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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1239 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 24, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To amend the National Underground Railroad Network to 

Freedom Act of 1998 to authorize additional funding 

to carry out the Act, and for other purposes. 

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


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

HR 1239 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Underground 

3 Railroad Network to Freedom Amendments Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR SPECIFIC 

5 PURPOSES. 

6 The National Underground Railroad Network to 

7 Freedom Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 469l et seq.) is amend8 ed— 

9 (1) by striking section 3(d); 

10 (2) by striking section 4(d); and 

11 (3) by adding at the end the following new sec12 tion: 

13 ‘‘SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

14 ‘‘(a) AMOUNTS.—There are authorized to be appro15 priated to carry out this Act $2,500,000 for each fiscal 

16 year, to be allocated as follows: 

17 ‘‘(1) $2,000,000 is to be used for the purposes 

18 of section 3. 

19 ‘‘(2) $500,000 is to be used for the purposes of 

20 section 4. 

21 ‘‘(b) RESTRICTIONS.—No amounts may be appro22 priated for the purposes of this Act except to the Secretary 

23 for carrying out the responsibilities of the Secretary as 

24 set forth in this Act.’’. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

HR 1239 RFS

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect 

3 at the beginning of the fiscal year immediately following 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

By DEBORAH M. SPRIGGS, 

Deputy Clerk. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Sky Blue Builders, LLC ) ASBCA No. 63536

- ADR

)

Under Contract No. FA2550

- 20

- C

- 0025 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Jonathan A. DeMella, Esq.

Traeger Machetanz, Esq.

Matthew C. Gurr, Esq.

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Seattle, WA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Caryl A. Potter III, Esq.

Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney

Lawrence M. Anderson, Esq.

Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: April 4, 2024

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63536

- ADR

, Appeal of Sky Blue

Builders, LLC , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: April 4, 2024 KENNETH D. WOODROW

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
#### Steven E. FISCHER, Appellant, v. Mary E. FISCHER, Appellee.

No. 5D08-2428.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Dec. 4, 2009.

Anne Marie Gennusa of The Law Offices of Anne Marie Gennusa, PA, St. Augustine, for Appellant.

Amy E. Newby, of Law Office of Amy E. Newby, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MONACO, C.J. and SAWAYA, J., concur.

COHEN, J., concurs specially, with opinion.

COHEN, J,

concurring specially.

The issue on appeal is straightforward. Appellant argued the lower court abused its discretion in making a cumulative award of ninety-five percent of his gross income to the former wife, an error that was apparent on the face of the final judgment. Appellee took the position that the lack of a transcript or statement of facts pursuant to Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure 9.200(b)(4) precluded review.

Per curiam disposition of this case is appropriate. While a final judgment ordering one spouse to pay so high a percentage of gross income would normally merit close scrutiny, *see Dennison v. Dennison,*852 So.2d 422 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), two critical facts were omitted from Appellant’s brief. First, the final judgment reflects that Appellant agreed, at trial, to pay the two mortgages on the marital residence until the property sold. Second, and more importantly, the trial court stayed the mortgage payment requirement postjudgment, no doubt recognizing the impossibility of Appellant’s ability to pay the amounts ordered and to also support himself. Thus, Appellant was left with a permanent periodic alimony obligation of $650 per month plus $483.77 in monthly *858child support, neither of which are specifically being challenged on appeal, nor would they constitute an abuse of discretion, particularly in the absence of a transcript.
Exhibit 23


                         Consent of Independent Auditors



          We consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
     Statement (Form S-8 No.  333-56759)  pertaining to the Hagler Bailly,  Inc.
     Employee Incentive and Non-Qualified Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan
     of our report  dated  March 24,  2000,  with  respect  to the  consolidated
     financial  statements of Hagler Bailly,  Inc. included in the Annual Report
     (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.




March 29, 2000
McLean, VA
#### T. & P. R’y Co. v. Schneider & Davis.

(No. 1095, Op. Book No. 3, p. 469.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

■§118. *Common carrier; warehousemen; respective liabilities of.*A common carrier is liable for goods lost or destroyed while in his care, unless such loss or destruction is shown to have been occasioned by the act of God, the public enemy, or the ■ fault of the owner. A warehouseman is only liable for failing to exercise ordinary care in preserving the goods.

§ 119. *Common carrier; commencement and termination of liability of.*A common carrier is liable as such for goods intrusted to him, from the commencement of *48the trip or voyage until the goods are delivered to the consignee at the point of destination; provided, that if the carrier at the point of destination shall use due diligence to notify the consignee, and the goods are not taken by the consignee, and have in consequence to be stored in the depot or warehouse of the carrier, the carrier shall thereafter only be liable as warehouseman. [R. S. arts. 281, 282.]

January 29, 1881.

§ 120. *Notice to consignee; requisites of; effect of.*The notice intended by the statute must be such as will inform the consignee with reasonable certainty that the carrier is ready to deliver the goods, and the place of delivery, and must be given in business hours. After such notice given, the consignee is entitled to a reasonable time in which to take and remove the goods, and as to what would constitute reasonable time must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.

§ 121. *Delivery of goods by carrier; time and manner of.*The goods must be tendered in a proper time and manner, as well as place, to relieve the carrier from responsibility. Hence it must be within business hours, and under such circumstances that the consignee may receive and put his goods away consistently with their safety. And it is the duty of the carrier to hold the goods in his custody until this may be done, and while he does so he continues to hold them under his responsibility as can-ier. [Morgan v. Dibble, 29 Tex. 119.]

§ 122. *Common carrier may enlarge, but not restrict, liability.*While the law prohibits common carriers from limiting their liability, as such, by special contract, there is no prohibition against their extending or enlarging that liability by special contract or arrangement.

Affirmed.
IIA 

Calendar No. 770 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 92 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2008 

Received and read the first time 

JUNE 6, 2008 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United 

4 States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limita5 tion contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu 

6 thereof $10,615,000,000,000. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 5, 2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Calendar No. 770 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 92 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt. 

JUNE 6, 2008 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12


                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                         SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT

     This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to that certain Securities Purchase
Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of March 4, 1999 between Notify Technology
Corporation (the "Company") and David A. Brewer ("Brewer") is made as of October
7, 1999.

     In consideration of good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which
is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Brewer agree as follows:

1.  On or prior to October 13, 1999, Brewer will duly exercise (including
delivering to the Company the consideration due upon exercise) those certain two
warrants issued pursuant to the Agreement with accelerated termination
provisions described in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Exhibit A-2 of the Agreement.

2.  Section 10(b) of that certain warrant issued pursuant to the Agreement with
an accelerated termination provision described in paragraph 3 of Exhibit A-2 of
the Agreement shall be amended so that it reads in its entirety as follows:

"This warrant shall terminate thirty days after (i) the Company' receives
purchase orders which in aggregate total $1,500,00 or more in any fiscal
quarter, and (ii) the Company provides Holder notice of the Company's achieving
the foregoing milestone"

     and the termination date of said warrant (as described in clause (a) of
Section 10(a)) shall be amended to be March 31, 2001.

3.  Section 10(b) of that certain warrant issued pursuant to the Agreement with
an accelerated termination provision described in paragraph 4 of Exhibit A-2 of
the Agreement shall be amended so that it reads in its entirety as follows:

"This warrant shall terminate thirty days after (i) the Company has Fiscal 2000
revenue of $5,000,000 or more, and (ii) the Company provides Holder notice of
the Company's achieving the foregoing milestone."

     and termination date of said warrant (as described in clause (a) of Section
10(a)) shall be amended to be March 31, 2001.

     This Amendment has been executed effective as of the first date set forth
above.

NOTIFY TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION


/s/ Paul DePond                 /s/ David Brewer
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul DePond, President          David Brewer
760 A.2d 369

#### In the Matter of James Maurice WELKIE. Petition for Reinstatement from Inactive Status.

No. 74 DB 2000.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 2, 2000.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2000, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated August 31, 2000, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that JAMES MAURICE WELKIE, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

________________ _____________
No. 1D19-709

________________ _____________
M AURICE S TILLS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

________________ _____________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Du val County. Mark Borello, Judge.

July 8, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R AY , C.J., and W ETHERELL and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.

________________ _____________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fl a. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

________________ _____________2 Maurice Stills, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney Genera l, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: AMENDMENT TO RULE 19 15.11 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE : : : : : : : NO. 641 CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET

**ORDER**
**PER CURIA M**  **AN D NOW**  , this 18 th day of May , 201 6 , upon the recommendation of the Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee ; the proposal having been submitted without publication pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(a)(3) : **IT IS ORDERED** pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Rule 1915.11 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure is amended in the attached form. This **ORDER** shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective on July 1 , 201 6

.
Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined. Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
#### Leo GREENFIELD, Petitioner, v. Thomas J. NORTHCUTT and Kayelynne Northcutt, Respondents.

No. 3D08-2224.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 2, 2009.

Leo Greenfield, in proper person.

Houlihan & Partners and Gerald J. Houlihan, Miami, for respondents.

Before COPE, WELLS, and CORTINAS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We treat this appeal as a petition for a writ of prohibition. “If a judge has been previously disqualified on motion for alleged prejudice or partiality ... a successor judge shall not be disqualified based on a successive motion by the same party unless the successor judge rules that he or she is in fact not fair or impartial in the case.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin., Rule 2.330(g). *See also*§ 38.10, Fla. Stat.; *Kokal v. State,*901 So.2d 766, 773-75 (Fla.2005). Accordingly, we deny the petition.
News United States Air Force
 Former Thunderbird pilot reunites with T-38 at Tyndall AFBPublished Sept. 13, 2016
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Javier Cruz
                        
                        
                        325th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) --**
                *(This feature is part of the "Through Airmen's Eyes" series. These stories focus on individual Airmen, highlighting their Air Force story.)*
Standing in the shadow of America’s premier fifth-generation fighter aircraft would make any other aircraft pale in comparison, but one T-38 Talon at Tyndall Air Force Base hides a historical legacy.
Retired Lt. Col. Dale Cooke, a former Air Force Thunderbird pilot, traveled to Tyndall AFB to reunite with the aircraft that served with him as a Thunderbird.
“The last time I saw this plane was 34 years ago when I flew it near Nellis AFB, (Nevada), in 1982,” Cooke said. 
Cooke flew in the slot position between two wingmen and directly behind the leader during his assignment with the Thunderbirds and accumulated over 800 flight hours while traveling the country, logging more than 200 performances during the regular show season from 1979-1982.
“It was one of the best times of my life,” Cooke said. “The pure joy of flying and being around other people who were striving for excellence, it was wonderful and I have lifelong friends from that experience.”
No longer painted in its Thunderbird legacy colors of red, white and blue, aircraft No. 177 fulfills a different role within the 2nd Fighter Training Squadron as a world-class, air-to-air aggressor for F-22 Raptor student pilots. Repainted a glossy black, the T-38 remains a versatile training tool for today’s fifth-generation fighter aircraft. 
From 1974-1982, the Thunderbird T-38s soared over millions of spectators nationwide and inspired generations of future pilots and service members. 
“It flies against the Raptor every day, that’s a testament to the aircraft. It’s a strong little plane,” Cooke said.
Other than the new paint job, No. 177 is the only remaining unmodified T-38A model still in its original Thunderbirds configuration. 
The 2nd FTS maintains the legacy of the aircraft as an original Thunderbirds decal is proudly displayed near the student pilot seat.
“They’re keeping the history; they know what they’ve got,” Cooke said. “Seeing that plane today in the great condition that it is in makes me very happy. Many times I’ve met people who told me they wanted to be in the Air Force because they saw the Thunderbirds fly.”
In 1982, the Thunderbirds switched from the T-38 to the F-16 Fighting Falcon, which has carried the legacy torch into today’s modern air shows and appearances across the country. 
The Thunderbirds are known for their precision aerial performances at air shows and national events. The attention to detail in their performances expands into the ground crew who also perform a synchronized routine before take-off and again during landing.ACC 



Tyndall AFB 



Thunderbirds 



pilot 



nellis afb 



TAE
No. 87-1459.

#### In re Alexander.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Eddy & Cross, Receivers, v. Will Elliott. Same v. A. S. Mathews.

(Nos. 3491 and 3492.)

Appeal from Hopkins County.

Peteet & Crosby, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 173. *Common carriers; passengers; facts held not to authorize judgment for damages for ejection of.*These two appeals present the same cause of action, and the same facts and questions of law are involved in each case. The appellees, each, sued the railway company for damages, because they had been illegally and wrongfully ejected from the cars of said company, upon which they claimed to be passengers. They claimed $50 damages for being ejected from the cars, and $900 damages for wounded feelings. Judgment was rendered in each case for $50 against the railroad. The facts, in brief, are that these parties got on the train in the day-time to ride a distance of thirteen miles between stations. They did not purchase or attempt to buy tickets, though the depot was open for sale of tickets a half hour before the train should start from that station. They knew they would have to pay on the train, and pay at the rate of four cents a mile. In a few moments after starting, the conductor came around to take up tickets, or collect fare. When he reached these parties, Elliott handed him $1 to pay both fares. The conductor understood him to say he desired to pay three fares, and told him they came to $1.65; he (the conductor) repeating more than once that three fares came to $1.65. These parties made no attempt to correct the mistake of the conductor, nor did they tender him $1.10, which was the fare for the two at four cents per mile. When the conductor came back *249and demanded the sixty-five cents, they did not explain his mistake, nor offer to pay him the ten cents they still owed for the two. He told them' they would have to pay or get off. They said they would get off. He stopped the cars, and they got off voluntarily, and in a smooth, level place near a good public road, and within half a mile of the depot they started from. They testify themselves that the conductor treated them in a most kind and gentlemanly manner, and used no violence of any kind, or rough language of any kind. These are the plain, simple facts of the case. Upon these facts, the plaintiffs had no cause of action against the railroad, and the judgments in both cases are reversed, because they are wholly without evidence to support them.

November 29, 1890.

Eeversed and remanded.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Peter M. Zotto, certify that:

    1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of IONA Technologies PLC;

    2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

    3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

    4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

        (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
    disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
    ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
    consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
    entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
    being prepared;

        (b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions
    contained in SEC Release 34-47986];

        (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
    and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
    the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

        (d) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's
    internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
    covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably
    likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
    financial reporting; and

    5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

        (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
    or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
    reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
    process, summarize and report financial information; and

        (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
    other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
    control over financial reporting.


By: /s/ Peter M. Zotto
   ---------------------------------
     Peter M. Zotto
     Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 20, 2005
No. 87-1152.

#### Public Utilities Commission of Hawaii et al. *v.*Hawaiian Telephone Co. Gushiken et al. *v.*Fujikawa.

No. 87-1302.

C. A. 9th Cir.; and C. A. 9th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.