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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1001 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1001

   To amend the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership 
   Encouragement Act of 2006 to extend the date for the President to 
 determine if Haiti meets certain requirements, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2007

  Mr. Spratt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership 
   Encouragement Act of 2006 to extend the date for the President to 
 determine if Haiti meets certain requirements, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TIME FOR PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION REGARDING HAITI.

    Section 213A(d)(2) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, as 
added by section 5002(a) of the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through 
Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-432), is amended 
by striking ``90 days'' and inserting ``1 year''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

APPOINTMENT OF INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 
                          OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, and pursuant to the 
provisions of section 301 of Public Law 104-1, the Chair announces on 
behalf of the Speaker and minority leader of the House of 
Representatives and the majority and minority leaders of the U.S. 
Senate their joint appointment of the following individuals to the 
Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance:
  Mr. Glen D. Nager of Washington, DC, chairman, to a 5-year term;
  Ms. Virginia A. Seitz of Washington, DC, to a 5-year term;
  Mr. Jerry M. Hunter of Missouri, to a 4-year term;
  Mr. James N. Adler of California, to a 4-year term; and
  Mr. Lawrence Z. Lorber of Washington, DC, to a 3-year term.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________
```
763 A.2d 809

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent, v. Dorothy E. COOKE, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Dec. 5, 2000.

Sharon L. Meisler, Norristown, for petitioner.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2000, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The order of the Superi- *588or Court is REVERSED. See *Commonwealth v. Polo,*563 Pa. 218, 759 A.2d 372, 2000 Pa. LEXIS 2415 (2000).

Justice SAYLOR has filed a Dissenting Statement joined by Justice CASTILLE.

SAYLOR, Justice,

dissenting.

In this appeal concerning the propriety of a consent search occurring on a commercial passenger bus, the Court invokes *Commonwealth v. Polo,*563 Pa. 218, 759 A.2d 372 (2000), to summarily reverse, effectively invalidating the search. The decision to vitiate the search at issue in *Polo,*however, was expressly predicated upon the preceding *stop*of a commercial passenger bus by law enforcement officials, that is, its removal from the flow of traffic, deemed by the Court to have been illegal. *See id.*at 225, 759 A.2d at 376. In the present case, although the consent search also occurred on a bus, it was not preceded by an illegal stop or by any stop occasioned by law enforcement officials. Rather, when police officers boarded, the bus was already stopped at a terminal location pursuant to the bus company’s routine schedule.

As the dispositive circumstance from *Polo*is not present in this case, the Court’s decision to reverse necessarily represents an expansion of *Polo’s*holding. Since, however, the present ruling is rendered on a *per curiam*basis, it cannot be discerned just how broadly *Polo’s*holding is to be read. While it is possible that the Court intends to apply *Polo*to delays in departure which may have been occasioned by law enforcement activity, *but see Commonwealth v. Cooke,*745 A.2d 37 (Pa.Super.1999)(stating that “[w]hile the suppression court in the present case emphasized that the Greyhound bus left five minutes late and speculates that the drug interdiction was to blame, there is no evidence in the record to explain the delay” (citation omitted)), it is equally plausible that some broader interpretation is intended. In such circumstances, to avoid confusion in the trial and intermediate appellate courts, it would be preferable if the rationale supporting the Court’s order were supplied. This would seem particularly appropri*589ate where the Court is invoking the Pennsylvania Constitution (the basis for the disposition in Polo) in a manner which could be viewed as diverging from the interpretations of the United States Supreme Court in its application of the United States Constitution. *See generally Florida v. Bostick,*501 U.S. 429, 439, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 2389, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991).

As I would have allowed appeal concerning the extent to which *Polo*controls, I respectfully dissent.

Justice CASTILLE joins this dissenting statement.
EX-33.1
(logo) CoreLogic (R)

1 CoreLogic Dr.
Westlake, TX 76262

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE

CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the "Asserting Party"), an
indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc, is responsible for assessing compliance
as of December 31, 2011, and for the period from January 1, 2011 through
December 31, 2011 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set
forth in Title 17, Sections 229.1122(d)(1)(iv), (d)(2)(v), (d)(2)(vi),
(d)(2)(vii), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii) and (d)(4)(xiii) of the Code of Federal
Regulations applicable to the Asserting Party (the "Applicable Servicing
Criteria"). The servicing activities covered by this report include all loans
for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Asserting
Party served as the commercial tax service provider (the "Platform").

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party
has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria
as of December 31, 2011, and for the Reporting Period with respect to the
Platform taken as a whole.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm,
has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2011, and for the Reporting
Period.


CORELOGIC COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC.

/s/ Vicki Chenault
Vicki Chenault,
Senior Vice President
February 8, 2012


Page 1 of 1
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL DEAN THOMPSON.

March 27, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### F. R. Dean, Collector, etc., v. Edward Reinecke.

(No. 795, Tex. L. J., vol. 3, p. 656.)

Appeal from Galveston County.

Opinion by

Clark, J.

§ 742. *“Bell-punch law,” constitutionality of.*The opinion in this case maintaining the constitutionality of the bell-punch law is the same identically, in substance and authorities cited, as the opinion of Judge Clark in Albrecht v. State, 8 Tex. Ct. App. 216, and we do not, therefore, deem it necessary to report it.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1055 

To amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 

1986 to strike a provision relating to modifications in reporting frequency. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2007 

Mr. PALLONE (for himself, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. FRANK

of Massachusetts, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. INSLEE, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. WEINER, 

Mr. CONYERS, Mr. WAXMAN, Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California, Mr. 

GRIJALVA, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. 

BLUMENAUER, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Ms. CASTOR, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. HOLT, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. SIRES, Mr. PASCRELL, Mrs. 

TAUSCHER, Mr. HONDA, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. CLAY, Mr. ELLISON, Ms. 

MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. OLVER, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. NADLER, 

Mr. WYNN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DOYLE, Ms. BALDWIN, and Mr. FARR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Emergency Planning and Community Rightto-Know Act of 1986 to strike a provision relating to 

modifications in reporting frequency. 

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


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1055 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Toxic Right-to-Know 

3 Protection Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS IN REPORTING FREQUENCY. 

5 Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Commu6 nity Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11023) is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) by striking subsection (i); and 

9 (2) by redesignating subsections (j) through (l) 

10 as subsections (i) through (k), respectively. 

11 SEC. 3. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TOXIC RELEASE IN12 VENTORY. 

13 Notwithstanding any other provision of law— 

14 (1) the Administrator of the Environmental 

15 Protection Agency (referred to in this section as the 

16 ‘‘Administrator’’) shall establish the eligibility 

17 threshold regarding the use of a form A certification 

18 statement under the toxic release inventory program 

19 established under the Emergency Planning and 

20 Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 

21 11001 et seq.) at not greater than 500 pounds for 

22 nonpersistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals; 

23 and 

24 (2) the use of a form A certification statement 

25 described in paragraph (1), or any equivalent suc26 cessor thereto, shall be prohibited with respect to 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1055 IH

1 any chemical identified by the Administrator as a 

2 chemical of special concern under section 372.28 of 

3 title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor 

4 regulation). 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 85 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              TRIBUTE TO A GOOD FRIEND AND GREAT AMERICAN

  (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to pay tribute to my good 
friend Les Aspin. This is a man who was never about power or never 
about pretense. He was about public service and the highest quality of 
public service. He truly gave it his all, every single day he got out 
of bed. No taxpayer could ever complain that Les Aspin did not put his 
whole self into what he was doing, no matter what it was.
  We have really, indeed, lost a great mind, a very energetic person, 
and a person who did not come with a certain ideology but came, 
instead, to listen to the facts and try and do what was right.
  One of the things that he did as Secretary of Defense that probably 
will go unnoticed but should not go unnoticed is he was brave enough to 
start putting some of the rhetoric aside and open the doors for many of 
America's young women who had been waiting outside that door to serve 
more fully in the armed services. Les was the kind of guy who would 
look at the studies, who would look at the performance ratings, who 
would look at the tests, and who would say, of course, they can.
  There is absolutely no reason except bias and prejudice that they 
cannot move forward. He opened those doors, and many of the young women 
proudly serving today in America's military can be looking to Les Aspin 
and saying, thank you, because he was the one who put aside many of 
those superstitions and moved that forward.
  But that was the kind of person who he was. We will miss that kind of 
person very desperately and I will miss him as a friend.

                          ____________________
```
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 25, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1021

Lower Tribunal No. F06-28538

________________

Quincy Watkins,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Mary Pooler, Judge.

Quincy Watkins, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K


(Dollars in thousands)





Exhibit 12.1


Computation of ratios


(Dollars in thousands)





Forty Weeks EndedNovember 4, 2002

November 5, 2001Income (loss) before fixed charges:Income from continuing operations



$
26,832



$
(73,444
)Fixed charges




55,875




70,296$
82,707



$
(3,148
)Fixed charges:Interest expense



$
34,435



$
46,783Interest expense component of rent expense (1)




21,440




23,513$
55,875



$
70,296Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges




N/A



$
73,444Facility action charges, net




3,713




60,827Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges excludingfacility action charges, net




N/A



$
12,617Fixed charges coverage ratio




1.5X




N/A


(1) Calculated as one-third of rent expense
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC15-865

____________

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 14-482 

RE: VICTORIA L. GRIFFIN.

[June 18, 2015]

PER CURIAM.

We have for review a stipulation between the Florida Judicial Qualifications 

Commission (“JQC”) and Judge Victoria L. Griffin, as well as the JQC’s findings 

and recommendation that Judge Griffin be publicly reprimanded for violating the 

Code of Judicial Conduct. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 12, Fla. Const. 

“[A]t the inception of her judicial campaign, Judge Griffin failed to follow 

Florida law when she opened her campaign account, and lent money to her 

campaign prior to filing the necessary qualification paperwork with the qualifying 

officer.” Judge Griffin admits that her conduct violated portions of Chapter 106 of 

the Florida Statutes and Canons 1, 2(A), 7(A)(3)(a), and 7(E) of the Code of 

Judicial Conduct. Further, Judge Griffin accepts full responsibility and 

acknowledges that the conduct should not have occurred. We accept the 
- 2 -

stipulation and approve the JQC’s findings and recommended sanction of a public 

reprimand. Accordingly, we hereby command Judge Griffin to appear before this 

Court at a time to be established by the Clerk of this Court.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON,

and PERRY, JJ., concur. 

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 

IF FILED, DETERMINED. 

Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission 

Ricardo Morales, III, Chair, and Alexander John Williams, Assistant General 

Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida, 

for Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner

Judge Victoria L. Griffin, pro se, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Vero Beach, Florida, 

for Respondent
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Basic Needs Allowance, MineX, Antarctic MissionPublished Nov. 4, 2022
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Saomy Sabournin
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                In this week’s look around the Air Force, applications for the new Basic Needs Allowance will soon be available for service members, the Air Force and Navy work together to practice mining operations in the Indo-Pacific, and Operation Deep Freeze brings Airmen to the South Pole. (Hosted by Tech. Sgt. Britt Crolley)





For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:**- DAF senior leaders amplify SecDef directives for reproductive health care****- USAF, Navy integrate for Bomber Task Force MineX****- NY Guard’s 109th Airlift Wing supports Antarctic research**Basic Needs Allowance 



BNA 



families 



spouses 



PCS 



MineX 



Bomber Task Force 



BTF 



exercise 



integration 



Teamwork 



Operation Deep Freeze 



Antarctica 



109th Airlift Wing 



National Guard
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Cause No 01-12-00704-CV; In re Tammy Fountain, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus from Order Revoking 

Suspension and for Commitment to County Jail, Cause No. 2010-31997, in the 309th

District Court of Harris County, Texas.

Relator Tammy Fountain was found in contempt of the trial court’s orders in an order dated 

May 24, 2012. Fountain filed this original habeas corpus proceeding, and we ordered her released 

on bail pending resolution of the proceeding. This court denied relief with written opinions 

issued on December 28, 2012. On January 2, Fountain filed a motion for rehearing, in which she 

informed the court of a rule 11 agreement between the parties, dated December 12, 2012, whereby 

real party in interest Kathy Katcher agreed that “[t]he current enforcement shall be dismissed with 

prejudice.” Katcher requested that we abate the proceeding until July 1, 2013 to permit the parties 

to effectuate their agreement. We granted the request for abatement and ordered the parties to file 

a status report or a motion to dismiss by July 1, 2013. We also ordered the parties to timely notify 

the court of all events affecting the status of the case.

Katcher filed a status report on July 1, 2013, informing the court that a status conference 

has been set for July 2, 2013 and that Fountain filed a motion for continuance to hire another 

attorney.

The parties shall file an updated status report or a motion to dismiss within 3 days of any 

further status conference held in the trial court. Additionally, the parties shall inform this court no 

later than August 9, 2013:

a. Whether the trial court has been requested to enter a final order as referenced in paragraph 

13 of the parties’ rule 11 agreement dated December 12, 2012, and if not, why not;

b. Whether Katcher has dismissed her enforcement petition with prejudice as referenced in 

paragraph 14 of the parties’ rule 11 agreement dated December 12, 2012, and if not, why 

not;

c. Whether this original proceeding has become moot for any reason; and

d. Whether there is any reason why this original proceeding should not be reinstated on the 

court’s active docket.

To the extent this original proceeding is not moot, Katcher is requested to provide the court 

of appeals with any revised or supplemental response to the motion for rehearing no later than 

August 9, 2013.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Justice Massengale, Acting Individually

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown

Date: July 2, 2013
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 IBSG International, Inc.., (the “Company”)
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
Rivers, PhD, 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 to the best of my knowledge:





(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.





IBSG
      INTERNATIONAL, INC.March 31,
      2008
                By:
                /s/ Michael
      Rivers, PhDMichael
      Rivers, PhDChairman,
      CEO
#### MARIO VARGAS *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 23519)

Schaller, Dranginis and Bishop, Js.

Submitted on briefs June 11

officially released July 8, 2003

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OCTAVIO SANCHEZ, DBA Weedmenu, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

GHOST MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, 

DBA Weedmaps, a Delaware limited 

liability company, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

VIRTUAL SUPPORT, LLC, 

Defendant.

No. 19-56267 

D.C. No. 8:19-cv-00442-AG-KES 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. 

* 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

MAY 26 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-56267 

Octavio Sanchez appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 

claims against defendant Ghost Management Group, LLC, arising from a 

trademark dispute. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

A review of the record and the response to this court’s February 22, 2021

order to show cause demonstrate that the court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal 

because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 54(b) (“[T]he court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, 

but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that 

there is no just reason for delay.”); Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 

1981) (order is not appealable unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties, or 

judgment is entered in compliance with Rule 54(b)). Consequently, this appeal is 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

This dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a timely notice of appeal 

from any final order or judgment, or a judgment entered in compliance with Rule 

54(b), subsequently entered by the district court. 

DISMISSED.