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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 979 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     February 14, 2008.
    Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives shall certify the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
detailing the refusal of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to appear 
before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law as directed by 
subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end 
that Ms. Miers be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law; and 
be it further
    Resolved,  That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives shall certify the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
detailing the refusal of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to testify 
before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law as directed by 
subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end 
that Ms. Miers be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law; and 
be it further
    Resolved,  That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives shall certify the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
detailing the refusal of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to produce 
documents to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law as directed 
by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the 
end that Ms. Miers be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law; 
and be it further
    Resolved,  That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives shall certify the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
detailing the refusal of White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten to produce 
documents to the Committee on the Judiciary as directed by subpoena, to the 
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that Mr. Bolten 
be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Riemann *v.*Ben Franklin Insurance Company, Appellant.

*Insurance*— Fire, *insurance*— Conflict *of evidence*— Case *for jury.*

In an action on a fire insurance policy where the loss is entire and where all the matters of fact alleged as a defense are directly contradicted by the testimony of the plaintiff, the case is for the jury.

Submitted Nov. 4, 1909.

Appeal, No. 29,

Oct. T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Nov. T., 1905, No. 630, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Augusta Riemann v. The Ben Franklin Insurance Company.

Before Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit on a policy of fire insurance. Before Evans, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,061. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.

*T. C. Pitcairn*and *J. 8. Ferguson,*for appellant.

*Albert H. Moeser,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

January 3, 1910:

This was an action on a fire insurance policy. The assignments relate to the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant and to enter judgment for it non obstante veredicto. The building insured was a dwelling house and the loss was total. The grounds of defense at the trial were that the house had been unoccupied for a period of over ten days immediately prior to the fire; that the plaintiff had not furnished proper proofs of loss within sixty days and that she had not furnished a magistrate’s certificate when required, as pro*66vided by the policy. It appeared from the plaintiff’s testimony that she had lived in the house until the evening of the day the fire occurred; that notice of the fire was given the company’s agent the same or the next day; that on the day following the company’s adjuster visited the premises and took her statement as to the character of the building and the cause of the fire, and that she had complied with all the requirements made and all the conditions of the policy. The issue was one of fact, which was necessarily for the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01962-CMA-CBS

ROBERT HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACME DISTRIBUTION CENTERS,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

_____________________________________________________________________

Upon review of the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (Doc. #

18), filed December 27, 2011, this Court hereby GRANTS the Motion. This matter is

considered dismissed with prejudice, each Party to bear its own costs and fees.

DATED: December 27, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01962-CMA-CBS Document 19 Filed 12/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
I, James D. Constantine, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial andAdministrative Officer of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report Form 10-Q of Factory Card & PartyOutlet Corp; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the periods coveredby this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant andhave:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period in which this report is being prepared;  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofRegistrant’s board of directors:
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: September 9, 2004        /s/ James D. Constantine  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial and Administrative Officer
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00470-CR

RAMON ALBERTO GONZALEZ QUIROGA A/K/A

RAMON ALBERTO QUIROGA GONZALEZ

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2016-DCR-239-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 21, 2017
#### David Kamerman, Plaintiff, *v.*C. D. C. Furniture Manufacturing Corporation et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

December 31, 1956.

*Joseph Buch*for plaintiff.

*Abraham Kantor*for C. D. C. Furniture Mfg. Corp., defendant.

*Jacob K. Javits, Attorney-General*for People of the State of New York, defendant.

*Watson Elevator Company, Inc.,*defendant in person.

*David Harrison*for Appelbaum Bros. Contracting Co., defendant.

*Harold H. Malhan*for Stuyvesant Oil Burner Corp., defendant.

*Dreyer & Beldock*for Greenpoint Glass Co. Inc., defendant.

*Harold M. Grossman*for Grossman Steel Stair Corp., defendant.

*Burton W. Stone*for J. Wiessman and Son, defendant.

*Benjamin Mankelker*for System Lumber Company, Inc., defendant.

*28*Davicl S. Elgot*for Samuel Reger, defendant.

*Matthias H. Sternberg*for Louis Greenberg, Inc., defendant.

*Klein, Wilder & Gottlieb*for Ace Supply Company, Inc., defendant.

*Garmesey, Goldman & Garmesey*for Ventimiglia & Piazza, defendant.

*Charles Sloane*for Haywood Floor Co., Inc., defendant.

*Property Owners Violation Clinic, Inc.,*defendant in person.

Irving H. Saypol, J.

Motion is denied with, respect to adding a second cause of action on promissory notes and granted on consent to add parties, to correct names and errors and to supply omissions.

The primary object sought here is to permit the simultaneous maintenance of dual actions on the debt reflected by promissory notes secured by a mortgage being foreclosed, contrary to legislative policy (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1078) and long judicial history *(Equitable Life Ins. Soc.*v. *Stevens,*63 N. Y. 341, 344; *White*v. *Wielandt,*259 App. Div. 676, 681-682, affd. 286 N. Y. 609; *President & Directors of Manhattan Co.*v. *Callister Bros.,*256 App. Div. 1097, affd. 282 N. Y. 629). The interpretation put on section 1078 of the Civil Practice Act as imperfectly quoted is specious when the whole context is read. It prohibits another action on the debt without leave of court while the foreclosure action is pending or after final judgment. The suggestion that *Shipman*v. *Niles*(75 App. Div. 451, affd. 177 N. Y. 527) allows alternative procedures is correct. It does not authorize simultaneous alternate actions. Settle order.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

          - 26 CFR Part 1 
          - [REG-128841-07] 
          - RIN 1545-BG91

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

      ( print page 58515)    

# ACTION:

Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document contains a correction to a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-128841-07) that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 (73 FR 52220) relating to the public approval requirements under section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code applicable to tax-exempt private activity bonds issued by State and local governments. The proposed regulations affect State and local governmental issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David White, (202) 622-3980 (not a toll-free number). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background 

The correction notice that is the subject of this document is under section 147 of the Internal Revenue Code. 

## Need for Correction 

As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-128841-07) contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. 

## Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-128841-07), which was the subject of FR Doc. E8-20771, is corrected as follows: 

§ 1.147(f)-1 

On page 52225, column 1, § 1.147(f)-1(b)(6)(ii)(A), line 4, the language “and public approval stated would to be” is corrected to read “and public approval stated would be”. 

LaNita Van Dyke, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).

 [FR Doc. E8-23651 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge John L. Kane

Civil Action No. 11-cv-1974-AP

CHARLES D. DUNHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

KANE, J. ORDERS

On March 30, 2012, this court issued an Order to Show Cause directing the plaintiff

to show cause in writing no later than April 17, 2012, why this case should not be dismissed

for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has neither responded to the Order to Show Cause nor filed

an Opening Brief in furtherance of his case. It is, therefore

ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to

prosecute.

DATED at Denver, Colorado this 20th day of April, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/John L. Kane 

JOHN L. KANE, SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 1:11-cv-01974-JLK Document 12 Filed 04/20/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-248-PB

Stephanie Nagy

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

February 5, 2008 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to properly prepare for trial in light of

counsel’s involvement in a large, complex trial that conflicts

with the date of this trial. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from February 5, 2008 to May 6, 2008. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00248-PB Document 11 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The January 24, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued

to April 22, 2008 at 4:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 22, 2008

cc: Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

Jennifer Cole-Davis, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00248-PB Document 11 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Action No. 11-po-00105-DW-01

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COREY RICHARDS,

Defendant.

ORDER TERMINATING PROBATION UNSATISFACTORILY

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon report of the probation officer regarding

the defendant’s unsatisfactory adjustment to probation. On September 14, 2012, a

violation hearing was held and the Court found that the defendant’s adjustment to

probation has been unsatisfactory. It is hereby

ORDERED that the defendant’s probation be terminated unsatisfactorily,

effective September 14, 2012.

DATED at Durango, Colorado, this 11th day of October, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/David L. West 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-po-00105-DW Document 45 Filed 10/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
                                                         Exhibit 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
The Learning Company, Inc. (formerly known as Softkey International, Inc.) on
Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-73422, 33-63073, 333-00145, 333-02385, 333-03271,
333-10009, 333-40543, 333-40549, 333-56641) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-75134,
33-92920, 33-92922, 33-61931, 333-00107, 333-02337, 333-04619, 333-40539,
333-42449, 333-43653, 333-45113, 333-45115) our report dated February 9, 1998
(except as to note 12, which is as of March 6, 1998) on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of the
Learning Company, Inc. as of January 3, 1998 and January 4, 1997, and for each
of the three fiscal years in the period ended January 3, 1998, which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A. 




                                                     /s/COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
Boston, Massachusetts                                COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
June 15, 1998
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Merchants Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul W.
Pence, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


       (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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




/s/ Paul W. Pence, Jr.


Paul W. Pence, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer

August 14, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       5,540,000
<SECURITIES>                                45,200,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               27,893,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (500,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 86,502,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           178,460,000
<PP&E>                                      72,305,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              32,798,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             217,967,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       48,856,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       291,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 166,447,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               217,967,000
<SALES>                                    468,595,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           468,595,000
<CGS>                                      351,249,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              351,249,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               351,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             109,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             35,753,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                12,692,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         23,061,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                23,061,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,569
<SECURITIES>                                    19,422
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,404
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                      1,659
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,714
<PP&E>                                           2,063
<DEPRECIATION>                                     514
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,811
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,682
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           111
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,018
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,811
<SALES>                                          1,640
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,202
<CGS>                                              675
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   543
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,370
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    623
<INCOME-TAX>                                       175
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                448
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       448
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        


</TABLE>