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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 16 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 16

 To provide for certain land to be held in trust for the Burns Paiute 
                                 Tribe.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 20, 2008

   Mr. Craig introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for certain land to be held in trust for the Burns Paiute 
                                 Tribe.

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

SECTION 1. LAND HELD IN TRUST FOR BURNS PAIUTE TRIBE.

    (a) Land To Be Held in Trust.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
take into trust for the benefit of the Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns 
Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon any real property located in Malheur 
County, Oregon, that is conveyed or otherwise transferred to the 
Secretary if, at the time of the conveyance or transfer, no adverse 
legal claim (including an outstanding lien, mortgage, or tax) exists 
with respect to the property.
    (b) Land To Be Part of Reservation.--Land taken into trust under 
subsection (a) shall be considered to be part of the Burns Paiute 
Reservation.
    (c) Land Into Trust for Gaming.--Land taken into trust under 
subsection (a) shall be--
            (1) considered to be Indian lands (as defined in section 4 
        of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)); and
            (2) eligible for class I gaming, class II gaming, and class 
        III gaming (as defined in that section) in accordance with that 
        Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 33.1 

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA**

**PURSUANT TO ITEM 1122 OF REGULATION AB**

**FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA**

Date: March 26, 2014                 

The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of First National Bank of Omaha (the “Servicer”), hereby certifies as follows:

(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing its compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in 17 C.F.R. § 229.1122(d)(“Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB”), except for servicing criteria specified in (1)(iii); (2)(iii) and (vi); 3(iii) and (iv); and 4(x) of Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB, which the Servicer has determined are inapplicable to theactivities it performs with respect to the credit card asset backed securities transactions issued by First National Master Note Trust (the “Platform”) being serviced (such applicable criteria, after giving effect to the exceptionsidentified above, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013 relating to the servicing of the Platform; 

(2) The Servicer used the servicing criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the Applicable ServicingCriteria; 

(3) The Servicer is in compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria relating to the Platform as of and for the year endingDecember 31, 2013 in all material respects; and 

(4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accountingfirm, has issued an attestation report for the Platform on the Servicer’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2013. 

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA, as

Servicer
By 
/s/ Timothy D. Hart
 Timothy D. Hart Senior Vice President
[Signature page to Report on Assessment of Compliance 

of First National Bank of Omaha]
#### Ella Walter VIVIAN and Her Husband, Harold B. Vivian, Appellants, v. M. B. PROPERTIES, Inc., a Florida Corporation, et al., Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

Boone & Boone, of Miami, for appellants.

Henry D. Williams, of Miami, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for the respective parties.
389 A.2d 697

#### In the Interest of Gladfelter, a Minor. Appeal of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Argued March 15, 1978.

Sheryl Ann Dorney, Assistant District Attorney, with her John C. Uhler, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellant;

Victor Dell’Alba, for appellee.

Order affirmed.

PRICE and VAN der VOORT, JJ., dissented.
cc: Hon. Alvin R. Kacin, District Judge 

Elko County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Elko County District Attorney 

Elko County Clerk 

Ruben James Trujillo 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1317A )re
#### In the Matter of the Application of Elsie Jones, Individually, and as Guardian ad Litem of Cordell Jones, an Infant.

(Motion No. M-4366.)

Court of Claims,

July 31, 1957.

*Ivan A. Michael*for movant.

*Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General (Robert Schwarts*of counsel), for State of New York, opposed.

Alexander Del Giorno, J.

This is a motion in the nature of discovery and inspection for an order compelling the New York Training School for Boys, Warwick, New York, to produce all medical records concerning treatment rendered to the infant herein.

The claimant does not say that she is without knowledge as to whether she has a cause of action against the State. In that event the motion would be denied, because under section 295 of the Civil Practice Act parties may not be examined before the commencement of an action to determine if facts exist to create a cause of action *(Lindquist*v. *Spencer & Son Corp.,*65 N. Y. S. 2d 482). She seeks to establish the quantum of her claim by the alleged medical testimony available at the New York Training School for Boys, Warwick, New York. In the light of this interpretation, the application would fall under section 324 of the Civil Practice Act.

