of Frauds purposes. At the time of the instant motion by defendant in this action, plaintiff had not yet been served in the Namvar action and therefore could not be bound by the threshold finding in that separate action. There has been no determination in either action that an assignment exists in fact. Supreme Court denied the motion, giving rise to this appeal. We affirm.

In his opposition to the instant motion, plaintiff has shown that an incomplete assignment was placed into escrow pending completion of certain payments and the Namvars’ execution of the contract providing for the assignment as well as other yet unmet conditions. Accordingly, there remain issues of fact to be resolved at trial making denial of the motion for summary judgment correct *(see, Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.,*3 NY2d 395, 404).

Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
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 Justice

###### National Institute of Corrections 

*Time and Date:*                     8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Monday, October 6, 2008. 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 7, 2008.                 

*Place:*                     Federal Correctional Complex, P.O. Box 1600, Butner, North Carolina 27509, Phone: 919.575.3900.                 

*Status:*                     Open.                 

*Matters To Be Considered:*                     The Advisory Board Members will tour the Federal Correctional Institution -1 and the Federal Medical Center; Presentations on Behavioral Health, multitude of behavioral health programs and operations across the complex; Agency Reports; Video presentation by the Director of Office of Justice Program's Smart Office on the Adam Walsh Act; U.S. Parole Commission; American Corrections Association; Federal Judicial Center.                           ( print page 52888)    

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Thomas Beauclair, Deputy Director, 202-307-3106, ext. 44254.                 

Morris L. Thigpen, 

Director.

[FR Doc. E8-21028 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-36-M
#### PRUDHOMME v. LIFE INS. CO. OF VIRGINIA.

No. 6643.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Oct. 28, 1943.

Robert J. Newson, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Wilkinson, Lewis & Wilkinson and Edward S. Klein, all of Shreveport, for ap-pellee.

DREW, Judge.

Plaintiff instituted this suit to recover on two policies of life insurance issued to her husband on August 19, 1918, and September 2, 1918, respectively, in which policies she was made the beneficiary. She alleged that each policy provided that she be paid $250 at the time of the death of the insured if the policies were in full force at the time of his death and further agreed that regardless of whether the policies were in force at the time of his death, she would be paid $67 under each policy, if the premiums had been paid for a period of twelve years or $61 under each policy if the premiums had been paid for eleven years, and for proportionate amounts if the premiums had been paid for any period of time less than eleven years and more than three years.

Plaintiff further alleged the policies lapsed for non-payment of premium on July 28, 1930, which was practically twelve years after they were issued, and that defendant is therefore indebted unto her in the sum of $134 for which amount she prays for judgment.

The petition alleged that the insured died on May 22, 1941, and this suit was filed on May 26, 1942, or one year and four days after the death of the insured.

Defendant filed a plea of prescription of one year, which was referred to the merits, and after answer was filed and the case tried, the lower court rejected plaintiff’s demands on the merits but did not pass on the plea of prescription. Defendant re-urged the plea of prescription in its answer and has answered the appeal here again reurging the plea.

The plea of prescription, in our opinion, should have been sustained on the face of the plaintiff’s petition, to which the insurance policies were attached and made a part thereof. Under the section of the policies, headed, Limitation, it provides: “No suit shall be brought against the Company after one year from the date of the death of the insured.”

Such a provision limiting the time in which suit must be filed has repeatedly been held by the courts of this State and other jurisdictions to be binding between the parties. Green v. Peoples Benev. Industrial Co. of Louisiana, La.App., 5 So.2d 916; Landis & Young v. Gossett & Winn, La.App., 178 So. 760; Edson v. Merchants’ Mut. Ins. Co., 35 La.Ann. 353; Clark v. Sovereign Camp, W.O.W., 8 La.App. 478; Blanks v. Hibernia Ins. Co., 36 La.Ann. 599, 602.

