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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1019 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States customhouse building located 

at 31 Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayagu ̈ez, Puerto 

Rico, as the ‘‘Rafael Martı ́nez Nadal United States Customhouse Building’’. 

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


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

HR 1019 RFS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States customhouse building located at 

3 31 Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayagu ̈ez, Puerto Rico, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Rafael Martı ́nez 

5 Nadal United States Customhouse Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

9 States customhouse building referred to in section 1 shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Rafael Martı ́nez Nadal 

11 United States Customhouse Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 26, 

2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-91680, Form S-3 No. 333-134405 and Form S-3 No. 333-158898) of Franklin Street Properties Corp. of our reports dated February 23, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Franklin
Street Properties Corp. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Franklin Street Properties Corp., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009.





/s/
ERNST & YOUNG LLP





Boston, Massachusetts


February 23, 2010
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1058 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the Hope Scholarship 

Credit to be used for elementary and secondary expenses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2007 

Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. MCCOTTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the 

Hope Scholarship Credit to be used for elementary and 

secondary expenses. 

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 ‘‘Hope Plus Scholarship 

5 Act of 2007’’. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1058 IH

1 SEC. 2. HOPE SCHOLARSHIP CREDIT AVAILABLE FOR ELE2 MENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL 

3 EXPENSES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (f) of section 25A of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

6 at the end the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(3) SPECIAL RULE FOR HOPE SCHOLARSHIP

8 CREDIT.—In the case of the Hope Scholarship Cred9 it, the term ‘qualified tuition and related expenses’ 

10 shall include ‘qualified elementary and secondary 

11 education expenses’ (as defined in section 

12 530(b)(4)); except that— 

13 ‘‘(A) such term shall include a contribution 

14 or gift to the school (other than the home 

15 school) at which dependents of the taxpayer are 

16 attending, and 

17 ‘‘(B) the term ‘school’ shall include a home 

18 school.’’. 

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

20 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

21 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3614

_____________________________
M ICHAEL K NOTTS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jennie Kinsey , Judge

. June 11, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , B ILBREY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Laurel Cornell Niles
, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Tabitha R ae Herrera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 392 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 392

To support and encourage the health and well-being of elementary school 
 and secondary school students by enhancing school physical education 
                         and health education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 27, 2013

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To support and encourage the health and well-being of elementary school 
 and secondary school students by enhancing school physical education 
                         and health education.

    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 ``Promoting Health as Youth Skills In 
Classrooms And Life Act''.

SEC. 2. HEALTH EDUCATION AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION AS CORE ACADEMIC 
              SUBJECTS.

