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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 189 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 638
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 189

                          [Report No. 110-286]

  To decrease the matching funds requirement and authorize additional 
 appropriations for Keweenaw National Historical Park in the State of 
                               Michigan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

 Mr. Levin (for Ms. Stabenow) introduced the following bill; which was 
    read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
                               Resources

                             April 10, 2008

              Reported by Mr. Bingaman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To decrease the matching funds requirement and authorize additional 
 appropriations for Keweenaw National Historical Park in the State of 
                               Michigan.

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

SECTION 1. FUNDING FOR KEWEENAW NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

    (a) Acquisition of Property.--Section 4 of Public Law 102-543 (16 
U.S.C. 410yy-3) is amended by striking subsection (d).
    (b) Matching Funds.--Section 8(b) of Public Law 102-543 (16 U.S.C. 
410yy-7(b)) is amended by striking ``$4'' and inserting ``$1''.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 10 of Public Law 102-
543 (16 U.S.C. 410yy-9) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting 
                ``$50,000,000''; and
                    (B) by striking ``$3,000,000'' and inserting 
                ``$25,000,000''; and
            (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``$100,000'' and all 
        that follows through ``those duties'' and inserting 
        ``$250,000''.
                                                       Calendar No. 638

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 189

                          [Report No. 110-286]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To decrease the matching funds requirement and authorize additional 
 appropriations for Keweenaw National Historical Park in the State of 
                               Michigan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 10, 2008

                       Reported without amendment
```
**Exhibit 32.2**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION*In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rurban Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Duane L. Sinn, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                    /s/  Duane L. Sinn*   Print Name:  Duane L. Sinn   Title:  Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form
10-K Annual Report of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy Capital Corp. (collectively, the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                      |  |     |  |                                                                                                            
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2009 |  | By: |  | /S/ GARY L. CARANO                                                                                         
|                      |  |     |  | Gary L. Carano, Chief Executive Officer of Circus andEldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy Capital Corp.
#### Gayle Allen HOBBS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 57216.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

Feb. 12, 1973.

J. Arnot Hill, Kansas City, for movant-appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Charles Blackmar, Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.

HOUSER, Commissioner.

Gayle A. Hobbs has appealed from a judgment denying his motion filed under Criminal Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R. to vacate a 9-year sentence entered upon a plea of guilty to robbery in the first degree. We have jurisdiction, the notice of appeal having been filed before January 1, 1972. Art. V, §§ 3, 31, Constitution of Missouri, 1945, V.A.M.S.

The single point raised by appellant on this appeal is that “* * * the evidence adduced fails to prove that the appellant was guilty of robbery in the first degree.” Conceding that the information to which he pleaded guilty “charged that the robbery was committed with a deadly weapon,” appellant complains that the court could not lawfully accept a plea of guilty to robbery with the use of a deadly weapon when there was *no evidence*of such use, and that in so doing the court violated his right to due process of law. This complaint is wholly without merit for the reason that a plea of guilty is a confession of the truth of the facts alleged in the information. There is no need to prove that which is admitted. “Appellant’s second point is that the court erred in sentencing appellant without evidence that the stolen material had a value of at least $50. A plea of guilty is a confession of the truth of the facts stated in the information, State v. Holland, Mo.Sup., 411 S.W.2d 181; it is a full admission of all facts necessary to the judgment of the trial court. Kella v. Bradley, 229 Mo.App. 821, 84 S.W.2d 653. A guilty plea takes the place of evidence against the accused, Dusenberg v. Rudolph, 325 Mo. 881, 30 S.W.2d 94, and dispenses with the necessity of proof.” State v. Armstrong, Mo.Sup., 433 S.W.2d 270 [2-4]. And see State v. Crump, Mo.Sup., 412 S.W.2d 490 [6].

Judgment affirmed.

STOCKARD, C., concurs.

PER CURIAM:

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

All of the Judges concur.
Exhibit 10.13
 AMENDMENT #1 TO
MANAGEMENT CONTINUITY AGREEMENT
  WHEREAS
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE
 1.
    
    The last sentence of Section 3.3 of the Agreement is amended to provide as follows:
  2.
    
    Section 4.2 is amended to provide as follows:
 4.2 Section 162(m)
 3.
    
    A new Section 14 is added to the Agreement to provide as follows:
 14. Compliance with Section 409A.




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 MONARCH COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.
    
    
    
    EXECUTIVEBy:
    
    /s/ Donald L. Denney
    
    
    
    /s/ Rebecca S. CrabillDonald L. Denney
    
    
    
    Rebecca S. CrabillIts:
    
    President and Chief Executive Officer
 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

RONALD CRAWFORD, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 112 EM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 29th day of October, 2015, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. Counsel is DIRECTED to file the 

already-prepared Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 5 days.
Table of Contents

Exhibit 13.2

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Rui de Britto Álvares Affonso, undersigned Chief Financial
  Officer and Investor Relations Officer of Companhia de Saneamento Básico do Estado de São Paulo  SABESP (the Company), do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
  in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |                                                              
| | -------------------------------------------------------------
| | Dated: June 29, 2007                                         
| |                                                              
| | By: /s/RUI DE BRITTO ÁLVARES AFFONSO                         
| |                                                              
| | Name: Rui de Britto Álvares Affonso                          
| |                                                              
| | Title: Chief Financial Officer and Investor Relations Officer

---
ITEX[GRAPHIC OMITTED]



ITEX Corporationwww.itex.com

___________________________________________________________________________________



3625 132nd Avenue SE, Suite 200, Bellevue, WA 98006-1323 * V: 425.463.4000 * F: 425.463.4041





Membership Application



Company Information - please print in dark ink



Legal Business Name:

KARMA MEDIA, INC.

Tax ID #:  75-3025152



Doing Business As:

Product:



Address:
5006 COOLIDGE AVENUE



City:
CULVER CITY

State:
CA

Zip:
90230



Phone:
 310-397-1200

Ext:

Fax:



Mailing Address:
 SAME



Contact Information



Name:
DOMINIQUE EINHORN

Title:  CEO



e-mail:
DOM@KARMAMEDIA.COM

User ID:
KRMA



Payment Options



[X] Yes, the Applicant Fee was paid directly to an Independent ITEX Broker



Amount:  $995.00





Signature:
/s/ Dominique Einhorn
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 97-41068

Summary Calendar

____________________

JAMES FAGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LUCINDA L. CONRAD; TOMMY E. THOMAS, Officer at

Michael Unit; BILLY J. SCARBOROUGH, Officer at

Michael Unit,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CV-61

June 30, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Fagan, Texas prisoner #404390, appeals the magistrate

judge’s adverse summary judgment, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action. Fagan contends, inter alia, that the defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs (broken jaw)

by delaying medical treatment for over two hours.

Needless to say, we review a summary judgment de novo,

applying the same standard as the district court. See Little v.
- 2 -

Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc).

Summary judgment is proper where there is no material fact issue

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.;

see FED.R.CIV.P. 56(C). 

Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we

AFFIRM for essentially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge.

Fagan v. Conrad, No. 6:97-CV61 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 1997). Fagan’s

motions for a “default judgment” and for appointment of appellate

counsel are DENIED.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            1665
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        7
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1672
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               61
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1611
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1672
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    50
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       20
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   109
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (79)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (79)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (79)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.33)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02337-REB-MJW

TYRON DUANTE SMALL,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

JOHN DOE DETECTIVE ONE, and

JOHN DOE OFFICER TWO,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Request for court appointed counsel for

plaintiff (Docket No. 44) is denied without prejudice. Counsel cannot be appointed and

paid pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but the court has broad discretion to direct the

Clerk of Court to attempt to obtain volunteer counsel for a party in a civil case. See

Murphy v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 2009 WL 2959205 (D. Colo. Sept. 10, 2009)

(citing DiCesare v. Stuart, 12 F.3d 973, 979 (10th Cir. 1993)). When making such a

decision, the court “should consider a variety of factors, including the merits of the

litigant’s claims, the nature of the factual issues raised in the claims, the litigant’s ability

to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims.” Long

v. Shillinger, 927 F.2d 525, 527 (10th Cir. 1991). Having considered the current

record in this case, the court finds that, even assuming the plaintiff has a colorable

claim, he currently appears to be able to present his case adequately. The factual

and legal issues raised are not so numerous or complex that the plaintiff is unable

to present his case adequately at this stage of the litigation. 

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Requested copy of plaintiff withdrawn

summary judgement (Docket No. 46) is granted to the extent that the Clerk of Court will

provide the plaintiff with a copy of his withdrawn motion for summary judgment (Docket

No. 30) if plaintiff remits payment for such copy. The Fee Schedule for this court

requires payment in the amount of $.50 per page. The plaintiff’s withdrawn motion for

summary judgment (Docket No. 30), including exhibits, is 24 pages long. Therefore,

plaintiff must submit payment in the amount of $12.00 to the Clerk of Court in order to

obtain a copy of his withdrawn motion (Docket No. 30).

Date: June 1, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02337-MJW Document 49 Filed 06/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 10, 2004*Release dates | Coded tables | Historical dataCurrent release | Screen reader  | PDF (450 KB)**Flows Flow of Funds Matrix for 2003** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### LULLWATER CORPORATION v. SISTRUNK.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Certiorari dismissed without- opinion.
----

**Exhibit 23.6**

 

**Consent of Geothermal Science, Inc.**

In connection with U.S. Geothermal Inc’sregistration statement of Form 10K, S-3, S-8 and related filings under the United States Securities Act of 1933, I, Richard Holt, on behalf of Geothermal Science, Inc. (“Geothermal”), herby consent to the use of Geothermal’s name and to the useof the “Assessment of the Geothermal Potential, Neal Hot Springs, Malheur County, Oregon” dated February 5, 2009,references to the Assessment, or portions thereof, or information derived from the Assessment, in the Registration Statement.

Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 11th day of August, 2009.

/s/ Richard J. Holt                           Name: Richard J. Holt
EX-10.8(b)



 EXHIBIT 10.8(b) 

April 7, 2014 
 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC 

522 Fifth Avenue, 13th Floor 
 New York, New York 10036 

 

	Re:	Ceres Managed Futures LLC: Amended Schedules 1 and 2 to the Alternative 

 Investment
Selling Agent Agreement 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Pursuant to paragraph 13(c) of the Alternative Investment Selling Agent Agreement dated November 12, 2013, as amended from time to time
(the “Agreement”), between, among others, Ceres Managed Futures LLC (“CMF”), the general partner of each of the limited partnerships listed on Schedule 1 thereto (each, a “Partnership,” and together, the
“Partnerships”), and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“MSSB”), CMF is hereby confirming that Schedules 1 and 2 to the Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with Schedules 1 and 2 attached
hereto. 
 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Agreement, by signing below MSSB hereby agrees to, acknowledges and accepts the
amendment of the Agreement, effective as of April 1, 2014. 







 If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding of our discussions, kindly sign and
return to us a counterpart hereof (by mail, facsimile or email) as soon as possible. 
  

					
	Sincerely,
		
		 	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Alper Daglioglu

		 		 	Alper Daglioglu
		 		 	President and Director
		
		 	EACH PARTNERSHIP LISTED ON
		 	SCHEDULE 1 HERETO
		
		 	By: Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the general partner of each Partnership
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Alper Daglioglu

		 		 	Alper Daglioglu
		 		 	President and Director


 Confirmed, accepted and agreed to: 
  

			
	MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jeremy Beal

	Name:	 	Jeremy Beal
	Title:	 	Executive Director


  
 Page 2 








 SCHEDULE 1 
  

					
	 PARTNERSHIP
	 	 STATE AND DATE OF

ORGANIZATION
	 	 EFFECTIVE DATE

	Managed Futures Premier Aventis II L.P.	 	New York; April 20, 2005	 	October 1, 2013


  
 Page 3 








 SCHEDULE 2 
  

			
	 PARTNERSHIP
	 	 ONGOING SELLING AGENT FEE

	Managed Futures Premier Aventis II L.P.	 	2.50% per year of the adjusted net assets of the Partnership (computed monthly by multiplying the adjusted net assets of the Partnership by 2.50% and dividing the result thereof by 12)1

  

	1 	Adjusted net assets are month-end Net Assets increased by that current month’s ongoing selling agent fee, management fee, the general partner’s administrative fee, the incentive
fee accrued, other expenses and any redemptions or distributions as of the end of such month. 


  
 Page 4
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1752 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1752

To establish the policy of the United States with respect to deployment 
 of missile defense systems capable of defending allies of the United 
                States against ballistic missile attack.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 9, 2007

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish the policy of the United States with respect to deployment 
 of missile defense systems capable of defending allies of the United 
                States against ballistic missile attack.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defense Against Regional Threats Act 
of 2007''.

SEC. 2. ALLIED MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY.

    It is the policy of the United States to provide for deployment as 
soon as is technologically possible of effective missile defense 
systems capable of defending Israel and all member nations of the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization against ballistic missile attack from 
Iran.

SEC. 3. ALLIED BURDENSHARING.

    It is the policy of the United States to seek continued negotiated 
burdensharing agreements with the nations specified in section 2 to 
share the costs of development and deployment of ballistic missile 
defense systems.
                                 <all>
```