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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1174 

To amend the Natural Gas Act to modify a provision relating to the siting, 

construction, expansion, and operation of liquefied natural gas terminals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 19, 2007 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. MIKULSKI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Natural Gas Act to modify a provision relating 

to the siting, construction, expansion, and operation of 

liquefied natural gas terminals. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SITING, CONSTRUCTION, EXPANSION, AND OP4 ERATION OF LNG TERMINALS. 

5 Section 3(e)(1) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 

6 717b(e)(1)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘(e)(1) The’’ and all that follows 

8 through the end of the first sentence and inserting 

9 the following: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 1174 IS

1 ‘‘(e) SITING, CONSTRUCTION, EXPANSION, AND OP2 ERATION OF LNG TERMINALS.— 

3 ‘‘(1) AUTHORITY.— 

4 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subpara5 graph (B), the Commission shall approve or 

6 deny an application for the siting, construction, 

7 expansion, or operation of an LNG terminal. 

8 ‘‘(B) STATE CONCURRENCE REQUIRED.— 

9 The Commission shall not approve or deny an 

10 application under subparagraph (A) without the 

11 express concurrence of each State affected by 

12 the application.’’; and 

13 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘Ex14 cept’’ and inserting the following: 

15 ‘‘(C) EFFECT.—Except’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-14-00717-CV

Jaime Martinez and Jennie Martinez 

v.

JBIC, Inc. doing business as Jamaica Beach Improvement Committee

NO. 14-CV-0201 IN THE 212TH DISTRICT COURT OF GALVESTON COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

SUPP CLK RECORD

CLK RECORD

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING

$10.00

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$175.00

$20.00

10/09/2014

09/23/2014

09/05/2014

08/28/2014

08/28/2014

E-PAID

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

E-PAID

E-PAID

APE

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$205.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this October 23, 2015.
#### HANKINS v. FLORIDA NARCISSUS FARMS, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Gonzalez, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County (Wexner, J.), imposed January 17, 1989, upon his conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, after a plea of guilty, the sentence being a term of imprisonment plus restitution in the amount of $1,650.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, on the law, by vacating the provision of the sentence concerning restitution; as so modified, the sentence is affirmed.

Upon his plea of guilty to one count of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, the defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and was ordered to make restitution *(see,*Penal Law § 60.27) in the amount of $1,650, that sum representing police "buy” money handed over to the defendant during two of the sales to undercover officers upon which this prosecution was premised. *944It is now established, however, that a police department which parted with money is not a "victim” within the meaning of Penal Law § 60.27 *(see, People v Rowe,*152 AD2d 907, *affd*75 NY2d 948; *see also, People v Purcell,*161 AD2d 812). Since the directive that the defendant pay $1,650, which the sentencing court ordered the District Attorney to collect by entry of a judgment *(see,*CPL 420.10 [5]) is unauthorized by statute *(see, People v Purcell, supra; People v Rowe, supra),*it must be vacated, notwithstanding the defendant’s failure to protest the directive at the time it was issued *(see, People v Fuller,*57 NY2d 152,156; *see also, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1,10).

We decline to disturb the remainder of the sentence inasmuch as it was imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea and was not excessive *(see, People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816; *see also, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### STATE BOARD OF FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND EMBALMERS FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Mamie HEWING, doing business as Hewing Funeral Home, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Nov. 19, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 8, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-3367

_____________________________

KERRICK CRUMITIE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus—Original Jurisdiction.

July 17, 2024

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. Granville v. State, 382 So. 3d 792, 793 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 2024).

ROWE, RAY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Kerrick Crumitie, pro se, Petitioner.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau 

Chief, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1306 

To direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to classify certain 

children’s products containing lead to be banned hazardous substances. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 3, 2007 

Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to classify certain children’s products containing lead to be 

banned hazardous substances. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lead Free Toys Act 

5 of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BAN ON CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS CONTAINING LEAD. 

7 (a) BANNED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES.—Not later 

8 than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

9 the Consumer Product Safety Commission (referred to in 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 1306 IS

1 this Act as the ‘‘Commission’’) shall prescribe regulations 

2 classifying any children’s product containing lead to be a 

3 banned hazardous substance within the meaning of section 

4 2(q)(1) of the Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 

5 1261(q)(1)). 

6 (b) DEFINITION OF CHILDREN’S PRODUCT CON7 TAINING LEAD.—As used in subsection (a), the term 

8 ‘‘children’s product containing lead’’ means any consumer 

9 product marketed for use by children under age 6, or 

10 whose substantial use by children under age 6 is foresee11 able, and containing more than trace amounts of lead, as 

12 determined by the Commission and prescribed in the regu13 lations required by subsection (a). 

14 (c) CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DEVICES.—If, in pre15 scribing the regulations required by subsection (a), the 

16 Commission determines that it is not feasible for certain 

17 electronic devices to comply with such regulations at the 

18 time the regulations shall take effect, the Commission 

19 shall, by regulation— 

20 (1) issue standards to reduce the exposure of 

21 and accessibility to lead in such electronic devices; 

22 and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•S 1306 IS

1 (2) establish a schedule by which such elec2 tronic devices shall be in full compliance with the 

3 regulations prescribed under subsection (a). 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Amendment #4 to Lease Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 
  
 AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR TO THAT LEASE AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 23, 1999 BETWEEN RYAN OAKS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (AS
SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SPIEKER PROPERTIES, L.P.), AS LANDLORD, AND EXCELLIGENCE LEARNING CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS LEARNINGSTAR CORPORATION, AS TENANT, FOR PREMISES LOCATED AT 2 LOWER RAGSDALE DRIVE, SUITE 200,
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA. 
  
 The above described Lease Agreement will be amended as
follows to extend the Term Expiration Date. 
  

	1.	Paragraph 3 – Term: Scheduled Term Expiration Date: June 30, 2007. Tenant agrees to accept the premises in “as-is” condition. 

  
 Tenant shall have the right to terminate this Lease effective July 1, 2005,
provided all of the following conditions are met: 
  

	 	a.	Tenant is not, and has not been, in default of this Lease and shall be current in all obligations of this Lease as of the effective date of the termination.


  

	 	b.	Tenant gives Landlord 180 days prior written notice. 

  

	 	c.	All financial obligations of Tenant under this Lease, including but not limited to Base Rent, Operating Expenses, Additional Rent, alteration costs, fees, late charges and other
charges payable under this Lease are paid through the effective date of the termination or the date Tenant vacates the Premises as required hereunder, whichever is less. 

  

	 	d.	The Premises shall be vacated by Tenant in a clean and sanitary condition and as otherwise required under Paragraph 36 of this Lease on or before the effective date of termination.


  

	 	e.	Tenant shall still be obligated for reconciliation of Operating Expenses through the effective date of the termination or the date Tenant vacates the Premises as required hereunder,
whichever is later. 

  
 From and after receipt by
Landlord of Tenant’s termination notice under clause b above, Landlord shall have full access to the Premises at all times to show the Premises to prospective tenants. 
  
 All other terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  

									
	 LANDLORD:
	 	 	 	 TENANT:

			
	 RYAN OAKS, LLC,
 a California limited liability company
	 	 	 	 EXCELLIGENCE LEARNING CORPORATION,
 a Delaware corporation

				
	 By: APSARA, INC.,
 a California corporation
 Its: Managing Member
	 	 	 	 	 	 
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Patrick M. Gardner
	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ Richard Delaney

	 	 	
	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 Patrick M. Gardner
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 Its:
	 	 President
	 	 	 	 Its:
	 	 Exec. V.P & CFO

	 Date:
	 	 3/18/04
	 	 	 	 Date:
	 	 3-17-04
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROBERT KLECKLEY , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2366

[ October 17, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Bernard I. Bober

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 99

- 0 15141 CF10A

.
Robert Kleckley, South Bay, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ROSS , C IKLIN and K UNT Z , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02451-PAB-MJW

TONYA DUNLAP,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPEC PRO, INC., a foreign corporation,

Defendant.

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the orders filed during the pendency of this case, and

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the following Final Judgment is hereby entered.

Commencing on April 8, 2013, this action was tried before a jury of nine, duly

sworn, to try the issues herein with U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer presiding, and

the jury rendered a verdict. Accordingly, It is

ORDERED judgment shall enter in favor of Plaintiff TONYA DUNLAP and against

Defendant SPEC PRO, INC., the amount of One Dollar ($1.00) plus postjudgment

interest at the rate of 0.12%. It is further 

ORDERED that the plaintiff is AWARDED costs, to be taxed by the Clerk of the

Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.

Dated at Denver, Colorado this 17th day of April, 2013.