    Section 9101(11) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(11)) is amended by striking ``and geography'' and 
inserting ``geography, physical education, and health education''.
                                 <all>
```
#### BOROUGH OF ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS v. ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS P.B.A. LOCAL 242 AND PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION.

February 28, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
News United States Air Force
 Air Force updates AF Instruction 1-1Published Nov. 10, 2014
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Air Force officials approved Air Force Instruction 1-1, Air Force Standards, Nov. 7, to clarify guidance on Airmen’s religious rights and commanders’ authority and responsibility to protect those rights.
The changes come as a result of a Religious Freedom “Focus Day” earlier this year when leaders in the Air Force’s chaplain corps came together to discuss Air Force policy regarding religious freedom as directed by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III.
At the Focus Day, chaplains discussed Air Force law and policy, the complaint process and how to educate and communicate with Airmen about their rights.
“We provide, or provide for, the free exercise of religion and we advocate its free exercise for every member of the Air Force and the joint environment and their families,” said Maj. Gen. Howard D. Stendahl, the Air Force chief of chaplains.
Several changes were made to the Air Force policy to clarify guidance for how commanders should handle religious accommodation requests or when Airmen’s rights to free exercise are questioned. Chaplain corps officials also clarified policy language to assist commanders in balancing the constitutional protections for their own free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs with the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion.
“We trust our commanders with the great responsibility of caring for our Airmen," Welsh said. "That includes Airmen’s physical, mental, social and spiritual health. We owe them clear guidance on what their responsibilities and rights are to protect and care for their Airmen.”
Airmen who feel their leadership has failed to accommodate their religious expression appropriately or whose behavior infringes on the prohibition against governmental establishment of religion should first attempt to resolve the conflict through their chain of command, said James Carlock, the Air Force director of equal opportunity.
Civilian and military Airmen should also be informed of their rights to discuss their concerns with an equal opportunity advisor in the local EO office.
“We are committed to creating an environment in which Airmen can realize their highest potential, regardless of their personal religious beliefs or lack of beliefs,” Carlock said. “Taking care of our Airmen is our number one concern.”*(Information courtesy of Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs)*AFI 



policy 



chaplain corps 



chaplain 



religion 



religious freedom 



Air Force instruction 1-1
IA 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 46 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny 

United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to 

parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe 

permanent allegiance to the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 13, 2007 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, and Mr. AKIN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to deny United States citizenship to individuals 

born in the United States to parents who are neither 

United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent 

allegiance to the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the following article is proposed as an amendment 

4 to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 

5 valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitu6 tion when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HJ 46 IH 

1 the several States within seven years after the date of its 

2 submission for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. Any person born after the date of the 

5 ratification of this article to a mother and father, neither 

6 of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person 

7 who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall 

8 not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely 

9 by reason of birth in the United States. 

10 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to en11 force this article by appropriate legislation.’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Corporate Trust ServicesMAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel:  410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.

c/ o Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

375 Park Avenue 2nd floor

J0127-023 

New York, New York 10152-023 

 

 

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage

Securities, Inc. Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2011-C5

 

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2011 ( the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the "Reporting Period" ) :

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

 

February 26, 2015

 

/s/  Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH 

Vice President 

 

 

 

 

 
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  |
|------------------------|--|
News United States Air Force
 Air Force tests new chief master sergeant EPR formPublished Aug. 6, 2014
                        
                        By Debbie Gildea
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Air Force leaders will test the newly developed AF Form 912, Enlisted Performance Report (CMSgt), during the calendar year 2014 Regular Air Force Command Chief Master Sergeant Screening Board, which convenes at the Pentagon in September, Air Force Personnel Center officials said.
Development of a chief master sergeant evaluation form is one of many Air Force Enlisted Evaluation System and promotion process changes slated to be implemented in several stages for RegAF over the next 18 months and for the Air Reserve Components over the next 30 months, officials announced July 31. The EES and enlisted promotion overhaul is focused primarily on ensuring that top performers are recognized and selected for promotion. 
"This chief evaluation form is currently for testing purposes only," said Will Brown, Air Force Evaluation and Recognition Programs Branch chief. "The form is posted on ePublishing right now for accessibility and for use as a test form for the upcoming command chief screening board. The forms used for the CCM board, however, will not be maintained in Airman's official military personnel record."
During this test phase, the form will be used only for RegAF chiefs whose senior raters are submitting them for command chief consideration. 
"This is just a test phase, similar to the test phase we conducted prior to implementing the Airman Comprehensive Assessment feedback forms," said Brown. "We'll communicate with senior leaders, including Chief's Group representatives, during and after this test phase to determine what - if any - tweaks need to be made to the EPR form."
The chief EPR will enable senior raters to capture a chief's overall performance, and will provide an opportunity for senior raters to recommend the chief for future roles, such as career field manager, major command functional manager and command chief duty. The form is tentatively slated to be implemented in May 2015. Air Reserve Components will also begin using the form in May 2015, following implementation of EPR static closeout dates.
For more information about enlisted evaluations and promotions, and other personnel issues, visit the myPers website at https://mypers.af.mil.EPR 



form 



test 



chief master sergeant
#### Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc. *v.*Maher.

[No. 19,022.

Filed January 31, 1958.]

*218
      *Fred F. Eichhom,*of Gary, for appellant.

*Max Cohen,*of Gary, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The question presented by this appeal being one purely of fact and three judges of this court, being convinced that the award herein should be reversed and three judges being of the opinion that the said award should be affirmed and this cause not being subject to transfer to the Supreme Court for failure of four judges to agree on a decision the award herein is hereby affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 147 N. E. 2d 598.
#### D. W. Snow v. W. H. Price.

(No. 900, Op. Book No. 2, p. 671.)

Appeal from Rockwall County.

Opinion by

Walker, A. S., J.

§ 1342. *Deposition; objection to, because an interrogatory has not been answered.*That an interrogatory has not been answered is an objection to the manner of taking the deposition. Objections on that ground must be in writing, and.notice thei’eof given to the opposite counsel, when the deposition, as in this case, had been on file one entire day before the trial commenced. [Rev. Stats, art. 2235.]

§ 1343. *Exceptions to the admission of evidence; bill of.*Where objections are taken to the admission of evidence, the court on appeal should have the specified error com*784plained of pointed out, and a bill of exceptions should state what defect the party is attacking.

November 29, 1880.

§ 1344. *Expert testimony.*The witnesses who qualified themselves from their business to speak of the habits of cattle, such as the one whose death is under investigation, were properly allowed to testify. Nor could the testimony be said to be irrelevant. [Whart. on Ev. § 439.] It is evident that plaintiff relied greatly upon the fact of the death of the bull on the 21st of August, as proving the existence of some negligent treatment toward him causing his death. It was therefore proper to rebut such presumption, if it existed — that the testimony was given as to the liability to death of such cattle, and of the actual disease and death of most of the members 5f the herd from which he was taken, notwithstanding and in the face of the utmost carefulness. .The defendant certainly was not liable for damages he did not by his act or omission cause. There was no connection shown between the alleged negligence and the injury. [R. R. Co. v. Le Gierse, 51 Tex. 202; H. & T. C. R. R. Co. v. Nixon, 52 Tex. 28.]

Affirmed.
News United States Air Force
 BLUE: The art of survivalPublished March 30, 2015
                        
                        
                        Air Force News Service
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)**-- Air Force TV here released the latest episode of the Air Force's flagship television program, BLUE. 
This edition features America's Airmen receiving survival skills training. If their plane ever goes down, they need to know how to survive in the harshest environments. See how the Air Force puts their skills to the ultimate test in the frozen wilderness of Alaska, at Arctic Survival School.PACAF 



Alaska 



survival skills 



training 



BLUE 



Arctic Survival School
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57014-57015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23217]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2513-000]


Alta Wind II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based 
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

September 10, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Alta Wind II, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 29, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC

[[Page 57015]]

Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#25636077666a4b494c4b40765055554a575165434057460b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f1b7b4a3b2be9f9d989f94a28481819e8385b197948392df969e87">[email protected]</span></a> or call (866) 
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23217 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6242

LORENZA PORTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC WILSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-00737-HEH)

Submitted: March 12, 2019 Decided: March 18, 2019

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenza Porter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lorenza Porter appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 (2012) petition. Since filing his petition, Porter has been released from custody,

and his supervised release was terminated. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. 

See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (“[T]he essence of habeas corpus is 

an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional 

function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.”); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 

U.S. 234, 238 (1968) (recognizing that purpose of habeas corpus “is to provide an 

effective and speedy instrument by which judicial inquiry may be had into the legality of 

the detention of a person”). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED