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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1970

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize Army arsenals to undertake to fulfill orders or contracts for articles or services in advance

of the receipt of payment under certain circumstances.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 2001

Mr. MCNULTY (for himself, Mr. EVANS, Mr. LEACH, and Mr. SWEENEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize Army

arsenals to undertake to fulfill orders or contracts for

articles or services in advance of the receipt of payment

under certain circumstances.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERFORMANCE OF ORDERS FOR ARTICLES OR

4 SERVICES BY ARMY ARSENALS BEFORE RE5 CEIPT OF PAYMENT.

6 (a) AUTHORITY.—(1) Chapter 433 of title 10, United

7 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 4541

8 the following new section:
2

•HR 1970 IH

1 ‘‘§ 4541a. Army arsenals: performance before receipt

2 of payment

3 ‘‘(a) AUTHORITY.—Regulations under section

4 2208(h) of this title shall authorize the Army arsenals to

5 undertake, with working-capital funds, to fulfill orders or

6 contracts of customers referred to in subsection (b) for

7 articles or services in advance of the receipt of payment

8 for the articles or services.

9 ‘‘(b) TRANSACTIONS TO WHICH APPLICABLE.—The

10 authority provided in subsection (a) applies with respect

11 to an order or contract for articles or services that is

12 placed or entered into, respectively, with an arsenal by a

13 customer that—

14 ‘‘(1) is—

15 ‘‘(A) a department or agency of the United

16 States;

17 ‘‘(B) a person using the articles or services

18 in fulfillment of a contract of a department or

19 agency of the United States; or

20 ‘‘(C) a person supplying the articles or

21 services to a foreign government under sections

22 22, 23, and 24 of the Arms Export Control Act

23 (22 U.S.C. 2762, 2763, 2764); and

24 ‘‘(2) is eligible under any other provision of law

25 to obtain the articles or services from the arsenal.’’.
3

•HR 1970 IH

1 (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such

2 chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating

3 to section 4541 the following new item:

‘‘4541a. Army arsenals: performance before receipt of payment.’’.

4 (b) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall

5 prescribe the regulations to carry out section 4541a of

6 title 10, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)),

7 not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment

8 of this Act.

Æ
#### LHV Precast, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v Woodstock Lawn & Home Maintenance et al., Defendants, and S & R Company of Kingston, Appellant, and Joseph Hommel, Jr., Respondent.

[744 NYS2d 915]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered July 19, 2001 in Ulster County, which granted defendant Joseph Hommel, Jr.’s motion for summary judgment on his cross claim against defendant S & R Company of Kingston.

Defendant S & R Company of Kingston (hereinafter S & R) contracted with defendant Woodstock Lawn & Home Maintenance (hereinafter Woodstock) to act as general contractor in the construction of a Wal-Mart on property owned by S & R. Woodstock then contracted with plaintiffs and other suppliers of material and services, including defendant Joseph Hommel, Jr., who agreed to provide “trucking service[s]” for the hauling and dumping of materials to and from the property. When Woodstock failed to pay these suppliers, they filed mechanics’ liens against S & R’s real property.

In February 1999, plaintiffs commenced this action to foreclose on their mechanics’ liens. Hommel appeared in the action as a defendant and, inter alia, cross-claimed against S & R seeking foreclosure on his mechanic’s lien. Thereafter, Hommel successfully moved for summary judgment on his cross claim against S & R, prompting S & R’s appeal.

It is axiomatic that as the proponent of a motion for summary judgment, Hommel had the burden of putting forth evidentiary proof establishing the existence of a valid lien upon which he was entitled to recover (see, Lien Law § 4 [1]; §§ 9, 10; *Zuckerman v City of New York, 49*NY2d 557, 562; *Strober Bros. v Kitano Arms Corp.,*224 AD2d 351, 353; *DiVeronica Bros. v Basset,*213 AD2d 936, 937-938). This includes a showing that there were funds due and owing from S & R to Woodstock upon which Hommel’s lien could attach (see, Lien Law *737§ 4 [1]; *M.A.R.S. Homes v Chiodo,*277 AD2d 1056, 1057; *DiVeronica Bros. v Basset, supra*at 937; *Philan Dept. of Borden Co. v Foster-Lipkins Corp.,*39 AD2d 633, 634, *affd*33 NY2d 709). Here, Hommel has made no such evidentiary showing and, consequently, has failed to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in the first instance *(see, M.A.R.S. Homes v Chiodo, supra*at 1056), requiring denial of his motion.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 30, 2015

a0930 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2015

150753

In re CHARLES PORTUS

____________________________________

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Appellee,

v SC: 150753

COA: 309197

Oakland Probate Court:

1976

- 017337

- MI

CHARLES PORTUS,

Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 2, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. “[F]or obvious

reasons founded in fairness and justice, time provisions are often found to be dir ectory

where a mandatory construction might do great injury to persons not at fault, as in a case

where slight delay on the part of a public officer might prejudice private rights or the

public interest.” In re Bail Bond Forfeiture (People v Gaston) , 496 Mich 320, 329

(2014). In light of the appellant’s own admissions that he fantasizes about kidnapping

children, that his fantasies are both sexual and violent, and that he poses a danger to the

public, this is such a case.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMIE D. PACELY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 127 WM 2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMIE PACELY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 128 WM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of September , 2018, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED

.
**
**Exhibit 13.2**

**CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Q&K International Group Limited (the “Company”) onForm 20-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhichen (Frank) Sun, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

 
Date: February 18, 2020By: /s/ Zhichen (Frank) SunName: Zhichen (Frank) SunTitle: Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)**
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 1Federal Reserve Bank of: BostonFilings received during the week ending February 6, 2010FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,565
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,130
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,120
<PP&E>                                          75,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,864
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 118,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,782
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            35
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,917
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   118,340
<SALES>                                         12,070
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,070
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,343
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,349
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,805)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,805)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,805)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)


</TABLE>
H. Res. 868 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 12, 2008. 

Whereas Congressman William Kent of California recognized 

the transcendent beauty and national significance of the 

coastal redwood trees and he set aside his private land 

for future generations; 

Whereas Congressman Kent donated his lands to be known 

as Muir Woods in the State of California as the first National monument, presenting them to the United States 

Government as a gift to the people of the United States; 

Whereas Muir Woods provides a keystone for conservation 

stewardship and a rich natural laboratory to explore the 

philosophy of its namesake, the admired conservation activist John Muir; 

Whereas Muir Woods was recognized 100 years ago to be ‘‘of 

extraordinary scientific interest and importance because 

of the primeval character of the forest and the character, 

age and size of the trees’’; 

Whereas the Kent donation made it possible for President 

Theodore Roosevelt to exercise one of the Nation’s most 

unique preservation tools, the Antiquities Act, by declaring Muir Woods National Monument for the American 

people; 
2 

•HRES 868 EH 

Whereas Muir Woods National Monument is preserved today 

through the dedicated staff and volunteers of the National Park Service; 

Whereas on May 19, 1945 international delegates to the historic Charter Convention of the United Nations met in 

the beauty and peace of Muir Wood’s Cathedral Grove to 

open the convention and honor the memory of the late 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt; and 

Whereas in 1972 Muir Woods National Monument became 

part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and 

today attracts up to a million visitors annually: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes the foresight of President Roosevelt 

in using the Antiquities Act in declaring Muir Woods 

National Monument; 

(2) recognizes the 100 years of careful preservation 

of America’s Coastal Redwood forest within Muir Woods 

National Monument; and 

(3) recognizes the natural and historical importance 

of the Muir Woods National Monument in the State of 

California and to the Nation. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
| List of subsidiaries of the Company: |
|--------------------------------------|

| Name of Subsidiary                 | Jurisdiction of Organization or Incorporation |
|------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
| UniFirst Holdings, Inc.            | Delaware                                      |
| UniTech Services Group, Inc.       | California                                    |
| UniFirst First-Aid Corporation     | Maryland                                      |
| UniTech Services Canada Ltd.       | Canada                                        |
| UniTech Services SAS               | France                                        |
| Euro Nuclear Services B.V.         | Netherlands                                   |
| Euro Nuklear Services, GmbH        | Germany                                       |
| UniTech Services Group Ltd.        | United Kingdom                                |
| UniFirst Canada Ltd.               | Canada                                        |
| RC Air LLC                         | New Hampshire                                 |
| UONE Corporation                   | Massachusetts                                 |
| Uniformes de San Luis S.A. de C.V. | Mexico                                        |
| UniFirst S.A. de C.V.              | Mexico                                        |
| UniFirst Far East Limited          | Hong Kong                                     |
| UniFirst Manufacturing Corporation | Massachusetts                                 |
#### In the Matter of Kathleen Sanginario et al., Appellants, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

[744 NYS2d 492]

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the New York City Transit Authority to classify the petitioners as employees and an action declaring that the petitioners are employees of the New York City Transit Authority, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated April 12, 2001, as granted the cross motion of the New York City Transit Authority to dismiss the hybrid proceeding and action, inter alia, as untimely.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*414A proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner *(see Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Babylon v Schneider,*168 AD2d 497). Here, the determination became final and binding when the appellants executed their retainer agreements and consented to their terms at least one year before they filed the hybrid proceeding and action *(see Sutherland v Village of Suffern,*139 AD2d 728, 729). Accordingly, the proceeding was time barred and the petition was properly dismissed.