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

By: s/Edward P. Butler

Edward P. Butler, Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02451-PAB-MJW Document 74 Filed 04/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-30555 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CARLOS B. MOORE, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:09-CR-279-11

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carlos B. Moore appeals the 292-mo nth prison sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of con s p i r a c y to possess with the intent to distribute 5 0 g r ams or more of crack cocaine. He argues that his sentence sh o u l d b e vacated and that his case should be remanded for resentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), 21 U.S.C. § 801, which was enacted during the pendency of his appeal. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 22 , 20 13 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-30555 Document: 00512152839 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2013No. 10-30555

Criminal sentences are reviewed for reasonableness, using a n a buse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 46-51 (2007). This court reviews de n o v o the interpretation of a sentencing statute. United States v. Salazar , 542 F.3d 139, 144 (5th Cir. 200 8). Moore’s claim is without merit. The FSA does not apply retroactively to defend a n t s, like Moore, who were sentenced before its enactment. See Dorsey

v. United States , 132 S. Ct. 2321, 2328-36 (2012); United States v. Doggins , 633 F.3d 379, 384 (5th Cir. 2011). Additionally, insofar as Moore contends the FSA must apply immediately to correct a claimed equal-protection violation caused by the statute under which he was sentenced, our court has n e v e r r e c o gnized such a violation stemming from the sentencing disparity of the prior law. See, e.g. , United States v. F i s h e r , 2 2 F.3d 574, 579 & n.21 (5th Cir. 1994) (noting cocaine-base sentencing disparity not unconstitutional). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 10-30555 Document: 00512152839 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Newport
News Shipbuilding Inc. Balance Sheet as of March 22, 1998 and the related
Statement of Earnings for the three months ended March 22, 1998 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-22-1998
<CASH>                                              11
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      114
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         46
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   502
<PP&E>                                           1,621
<DEPRECIATION>                                     830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              373
<BONDS>                                            400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         198
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,510
<SALES>                                            397
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   397
<CGS>                                              358
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (1)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     27
<INCOME-TAX>                                        11
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 16
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        16
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
        


</TABLE>
1

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-4748

 

D. C. Docket No. 93-8500-CIV-KLR

RITA STROCHAK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey

Corporation,

Defendant-Appellee,

KEEVILY, SPERO-WHITELAW, INC.,

Defendant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

 

(April 13, 1998)

Before BARKETT, Circuit Judge, KRAVITCH, Senior Circuit Judge, and HARRIS*, Senior

District Judge.

________________________

*Honorable Stanley S. Harris, Senior U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia, sitting by

designation.
2

BARKETT, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Rita Strochak appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment on

her contract claim for excess uninsured motorist coverage based on Florida Statute § 627.727(2)

(1996) in favor of Appellee Federal Insurance Company (FIC). Strochak alleged that FIC’s

failure to offer uninsured motorist coverage for her 1984 Lincoln violated § 627.727(2). 

Although the 1984 Lincoln was not registered or principally garaged in Florida in 1985 when her

husband, Donald Strochak, took out the insurance policy with FIC, Strochak argued that when

she registered and principally garaged the 1984 Lincoln in Florida, FIC had a duty to offer her

uninsured motorist coverage under § 627.727(2). In our initial decision in this case, we

concluded that this dispositive question of Florida law was not dictated by the clear and

controlling precedent of the Florida Supreme Court. Accordingly, we certified the follwing

question to the Florida Supreme Court:

WHETHER AN EXCESS CARRIER HAS A DUTY TO MAKE

AVAILABLE THE UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE

REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE § 627.727(2) TO AN

INSURED UNDER AN EXISTING POLICY ON VEHICLES

WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN REGISTERED OR PRINCIPALLY

GARAGED IN FLORIDA WHENEVER ANY VEHICLE,

COVERED OR SUBSEQUENTLY ADDED, FIRST BECOMES

REGISTERED OR PRINCIPALLY GARAGED IN FLORIDA.

Strochak v. Federal Ins. Co., 109 F.3d 717, 720-21 (11th Cir. 1997).

The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the affirmative. Strochak

v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 90, 298 (Fla. March. 19, 1998). Based on this opinion, we REVERSE

the district court’s grant of summary judgment to FIC and REMAND this case to the district

court for proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court.
3
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The ACRS Subcommittee on the US-APWR will hold a meeting on October 23-24, 2008, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., and its contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).

The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

*Thursday, October 23, 2008—8 a.m.-5 p.m.*

*Friday, October 24, 2008—8 a.m.-12 noon.*

The Subcommittee will review five topical reports and a draft Safety Evaluation Report associated with the US-APWR Design Certification Application. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.

                    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Neil Coleman, (Telephone: 301-415-7656)  five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54695).                

Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

Dated: September 29, 2008.

Girija Shukla,

Acting Chief, Reactor Safety Branch B, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.

 [FR Doc. E8-23537 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00790-CV

IN RE Joshua KARLIN

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 2, 2020

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On November 7, 2019, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The real party in 

interest filed a response, to which relator replied. After considering the petition, response, reply, 

and the record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the 

petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015CI08588, styled In the Interest of K.G.K., a Child, pending in the 408th 

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Laura Salinas presiding.