Therefore, since this suit was filed more than one year after the death of the insured, the plea of one-year prescription is sustained and plaintiff’s suit is dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph F. Galibois

v. Civil No. 04-cv-444-JD

John Fisher, Sergeant,

Nashua Police Department

PROCEDURAL ORDER

This case shall be scheduled for a preliminary pretrial

conference before the magistrate judge who shall issue an

appropriate scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

May 2, 2006

cc: Joseph F. Galibois, pro se

Brian J.S. Cullen, Esquire

Case 1:04-cv-00444-JD Document 25 Filed 05/02/2006 Page 1 of 1

Galibois v. Fisher Doc. 25

Dockets.Justia.com
EXHIBIT 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Vincent Shunsky, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Maxco, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
c) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
d) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]
e) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosures controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
f) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
g) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
h) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.   Date:  February 14,  2005      /s/ Vincent Shunsky   Vincent Shunsky Chief Financial Officer
#### Gourmet Management, Inc. et al., Petitioners, v Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Respondent.

Original proceeding commenced in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department pursuant to EDPL 207 to review a determination of the respondent dated September 22, 1989 which authorized the condemnation of certain leaseholds in real property. The determination is unanimously confirmed and the petition is dismissed, without costs.

After complying with the procedural requirements of the EDPL, the respondent determined that the leasehold interests held by the petitioners should be taken by eminent domain. Under the circumstances presented the respondent could lawfully condemn the leasehold estates even though the respondent, or its wholly owned subsidiary the Long Island Rail Road, was the lessor. *(See,*51 NY Jur 2d, Eminent Domain, §39.) Further, the record discloses that there has been no condemnation in excess of that needed for public purposes, and that a taking of the entire leasehold interest of the petitioners is necessary in order to carry out plans for an extensive rehabilitation and improvement of Pennsylvania Station. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 174 (Monday, September 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20931]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m. (Eastern Time), September 15, 2008.

PLACE:  4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20005.

STATUS:  Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the 
public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Parts Open to the Public

    1. Approval of the minutes of the August 18, 2008 Board member 
meeting.
    2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.
    a. Monthly Participant Activity Report.
    b. Monthly Investment Performance Report.
    c. Legislative Report.
    3. Acquisition of SI International by Serco, Inc.
    4. Planning for Potential Emergency Asset Transfer.
    5. Annual Budget Report.
    a. Fiscal Year 2008 Results.
    b. Fiscal Year 2009 Budget.
    c. Fiscal Year 2010 Estimate.

Parts Closed to the Public

    6. Procurement.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, 
Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: September 4, 2008.
Thomas K. Emswiler,
Secretary, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. E8-20931 Filed 9-4-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7**  **452**

CEDEAL T. HARPER , P etitioner

- Appellant ,

v. DAVID BALLARD, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Huntington

. Robert C. Chambers , Chief District Judge. ( 3 :1 3

- cv - 23467 )

Submitted : January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Cedeal T. Harper , Appellant Pro Se. Christopher S. Dodrill, Scott E. Johnson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cedeal T. H arper seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonab le jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitut ional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harper has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Harper’s motions for a certificate of appealability, for leave to proceed in forma paupe ris, and for bail, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with Wdesk from Workiva-->
<!--Copyright 2022 Workiva-->
<!--r:b3600a1a-5d71-4ba1-b0aa-0e5c5aab9fb6,g:978eabfe-fd89-4c97-a5f2-51c3a9a2cc3d-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:cinf="http://www.cinfin.com/20220513" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.cinfin.com/20220513">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2021" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2021/dei-2021.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20220513_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20220513_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="CoverPageCoverPage" roleURI="http://www.cinfin.com/role/CoverPageCoverPage">
        <link:definition>0001001 - Document - Cover Page Cover Page</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 30980 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Brandon L. Jones,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:19

- CR

- 155

- 1

Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Higginson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Brandon L. Jones has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jones has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 15, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-30980 Document: 00515899907 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2021No. 19

- 30980

2 developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Jones ’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Jones ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is
**GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and
the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R**

. 42.2. Case: 19-30980 Document: 00515899907 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2021
IA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 32

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating

to equality of rights and reproductive rights.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 6, 2001

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States relating to equality of rights and reproductive rights.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States:
2

•HJ 32 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall

3 not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any

4 State on account of gender.

5 ‘‘SECTION 2. Reproductive rights for women under

6 the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United

7 States or any State.

8 ‘‘SECTION 3. The Congress shall have power to imple9 ment and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

10 ‘‘SECTION 4. This amendment shall take effect two

11 years after the date of ratification.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>


                                                                Exhibit 32.2

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*


In connection with the Quarterly Report of PGI Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Laurence A.
Schiffer, Chief Financial 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer
---------------------------------------------------
    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)     August 4, 2010

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