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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1826 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1826

 To add Kentucky State University to the list of schools eligible for 
  assistance under part B of title III of the Higher Education Act of 
                                 1965.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 19, 2007

 Mr. McConnell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To add Kentucky State University to the list of schools eligible for 
  assistance under part B of title III of the Higher Education Act of 
                                 1965.

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

SECTION 1. KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY QUALIFIED GRADUATE PROGRAM.

    Section 326(e)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1063b(e)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (Q), by striking ``and'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) in subparagraph (R), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(S) Kentucky State University qualified graduate 
                program.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Samuel R. BURKS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 57653.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

Feb. 12, 1973.

*35Larry O. Denny, Kansas City, Court Appointed Attorney For Appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Wieler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

HOUSER, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Division No. 9, overruling a motion filed under Supreme Court Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., to vacate a judgment of conviction of first degree robbery and a 7-year sentence entered upon a plea of guilty.

Appellant’s sole complaint is that his plea was not voluntary; that after the case went to trial before a jury and one witness had testified appellant was induced to enter the plea of guilty because of a statement to appellant by the assistant prosecuting attorney that if appellant wanted a jury trial he would “make sure” that appellant “got so much time, that [he] wouldn’t get out [for] a real long time. * * * [The prosecutor] didn’t set no definite figure, you know, but he said if [appellant] didn’t plead guilty and went to jury trial, he would make sure [appellant] got, you know, a whole lot of time.” After considering the statement overnight and discussing it with his mother, and after being informed that the prosecutor would recommend seven years, the 21-year-old appellant entered a plea of guilty. In answer to questioning while pleading guilty appellant denied that he had been threatened or promised anything. His mother testified that appellant pleaded guilty to avoid a long sentence.

For the purpose of the motion the trial court accepted as true appellant’s testimony that the prosecutor made the statement but held that “the same did not constitute an impermissible threat by the prosecuting attorney”; that “a prosecuting attorney who tells a defendant that he is going to get a substantial sentence is doing no more than a vigorous prosecutor should do”; that there was no threat in an impermissible sense. The court found that the allegation that the plea was induced by threats was not substantiated by the evidence.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An extensive opinion would have no preceden-tial value. See State v. Carter, Mo.Sup., 399 S.W.2d 74 [6, 7]; State v. Freedman, Mo.Sup., 282 S.W.2d 576. The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b).

STOCKARD, C., concurs.

PER CURIAM:

The foregoing opinion by HOUSER, C., is adopted as the opinion by the Court.

All of the Judges concur.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Election Assistance Commission

# AGENCY:

U.S. Election Assistance Commission. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting.

# Date & Time:

Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 1-4 p.m. 

# Place:

National Press Club of Washington, 529 14th St.,  NW., 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045, (202) 662-7500 (Metro Stop: Metro Center). 

# Agenda:

Commissioners will meet and hold a panel discussion to examine key issues facing election officials and journalists in reporting election results, particularly in competitive states. Some of the topics include: (1) Voting systems technology; (2) non-traditional ballots such as provisional and absentee ballots and ballots of military and overseas citizens; (3) time and procedures for getting election results; (4) post-election issues such as recounts and audits; (5) time zones, poll closings and reporting exit polls and election results. Participants will include media representatives, state election officials and a discussion moderator. 

This meeting will be open to the public. 

# Person to Contact for Information:

Sarah Litton, Telephone: (202) 566-3100. 

Rosemary E. Rodriguez, 

Chair, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

 [FR Doc. E8-24360 Filed 10-8-08; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
**Exhibit 23.**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S CONSENT**

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statement No. 333-98073 of Community Valley Bancorp on Form S-8of our report, dated February 20, 2004, appearing in the Annual Report onForm 10-K of Community Valley Bancorp for the year ended December 31,2003.

 

 
|                   | /s/ Perry-Smith LLP |   |
|------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|                   |                |   |
|                   |                |   |
| Sacramento, California |                |   |
| March 26, 2004    |                |   |

 

----
#### DOVE v. FIELDS.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02696–REB–KMT

THERESA L. DOWLING,

Plaintiff,

v. 

BLACK AND MCDONALD/CUSTOM LIGHTING SERVICES, 

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

Plaintiff’s “Notice and Motion to Clarify” (Doc. No. 54, filed May 21, 2012) is GRANTED in

part. The court has conferred with the Clerk of Court and has confirmed that, even though no

such prohibition is contained in the Electronic Case Filing Procedures for the District of

Colorado (Civil Cases), non-prisoner pro se parties approved to participate in Electronic Case

Filing (ECF) are not permitted to restrict access to documents filed via ECF. Rather, nonprisoner pro se parties must file restricted documents in paper.

In light of this confusion, Plaintiff is granted one final extension of time, up to and including

June 8, 2012, to resubmit the conventionally submitted materials attached to her previously

stricken Response to the Order to Show Cause. (See Doc. Nos. 32 & 33.) Plaintiff has

previously indicated that she intends to file these document under restriction; she may do so by

filing them in paper with the Clerk’s Office. However, Plaintiff must contemporaneously file an

appropriate motion to restrict access to these documents that fully complies with

D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2. If such a motion to restrict is filed, court staff will scan these documents

and upload them into ECF at the appropriate restriction level. On the other hand, if Plaintiff has

determined that access to these documents should not be restricted, she shall filed them

electronically via ECF. 

Dated: May 30, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02696-REB-KMT Document 61 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12
                                       
                              AMOCO COMPANY
                         ______________________
                                       
               STATEMENT SETTING FORTH COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF
                          EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                     (millions of dollars, except ratios)

                                                                      
                            Three                                     
                            Months                                    
                            Ended            Year Ended December 31,
                           March 31, 
                             1998      1997     1996    1995    1994    1993
Determination of Income:                                              
Consolidated earnings                                                 
 before income taxes                                                  
 and minority interest...    $  393  $3,235   $3,351  $2,425  $2,688  $2,427
Fixed charges expensed by                                             
 consolidated companies..        79     282      251     233     140     193
Adjustments for certain                                               
 companies accounted for                                              
  by the equity method...        32      50       76      10       7       9
Adjusted earnings plus                                                
 fixed charges...........    $  504  $3,567   $3,678  $2,668  $2,835  $2,629
                                                                      
Determination of Fixed Charges:                                       
Consolidated interest on                                              
 indebtedness (including                                              
 interest capitalized)...    $   59  $  212   $  164  $  152  $  127  $  162
Consolidated rental                                                   
 expense representative                                               
 of an interest factor...        21      84       88      71       7      31
Adjustments for certain                                               
 companies accounted for                                              
 by the equity method....        14       7        8       6       5       6
Total fixed charges......    $   94  $  303   $  260  $  229  $  139  $  199
                                                                      
Ratio of earnings to                                                  
 fixed charges...........       5.4*   11.8*    14.2*   11.6    20.4    13.2
                                                                      


*Based  on public debt obligations. Including debt with affiliates,  the
ratio  would have been 2.9 as of March 31, 1997, 5.0 as of December  31,
1997 and 5.5 as of December 31, 1996.
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02765-WJM-BNB

DALIP BASANTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY METCALF, M.D.,

JASON ROZESKI, M.D.,

PLATTE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER,

THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA, and

SALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

DISMISSAL OF SALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for

Dismissal of Defendant, Salud Family Health Center, filed February 12, 2013 (ECF No.

106). The Court having reviewed the Motion and being fully advised hereby ORDERS

as follows:

The Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. Defendant Salud Family Health Center is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees and

costs. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to amend the caption to reflect the removal

of Defendant Salud Family Health Center.

Case 1:11-cv-02765-PAB-NYW Document 107 Filed 02/13/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Dated this 13th day of February, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge

 

Case 1:11-cv-02765-PAB-NYW Document 107 Filed 02/13/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.1


                               AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
                         MOBIUS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.
                            1996 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN



      Pursuant to Section 3.1 of the Mobius Management Systems, Inc. 1996 Stock
Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), and in accordance with the resolutions of the Board
of Directors of Mobius Management Systems, Inc. (the "Company") adopted on
November 6, 2003, Section 3.13 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

            3.13 The Plan was adopted by the Board and approved by the Company's
            shareholders on November 6, 1996. Unless sooner terminated by the
            Board, the provisions of the Plan respecting the grant of any awards
            shall terminate on the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Plan
            by the Board, and no awards shall thereafter be made under the Plan.
            All awards made under the Plan prior to its termination shall remain
            in effect until such awards have been satisfied or terminated in
            accordance with the terms and provisions of the Plan and the
            applicable Plan Agreements.
WILLIAM HENRY THOMAS, III,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-5544

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 28, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

James H. Daniels, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Mark Graham Hanson, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant, and Appellant, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is brought under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 

1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Upon review of the record, we find no preserved 

error warranting reversal. We affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence.
2

However, a review of the record reveals a possible sentencing error 

concerning the court’s assessment of $100 in sheriff’s investigative costs imposed 

pursuant to section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2010), as the court did not orally 

pronounce the discretionary cost at the sentencing hearing. Mills v. State, 177 So. 

3d 984, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that the trial court erred in imposing the 

$100 sheriff’s investigative cost “without notice or hearing and without 

specifically identifying it at sentencing”); Lippwe v. State, 152 So. 3d 782, 783 

(Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (ruling that investigative fees pursuant to section 938.27(1), 

Florida Statutes, “must be requested on the record by the appropriate agency”); 

Kirkland v. State, 106 So. 3d 4, 4-5 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that “the trial 

court should have orally pronounced the $100 investigative cost, as it is a 

discretionary cost and not a mandatory cost”). Because appellant did not preserve 

the error either by objecting during imposition of the sentence or by filing a motion 

to correct sentencing errors, this Court must affirm. See Ramos v. State, 156 So. 3d 

591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). We do so without prejudice to appellant’s right to file an 

appropriate post-conviction motion to correct any unpreserved sentencing errors. 

See id.; see also Collando-Pena v. State, 141 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) 

(affirming appellant’s judgment and unpreserved sentencing error “without 

prejudice to his right to seek timely collateral relief”).

AFFIRMED.
3

LEWIS and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR; SWANSON, J., CONCURS IN RESULT 

ONLY.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 52013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21038]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Notice of Extension of Concession Contract

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Public notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: Effective Date: January 1, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo A. Pendry, Chief, Commercial 
Services Program, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street, NW., 11th 
Floor, Washington, DC 20005, Telephone 202/513-7156.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 36 CFR 51.23, public notice is hereby given that 
the National Park Service proposes to extend the following concession 
contract for a period of two years through December 31, 2014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The listed concession authorization will 
expire by its terms on December 31, 2012. The National Park Service has 
determined that the proposed short-term extension is necessary in order 
to avoid interruption of visitor services and has taken all reasonable 
and appropriate steps to consider alternatives to avoid such 
interruption.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Conc ID No.                       Concessioner name                          Park
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENA001-03.............................  Doyon/ARAMARK Denali National    Denali National Park.
                                          Park Concession Joint Venture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo A. Pendry, Chief, Commercial 
Services Program, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street, NW., 11th 
Floor, Washington, DC 20005, Telephone 202/513-7156.

    Dated: July 26, 2010.
Heidi M. Ernst,
Acting Associate Director, Business Services.
[FR Doc. 2010-21038 Filed 8-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-53-P
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Isramco, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Haim Tsuff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Company's 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.





APRIL 30, 2010





/s/ HAIM TSUFF


HAIM TSUFF


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


(PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER)








A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO ISRAMCO, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY ISRAMCO, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
Filed 11/9/10 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2010 ND 205

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Daniel Raymond Szklarski, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20100087

Appeal from the District Court of Walsh County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable Richard M Geiger, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Barbara L. Whelan, State’s Attorney, Walsh County Courthouse, 600 Cooper Ave., 3rd Floor, Grafton, N.D. 58237, for plaintiff and appellee.

Darla J. Schuman, Schuman Law Office, 3001-A 32nd Ave. S., Grand Forks, N.D. 58201, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Szklarski

No. 20100087

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Daniel Szklarski appeals from the trial court’s judgment and order revoking his probation.  On appeal, Szklarski argues the trial court erred in allowing him to represent himself at the probation revocation hearing because he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner
#### In the Matter of Stefanel Tyesha C. Leslie C.; Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York

Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and for continuation of assigned counsel granted as indicated. *(See, Matter of Sebastian M.,*164 AD2d 852 [decided herewith].) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Rosenberger, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.