Subdivision 2 of section 17 of the Court of Claims Act, however, does not authorize discovery under section 324 of the Civil Practice Act *(Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co.*v. *State of New York,*174 Misc. 743). The motion therefore is denied.

The claimant, if she be so advised, may file her notice of intention to file a claim, whereupon she will have the right to an examination before trial and in addition an inspection of records pursuant to subpoena. If such examination indicates that the claim should be amended, she may then move for such an amendment to make her claim commensurate with the facts.
#### Ila Mae SLAVEN et al., Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 11, 1974.

W. L. Rose, Williamsburg, for appellants.

Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Douglas E. Johnson, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

Appeal from McCreary Circuit Court; Pleas Jones, Judge.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court by Justice STEINFELD, Reversing.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

April 29, 2020

s0420 

# Order

Clerk April 29, 2020

158663

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158663

COA: 336058

Macomb CC: 2015

- 002617

- FC

TROY ANTONIO BROWN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of February 4, 2020, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the

application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals.

On order of the Court, the answer having been received, we DIRECT the Macomb

County Prosecuting Attorney to file a n additional response within 28 days of the date of

this order that addresses whether, in light of all the evidence presented in this case, the

uncorrected testimony of Detective

- Sergeant Robert Eidt that the defendant was the one

who said that the truth was somewhere in the middle, as repeated ly reinforced by the trial

prosecutor, “could in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury.”

People v Smith, 498 Mich 466, 476 (2015).

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>                      See accompanying notes.
                              $ in thousands, except per share data.
</LEGEND>      
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Mar-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-27-1998
<CASH>                                         51674
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14961
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    16622
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               94462
<PP&E>                                         63910
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                161650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          41704
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        1
<COMMON>                                         243
<OTHER-SE>                                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  161650
<SALES>                                        58749
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   0
<CGS>                                          37596
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 3328
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1198
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2130
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .28
        




</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
        32.1
 CERTIFICATION
        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 SinoFresh HealthCare, Inc. (the "Company")
        on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with
        the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Charles
        A.
        Fust, as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies,
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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 Section 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.


|                                 |                                                  |                                
|-------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------
|                                 |                                                 
|                                 |                                                  |                                
|Date: March
            30, 2006 | By:                                              | /s/ Charles
            A. Fust
|                                 | Charles
            A. Fust                     
|                                 | Chairman
            and Chief Executive Officer
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 

DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON 

5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD 

SUITE 800 EAST 

DALLAS, TEXAS 75244 

April 29, 2014 
 Mtro. Emilio R. Lozoya
Austin 
 Director General 
 Petróleos Mexicanos 

Avenida Marina Nacional No. 329 
 Torre Ejecutiva, Piso 44

 Colonia Petróleos Mexicanos 
 11311 México,
D.F. México 
 Dear Mtro. Lozoya Austin: 

We hereby consent to the references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton as set forth under the headings “Presentation of Information Concerning
Reserves,” “Item 4. Information on the Company – Business Overview – Exploration and Production – Reserves,” and “Item 19. Exhibits. Documents filed as exhibits to this Form 20-F” in the Annual Report on Form
20-F of Petróleos Mexicanos for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the Form 20-F), and to the filing as Exhibit 10.6 to the Form 20-F of our third party report dated March 20, 2014, describing our review of the estimates of proved
oil and condensate, natural gas liquids, sales gas, and total liquids equivalent reserves owned by the United Mexican States (Mexico) as of January 1, 2014, for certain fields located offshore of Mexico in the Southwest Marine Region. These
estimates were prepared in accordance with the reserves definitions of Rules 4-10(a) (l)-(32) of Regulation S-X of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	




	DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
	Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-716
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Efficient Networks, Inc.:

     We consent to the use of our report on the financial statements of
FlowPoint Corporation incorporated by reference herein, which report appears in
the Efficient Networks, Inc. Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Registration
No. 333-94289) declared effective by the Commission on February 2, 2000.

                                                     KPMG LLP


Boston, Massachusetts

September 5, 2000
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael W. Zellner hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an officer of PMC-Sierra, Inc. (PMC), that, to my knowledge, this Quarterly Report of PMC on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 1, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PMC.



|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  |                                                         
|----- |  | -------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|      |  |                |  | 
|Date: |  | August 9, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael W. Zellner                                  
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Michael W. Zellner                                      
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Vice President,                                         
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION 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 SouthwestCasino Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Thomas E. Fox, President and Chief Operating Officer of we,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge andbelief:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of Southwest Casino Corporation.

 
|   | /s/ Thomas E.  Fox                                  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Thomas E. Fox,  President and Chief Operating       |   |
|   | Officer  (principal financial officer and principal |   |
|   | accounting  officer)                                |   |

 

 

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota

March 31, 2008

 

----
#### In the Matter of Eunice Conroy CARON, Bankrupt. Eunice Conroy CARON v. Arthur G. WOLFF, Trustee, etc.

No. 6370.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Oct. 21, 1937.

John M. Redford, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant.

Gold & McCann, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellee.

Before EVANS, SPARKS, and MAJOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On motion of counsel for appellee, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 for Hallwood  Energy  Partners,  L.P. and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000768172
<NAME>                        Hallwood Energy Partners, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                                         5,562
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  9,217
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               15,970
<PP&E>                                         619,854
<DEPRECIATION>                                 529,538
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 121,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          19,180
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     67,911
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   121,354
<SALES>                                        21,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               21,835
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (627)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                7,422
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            7,422
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   7,422
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .66
        


</TABLE>
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 17, 2009*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.118.b Private Pension Funds Defined Benefit Plans** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GARY JOHNSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 575 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of April, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAUL PELAYO,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

B. GREER; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 22

- 15223

D.C. No. 3:19

- cv

- 04135

- RS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California Richard Seeborg, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2 , 2023 * *
San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE

, O’SCANNLAIN

, and SILVERMAN

, Circuit Judge s

.

Saul Pelayo appeals pr o se from the district court’s summary judgment. We

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court's

summary judgment de novo. See Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.

2004). We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 2 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Pelayo’s retaliation clai ms fail as the Appellees’ actions in disciplining Pelayo

for perceived sexual misconduct reasonably advanced a legitimate correctional goa l.

See Mauro v. Arpaio , 188 F.3d 1054, 1059 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that “reducing

sexual harassment of prison emplo yees is a legitimate penological interest”).

Moreover, Pelayo failed to establish that the Appellees acted out of retaliation. See

Wood v. Yordy , 753 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2014) (“We have repeatedly held that

mere speculation that defendants acted out of retaliation is not sufficient.”).

Pelayo’s due process claims also fail . Even if there was any procedural error

in Pelayo’s first disciplinary hearing, the prison corrected this error by vacating that

hearing and holding a second disciplinary hearing. See Frank v. Schultz , 808 F.3d

762, 764 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that a prisoner has no due process claim where

“any procedural error was corrected through the administrative appeal process”).

Nor was Pelayo denied due process when certain witnesses and questions were

excluded during the second disciplinary hearing, as Pelayo has not established how

the excluded witnesses and questions were relevant. See Baxter v. Palmigiano , 425

U.S. 308, 321 (1976) (holding that prison disciplinary officers can exclud e irrelevant

evidence and witnesses). Last, Pelayo was not denied due process during the

investigation of his filed grievances, as there is no due process right to “a specific

prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza , 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 20 03).

AFFIRMED

.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00067-CR

Fred Lee Morgan

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1341383D)

March 26, 2015

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM