alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Tiernan P. Doyle","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/tdoyle1\/","title":"NASA Leadership to Visit Mexico, Strengthen Cooperation","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"vT90pzPfRJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-leadership-to-visit-mexico-strengthen-cooperation\/\">NASA Leadership to Visit Mexico, Strengthen Cooperation<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-leadership-to-visit-mexico-strengthen-cooperation\/embed\/#?secret=vT90pzPfRJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Leadership to Visit Mexico, Strengthen Cooperation” — NASA\" data-secret=\"vT90pzPfRJ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/nelson.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":408}
I

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4778

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to clarify the exemption

for houseparents from the minimum wage and maximum hours requirements of that Act, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 9, 1998

Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. FAWELL, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. SOUDER, Mr.

PETRI, Mr. TALENT, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska, Mr.

RAMSTAD, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, and Mr. MANZULLO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the

Workforce

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to clarify

the exemption for houseparents from the minimum wage

and maximum hours requirements of that 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,

3 SECTION 1. REFERENCE.

4 Whenever in this Act an amendment is expressed in

5 terms of an amendment to a section or other provision,

6 the reference shall be considered made to a section or
2

•HR 4778 IH

1 other provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

2 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.).

3 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HOUSEPARENT.

4 Section 3 (29 U.S.C. 203) is amended by adding at

5 the end thereof the following:

6 ‘‘(y) ‘Houseparent’ means any person employed by a

7 nonprofit institution, either as a member of a married cou8 ple or as a single person, to reside in a family-like set9 ting.’’.

10 SEC. 3. MINIMUM WAGE AND MAXIMUM HOURS EXEMPTION

11 FOR HOUSEPARENTS.

12 Section 13(a) (29 U.S.C. 213(a)) is amended by

13 striking the period at the end of paragraph (16) and in14 serting ‘‘; or’’ and by adding at the end thereof the follow15 ing:

16 ‘‘(17)(A) any employee employed by a private

17 nonprofit institution to serve as a houseparent for

18 individuals who are—

19 ‘‘(i) abused, neglected, delinquent, or20 phaned, homeless, drug dependent, emotionally

21 impaired children, or children who suffer from

22 family dysfunction;

23 ‘‘(ii) single, pregnant women ages 14 to

24 35;
3

•HR 4778 IH

1 ‘‘(iii) single individuals ages 14 to 35 with

2 children under the age of 5; or

3 ‘‘(iv) mentally handicapped or mentally ill;

4 and

5 ‘‘(B) when—

6 ‘‘(i) the primary residence of the individ7 uals described in subparagraph (A) is in the

8 residential facilities of such institution,

9 ‘‘(ii) such houseparent resides with such

10 individuals in the residential facilities of such

11 institution for at least 72 hours a week, and

12 ‘‘(iii) such houseparent receives, without

13 cost, board and lodging from such institution

14 and is compensated, on a cash basis, at an an15 nual rate of not less than $8,000.’’.

16 SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

17 Subsection (b) of section 13 (29 U.S.C. 213) is

18 amended by striking out paragraph (24).

Æ
EXHIBIT 31.1

                     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A)
                             (17 CFR 240.13A-14(A))

I,  Finis  F.  Teeter, Chief Executive Officer of American Homestar Corporation,
certify  that:

     1.   I  have  reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Homestar
          Corporation;

     2.   Based  on  my  knowledge,  this  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  report;

     3.   Based  on  my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
          information  included  in  this 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
          report;

     4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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  we  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)  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  report based on such
          evaluation;  and



Date: September 23, 2003         /s/ Finis F. Teeter
                                 ----------------------------------------
                                 Finis F. Teeter
                                 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
                                 (Principal Executive Officer)


<PAGE>
Order entered October 25, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00851-CR

RYAN REAGOR REDD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-00007-H

ORDER

The reporter’s record was due September 6, 2016. We granted a thirty-day extension 

upon the request of court reporter Crystal Jones, making the reporter’s record due October 6, 

2016. To date, the reporter’s record has not been filed and we have had not communication from 

Ms. Jones.

Therefore, we ORDER Crystal Jones to file the reporter’s record in this appeal within 

FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order. If the reporter’s record is not filed by the date 

specified, the Court will utilize its available remedies, which may include ordering that Crystal 

Jones not sit as a court reporter until she files the reporter’s record in this appeal.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Robert Burns, 

Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 1; Crystal Jones, court reporter; and counsel for all 

parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Television to Air 10 Upcoming Spacewalks, Preview Briefing","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"1cCChBUsml\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-television-to-air-10-upcoming-spacewalks-preview-briefing\/\">NASA Television to Air 10 Upcoming Spacewalks, Preview Briefing<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-television-to-air-10-upcoming-spacewalks-preview-briefing\/embed\/#?secret=1cCChBUsml\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Television to Air 10 Upcoming Spacewalks, Preview Briefing” — NASA\" data-secret=\"1cCChBUsml\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/47471299872_2186c588c6_k_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":337}
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

The State of Texas for the Best Interest a nd

Protection of S.K.

No. 06

- 13

- 00023

- CV Appeal from the County Court at Law of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.

40233 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was error in the judgment of

the court below. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and order S.K. ’ s immediate

release from involuntary commitment

.

We further order that the The State of Texas pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MAY 3, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. A utrey, Clerk
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6654

TIMOTHY WALKER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
DONNA F. SMITH , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. ( 5:19

- hc

- 02071

- FL )

Submitted : December 30, 2022 Decided: March 15, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Timothy Walker , Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for App ellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6654 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Timothy Walker, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, in which he sought to challen ge his

sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255

. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the lega lity of his
detention. [Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a sentence when: (1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the sentence; (2) subsequent to the p risoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the aforementioned settled substantive law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review; (3) the prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255(h)(2) for second or succ essive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental defect.
United States v. Wheeler , 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversi ble error. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court ’s order

. Walker v. Smith , No. 5:19

- hc

- 02071

- FL (W.D.N.C. Mar. 30, 2022)

. We grant Walker’s motion to exceed the page limitations for his informal brief and deny his motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and a rgument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6654 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/15/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 2014 / Presidential Documents 63805 

Memorandum of October 17, 2014 

Providing an Order of Succession Within the Social Security 

Administration 

Memorandum for the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Vacancies Reform 

Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 3345 et seq. (the ‘‘Act’’), it is hereby ordered that: 

Section 1. Order of Succession. Subject to the provisions of section 2 of 

this memorandum, and to the limitations set forth in the Act, the following 

officials of the Social Security Administration, in the order listed, shall 

act as and perform the functions and duties of the office of the Commissioner 

of Social Security (Commissioner), during any period in which both the 

Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Social Security have died, resigned, or become otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties 

of the office of Commissioner: 

(a) Deputy Commissioner for Operations; 

(b) Deputy Commissioner for Budget, Finance, Quality, and Management; 

(c) Deputy Commissioner for Systems; 

(d) Regional Commissioner, Atlanta; and 

(e) Regional Commissioner, Dallas. 

Sec. 2. Exceptions. (a) No individual who is serving in an office listed 

in section 1 of this memorandum in an acting capacity, by virtue of so 

serving, shall act as Commissioner pursuant to this memorandum. 

(b) No individual listed in section 1 of this memorandum shall act as 

Commissioner unless that individual is otherwise eligible to so serve under 

the Act. 

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of this memorandum, the President 

retains discretion, to the extent permitted by law, to depart from this memorandum in designating an acting Commissioner. 

Sec. 3. Revocation. The Presidential Memorandum of October 17, 2008 (Designation of Officers of the Social Security Administration to Act as the 

Commissioner of Social Security), is hereby revoked. 

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This memorandum is not intended to, and 

does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable 

at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, 

agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PRESDOCS
63806 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 2014 / Presidential Documents 

(b) You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in 

the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, October 17, 2014. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25568 

Filed 10–23–14; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 4191–02 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PRESDOCSOB#1.EPS</GPH>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Reynold G. Hamadock,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03426-DGC-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/23/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8538 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8538 Filed 11/02/17 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices 

# Order

September 23, 2015

150678

- 80 & (130)

SS Next Friend of Minor LM, DS Next Friend of

Minor SD, MJ Next Friend of Minor MS, DC Next

Friend of Minor LB, TF Next Friend of Minors

DF, ID, and FC, and LH Next Friend of Minor CM,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 150678

- 9

COA: 317071; 317072

Wayne CC: 12

- 009231

- CZ

STATE OF MICHIGAN, STATE BOARD OF

EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION, and STATE SUPERINTENDENT

OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

HIGHLAND PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT,

HIGHLAND PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT

EMERGENCY MANAGER, HIGHLAND PARK

PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY SYSTEM, and

LEONA GROUP, L.L.C.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

SS Next Friend of Minor LM, DS Next Friend of

Minor SD, MJ Next Friend of Minor MS, DC Next

Friend of Minor LB, TF Next Friend of Minors

DF, ID, and FC, and LH Next Friend of Minor CM,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 150680

COA: 317073

Wayn e CC: 12

- 009231

- CZI, 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.

September 23, 2015

p0916 2

Clerk STATE OF MICHIGAN, STATE BOARD OF

EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION, STATE SUPERINTENDENT

OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, HIGHLAND PARK

PUBLIC SCHOOL A CADEMY SYSTEM, and

LEONA GROUP, L.L.C.,

Defendants,

and

HIGHLAND PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT and

HIGHLAND PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT

EMERGENCY MANAGER,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the November 6, 2014 judgment of the

Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.