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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1738

To provide a grant under the urban park and recreation recovery program

to assist in the development of a Millennium Cultural Cooperative Park

in Youngstown, Ohio.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 3, 2001

Mr. TRAFICANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To provide a grant under the urban park and recreation

recovery program to assist in the development of a Millennium Cultural Cooperative Park in Youngstown, Ohio.

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

3 SECTION 1. URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY

4 PROGRAM GRANT FOR NONPROFIT YOUNGS5 TOWN PLAYHOUSE OF YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO.

6 (a) GRANT AUTHORITY.—Using funds appropriated

7 or otherwise made available to carry out the Urban Park

8 and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501

9 et seq.) for fiscal years 2002 through 2006, the Secretary
2

•HR 1738 IH

1 of Interior shall make a grant in each of such fiscal years

2 to the nonprofit Youngstown Playhouse of Youngstown,

3 Ohio, to assist the grant recipient to develop a Millennium

4 Cultural Cooperative Park in Youngstown, Ohio. The

5 amount of the grant for a fiscal year shall be equal to

6 $2,000,000.

7 (b) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary, acting

8 through the National Park Service, shall provide technical

9 assistance to the grant recipient in developing this unique

10 type of urban park.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 6/30/97
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          91,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  844,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                    38,700
<INVENTORY>                                    833,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,910,000
<PP&E>                                       2,932,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,406,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,952,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,929,600
<BONDS>                                      1,412,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          307,800
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     849,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,952,600
<SALES>                                      4,811,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,811,600
<CGS>                                        2,874,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,874,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,462,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             129,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                345,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                    54,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            314,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   314,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.83<F1>
<FN>
<F1>LOSS-PROVISION INCLUDED IN OTHER-EXPENSE ABOVE.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### Lorraine Evans, Respondent, v John Craig et al., Appellants.

[807 NYS2d 417]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated July 23, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, an employee of the United States Fostal Service, was allegedly injured by the defendants’ dog when she was delivering mail to the defendants’ home. The dog allegedly ran out of the defendants’ house and jumped on her. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this negligence action to recover damages for her injuries, alleging that the defendants were negligent in failing to secure and control their dog. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff relied on a common-law negligence theory. Thus, the issue is whether or not the defendants breached a duty of *583care owed to the plaintiff by negligently failing to take reasonable measures to prevent a foreseeable injury (see *Colarusso v Dunne,*286 AD2d 37 [2001]; *see also Parente v Chavez,*17 AD3d 648, 650 [2005]).

The defendants correctly contend that Town of New Windsor Code § 14-5, which prohibits unleashed dogs in public places including public streets, is inapplicable under the facts of this case on the ground that there was no evidence that the dog was off the defendants’ property on a public street.

However, the defendants’ deposition testimony indicates that the dog would jump up on his hind legs, and would not respond to commands to return to the house. The defendants claimed that they exercised precautions in restraining their 100-pound dog in the backyard whenever strangers came to the door. However, those precautions were not taken on the instant occasion. Further, the deposition testimony indicated that the 81-year-old defendant, John Craig, had difficulty controlling the dog on his own. Based upon the defendants’ deposition testimony, there are triable issues of fact, inter alia, as to whether the defendants should have been aware of a potential danger and whether the defendants took proper precautions under the circumstances *(see Goldberg v LoRusso,*288 AD2d 257 [2001]). Cozier, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph Griffiths

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00507-JL

Certain Underwriters at

Lloyds, London

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in open court

on May 26, 2009.

The Discovery Plan (document no. 10) is approved as

submitted, with the following changes:

• Trial – April, 2010

Based on the discussions at the conference, the following

affirmative defenses are stricken without prejudice to being

reinstated on request if warranted by the evidence: Lloyd’s

third (waiver), fourth (occurrence of conditions precedent),

fifth (plaintiff’s breach), eighth (improper service) and ninth

(misnamed defendant), as well as Stokes’ identical defenses.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: May 28, 2009

cc: Joseph Griffiths, pro se

Ralph Suozzo, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00507-JL Document 12 Filed 05/28/09 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

ISONICS CORPORATION

 

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Principal Financial Officer

 

                Tomy knowledge: the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31,2008, containing financial statements for the period then ended, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934;and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IsonicsCorporation for the periods presented.

 

March 13, 2008

 
| /s/ Gregory A. Meadows                           |
|--------------------------------------------------|
| Gregory A. Meadows, Chief Financial Officer  and |
| Principal Financial Officer                      |

 

----
Order entered June 7, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01371-CR

DALE ALLEN BECKER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F90-35497-S

ORDER

In this case, appellant raises an issue related to the costs assessed against him. The 

record, however, does not contain a cost bill or other document with an itemized list of costs 

assessed in this case.

Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN 

DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization 

of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court 

appointed attorney fees. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s record include a 

document explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court 

appointed attorney fee.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal 

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

National Pasteurized

Eggs, LLC

v. Civil No. 07-103-JL

L. John Davidson

PROCEDURAL ORDER

On May 11, this court held a telephone conference with

counsel to discuss, inter alia, the motion practice surrounding

the various affidavits submitted by the defendant in connection

with the motions for summary judgment. The court ordered the

defendant to electronically file properly signed versions of

those affidavits by 5 p.m. that day. The court also ordered that

this filing would be without prejudice to the arguments made by

the plaintiff in its objections to the defendant’s motions for

leave to file substitute affidavits (that objection is document

no. 82) and to extend time (that objection is document no. 83),

as well as the plaintiffs’ motions to strike the substitute

affidavits (that motion to strike is document no. 84) and the

defendant’s motion for summary judgment (that motion to strike is

document no. 85).

By May 18, the plaintiff shall file any additional

objections, not to exceed ten pages, to the versions of the

affidavits filed on May 11. Also by May 18, the defendant shall

file his objections to the plaintiff’s motions to strike

Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 89 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 2
(document nos. 84-85). No reply memoranda shall be permitted to

these objections, the plaintiff’s additional objections to the

affidavits filed on May 11, or the plaintiff’s objections already

on file (document nos. 82-83).

The court will then promptly issue an order on whether the

affidavits should be considered in ruling on the motions for

summary judgment and, in so doing, disposing of all of the

foregoing motions and objections filed in connection with the

affidavits. If necessary in light of that ruling, the order will

also set the deadlines for the plaintiff to object to the

defendant’s motion for summary judgment and for the defendant to

reply to that objection.

Finally, that portion of the court’s April 2 order directing

the parties to file a new discovery plan is VACATED. If

necessary, the process of scheduling further events in this case

will await the court’s decisions whether to consider the

affidavits and, also if necessary, on the summary judgment

motions.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: May 12, 2010

cc: D. William Toone, Esq.

Peter G. Callaghan, Esq.

Paul C. Bordeau, Esq.

Marshall D. Hickock, Esq.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 89 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 19 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 19

   To nullify the effect of certain provisions of various Executive 
                                orders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

 Mr. Barr of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
              to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To nullify the effect of certain provisions of various Executive 
                                orders.

    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 ``Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) past Presidents have issued Executive orders which 
        severely limit the use of the military when dealing with 
        potential threats against the United States of America;
            (2) these Executive orders limit the swift, sure, and 
        precise action needed by the United States to protect our 
        national security;
            (3) present strategy allows the military forces to bomb 
        large targets hoping to eliminate a terrorist leader, but 
        prevents our country from designing a limited action which 
        would specifically accomplish that purpose;
            (4) on several occasions the military has been ordered to 
        use a military strike hoping, in most cases unsuccessfully, to 
        remove a terrorist leader who has committed crimes against the 
        United State;
            (5) as the threat from terrorism grows, America must 
        continue to investigate effective ways to combat the menace 
        posed by those who would murder American citizens simply to 
        make a political point; and
            (6) actions by the United States Government to remove such 
        persons is a remedy which should be used sparingly and 
        considered only after all other reasonable options have failed 
        or are not available; however, this is an option our country 
        must maintain for cases in which international threats cannot 
        be eliminated by other means.

SEC. 3. NULLIFICATION OF EFFECT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF VARIOUS 
              EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

    The following provisions of Executive orders shall have no further 
force or effect:
            (1) Section 5(g) of Executive Order 11905.
            (2) Section 2-305 of Executive Order 12036.
            (3) Section 2.11 of Executive Order 12333.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/ RULE

15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

I, Glenn J. Fusfield, certify that:

|   | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of OneSpaWorld Holdings Limited; and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

April 29, 2020

 

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Glenn J. Fusfield                           |
| Glenn J. Fusfield                               |
| President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
<PAGE>
                           Lafarge North America Inc.
                              12950 Worldgate Drive
                             Herndon, Virginia 20170

               Letter to Commission Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T


                                 March 28, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
Division of Corporation Finance
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

        Re: Arthur Andersen LLP

Ladies and Gentlemen:

        In connection with the audit by Arthur Andersen LLP of the consolidated
financial statements of Lafarge North America Inc. and subsidiaries (the
"Company") as of December 31, 2001 and for the year then ended and the Company's
receipt from Arthur Andersen LLP after March 14, 2002 of Arthur Andersen's
report on such financial statements, Arthur Andersen LLP has represented in
writing to the Company that its "audit was subject to [Arthur Andersen LLP's]
quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen
personnel working on the audit, availability of national office consultation,
and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen to
conduct the relevant portions of the audit."


                                    LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA INC.


                                    By:/s/ Larry J. Waisanen
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Larry J. Waisanen
                                       Executive Vice President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer
NUMBER 13-19-00614-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A. A. G., A CHILD

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 28th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

Appellant, Erika Garza, appealed a judgment entered by the 28th District Court of

Nueces County, Texas. On December 4, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant

that her Notice of Appeal was defective and requested it be corrected within 30 days. 

Additionally, on December 19, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant, in 

accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this 

appeal unless the $205.00 filing fee was paid within 10 days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). 
2

Appellant has not responded to either notice from the Clerk nor paid the $205.00 filing 

fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 12.1(b).

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to pay 

the filing fee, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 42.3(b),(c). 

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

JAIME TIJERINA,

Justice

Delivered and filed the 

20th day of February, 2020.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dana Rosencranz and Robin Rosencranz

Civil No. 08-cv-274-JM

v.

Sean Stone and Stoneco Custom Building & Remodeling, LLC

O R D E R

The court has been advised that Sean Stone and Stoneco Custom Building &

Remodeling, LLC have filed for relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

There appears to be no further reason to maintain the file as an open one for statistical

purposes. The Clerk is instructed to statistically close the case.

Nothing contained in this Order shall be considered a dismissal or disposition of this

matter, and should further proceedings become necessary, any party may move to reopen.

SO ORDERED.

October 22, 2008 /s/ James R. Muirhead 

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Peter G. McGrath, Esq.

Frank P. Spinella, Jr., Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00274-JM Document 27 Filed 10/22/08 Page 1 of 1
| Period | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
|--------|----|----|----|----|-------|
| 1981   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 1982   | 2  | 3  | 3  | 3  | 11    |
| 1983   | 1  | 1  | 2  | 3  | 7     |
| 1984   | 3  | 7  | 10 | 12 | 32    |
| 1985   | 12 | 21 | 17 | 18 | 68    |
| 1986   | 14 | 14 | 21 | 16 | 65    |
| 1987   | 22 | 19 | 12 | 16 | 69    |
| 1988   | 11 | 6  | 12 | 7  | 36    |
| 1989   | 5  | 7  | 5  | 5  | 22    |
| 1990   | 3  | 5  | 6  | 3  | 17    |
| 1991   | 2  | 2  | 3  | 1  | 8     |
| 1992   | 1  | 1  | 1  | 4  | 7     |
| 1993   | 1  | 2  | 2  | 0  | 5     |
| 1994   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1995   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1996   | 0  | 2  | 0  | 0  | 2     |
| 1997   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 1     |
| 1998   | 0  | 0  | 1  | 0  | 1     |
| 1999   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2000   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2001   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2002   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 2     |
| 2003   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2004   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2005   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2006   | 0  | 0  | 0  | .  | .     |
B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm production

Estimated volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1996...... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.4 1.2 1.3 .3 1.0

1997...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.0 .9 1.1 .2 .9

1998...... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.2 1.0 1.2 .3 .9

1999...... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

2000...... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001...... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002...... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003...... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

2005...... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

2006...... .7 .4 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

1999: Q3... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .5 2.2 .8 1.4 .4 1.0

 Q4... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

2000: Q1... 1.3 .6 .6 .2 .5 3.0 1.5 1.5 .4 1.1

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.2 .9 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 1.9 .7 1.2 .2 1.0

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001: Q1... 1.7 1.0 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.2 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q2... 1.4 .6 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .4 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .7 2.8 1.0 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.1 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .5 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 4.0 2.1 1.9 .4 1.5

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .9 .2 .7 3.1 1.1 2.0 .5 1.5

 Q3... 1.2 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004: Q1... 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5 3.0 1.3 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .7 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.7 .6 1.1 .2 .9

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

2005: Q1... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.3 1.2 1.1 .3 .9

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .3 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .6

 Q4... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

2006: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.8 1.1 .8 .2 .5

 Q2... .7 .3 .4 .1 .2 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

 Q3... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.2 .5 .7 .2 .5

 Q4... .7 .4 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

 Note. Data are estimates of the national totals for non-real-estate farm loans. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign

results for large banks that report farm delinquencies on a consolidated basis and for small banks that are allowed to report

delinquencies according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

22