Furthermore, the declaratory judgment action was untimely since the time limitation for the commencement of a declaratory judgment action is governed by the period set for an alternate form of proceeding available to a plaintiff, which here is the CPLR article 78 proceeding *(see*CPLR 217; *New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. v McBarnette,*84 NY2d 194, 201).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either academic or without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02191-BNB

ROBERT E. QUINTANO,

Applicant,

v.

STEVE HARTLEY, Warden, A.V.C.F., and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents.

ORDER DRAWING CASE

After review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2C, the Court has determined that

this case does not appear to be appropriate for summary dismissal. Therefore, the

case will be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. See D.C.COLO.LCivR

8.2D. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate

judge.

DATED April 2, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02191-RM Document 20 Filed 04/02/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Release dates | 
    Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions | 
    Actions under delegated authority
    
    Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia 
  | Cleveland | Richmond 
  | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis 
  | Kansas City | Dallas 
  | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending September 18, 2021

---





## Personnel

|
|

Release dates | 
    Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions | 
    Actions under delegated authority
    Applications and reports received:Boston | 
    New York | 
    Philadelphia | 
    Cleveland | 
    Richmond | 
    AtlantaChicago | 
    St. Louis | 
    Minneapolis | 
    Kansas City | 
    Dallas | 
    San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact us
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 9Federal Reserve Bank of: MinneapolisFilings received during the week ending November 29, 2014FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodCENTRAL BANK CORPORATION                                                                                                4c8Central Bank Corporation, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Central Savings Bank, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, indirectly through its subsidiary Central Financial Corporation, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, proposes to purchase between 10 and 20 percent of the stock of Lasco Development Corporation, Marquette Michigan.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: 12/15/2014DEERWOOD BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                               * 3A1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.: 1:11-cv-01732-WYD

MITCHELL PINSLY, derivatively on behalf of JANUS CAPITAL GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVEN L. SCHEID, 

RICHARD M. WEIL, 

TIMOTHY K. ARMOUR, 

PAUL F. BALSER, 

ANDREW COX, 

JEFFREY DIERMEIER, 

J. RICHARD FREDERICKS, 

DEBORAH GATZEK, 

LAWRENCE KOCHARD, 

ROBERT T. PARRY, 

JOCK PATTON, 

GLENN SCHAFER, 

GREGORY A. FROST, 

JONATHAN D. COLEMAN, 

R. GIBSON SMITH, and 

JAMES P. GOFF,

Defendants,

and

JANUS CAPITAL GROUP, INC,

Nominal Defendant.

NOTICE OF ERRATA

Plaintiff hereby respectfully notifies the Court and all Parties that the signature block on 

page 27 of Plaintiff’s Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint (Dkt. No. 1), contains an 

incorrect address for The Shuman Law Firm. The Shuman Law Firm’s correct address is the 

following:

Case 1:11-cv-01732-WYD -BNB Document 2 Filed 07/05/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

Kip B. Shuman

Rusty E. Glenn

The Shuman Law Firm

885 Arapahoe Avenue

Boulder, CO 80304

Phone: (303) 861-3003

Fax: (303) 484-4886

Dated: July 5, 2011

THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM

s/ Rusty E. Glenn

KIP B. SHUMAN

RUSTY E. GLENN

885 Arapahoe Avenue

Boulder, CO 80304

Phone: (303) 861-3003

Fax: (303) 484-4886

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:11-cv-01732-WYD -BNB Document 2 Filed 07/05/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that the foregoing was filed with this Court on July 5, 2011 through the 

CM/ECF system and will be sent electronically to all registered participants as identified on the 

Notice of Electronic Filing, and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered 

participants.

 s/ Rusty E. Glenn

Rusty E. Glenn 

Case 1:11-cv-01732-WYD -BNB Document 2 Filed 07/05/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0327

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

STEVEN ERIC WALKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 3, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 24 2024

04/24/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0327
---

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures Year
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total1988
          11
          6
          12
          7
          361989
          5
          7
          5
          5
          221990
          3
          5
          6
          3
          171991
          2
          2
          3
          1
          81992
          1
          1
          1
          4
          71993
          1
          2
          2
          0
          51994
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01995
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01996
          0
          2
          0
          0
          21997
          0
          0
          0
          1
          11998
          0
          0
          1
          0
          11999
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12000
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02001
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02002
          1
          0
          0
          1
          22003
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12004
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12005
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02006
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02007
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02008
          1
          0
          0
          2
          32009
          2
          3
          2
          2
          9 Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.
Industrial banks and mutual savings banks also are
excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: March 24, 2010