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

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4827

To amend the Fair Housing Act to provide an exemption for restrictions

on the occupancy of group homes by persons convicted of certain crimes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 13, 1998

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Fair Housing Act to provide an exemption

for restrictions on the occupancy of group homes by

persons convicted of certain crimes.

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 ‘‘Safe Neighborhood Act

5 of 1998’’.

6 SEC. 2. OCCUPANCY OF GROUP HOMES BY CERTAIN CRIMI7 NALS.

8 Section 807 of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C.

9 3607) is amended by adding at the end the following:
2

•HR 4827 IH

1 ‘‘(c) Nothing in this title limits the applicability of

2 any reasonable local, State, or Federal restriction on the

3 occupancy of group homes by persons convicted of crimes

4 for which a term or imprisonment was imposed.’’.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

CERTIFICATION

I, R. Scott Stevenson, ChiefFinancial Officer of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc.;

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

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

4.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)   Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)   Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)    Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

(a)   All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)   Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 11, 2007
|   | /s/ R. SCOTT STEVENSON   |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | R. Scott  Stevenson      |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

1

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

          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 Quarterly Report of Citizens Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, William V. Humphreys, President and 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: (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 result of
operations of the Company.

/s/ William V. Humphreys
--------------------------------------
William V. Humphreys
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 12, 2006
jfourtfj Court of

i§>an Antonio,

September 3, 2014

No. 04-13-00837-CR, 04-14-00121-CR and 04-14-00122-CR

Dorin James Walker,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

Trial Court Case Nos. 2012CR8371B, 2012CR8370B, and 2012CR8372B

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal and has determined that oral

argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and factual issues presented in the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. Therefore, all requests for oral argument are denied, and the

cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on October 8, 2014, to the following panel:

Justice Marion, Justice Barnard, and Justice Chapa. All parties will be notified of the Court's

decision in this appeal in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 48.

Either party may file motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that

oral argument will not significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and factual issues

presented in the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. Such motion should be filed within ten (10)

days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on September 3, 2014.

Sandee Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, have hereunto set my hand and a/fixed the seal o/the said

court on this September 3, 2014.
Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 11:20:13 Central Daylight Time

Page 1 of 1

Subject: Re: Jim Collins issue

Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 at 8:04:38 PM Central Daylight Time

From: Ellen Rieger

To: Terence Campbell

Dear Terry

Per our conversaFon regarding Jim Collins it is my clinical opinion that Mr. Collins home

confinement be disconFnued immediately.

He is a recovering alcoholic and isolaFon is contraindicated for conFnued sobriety. In addiFon he

is the sole caretaker of his elderly parents who count on him for assistance with their acFviFes of

daily living.

I have been treaFng Mr. Collins weekly for about a year. He has made significant progress in

coping with his mental health, is compliant with his treatment plan and willingly takes his

medicaFons daily.

He has expressed interest in volunteering with underserved populaFons as well as offering his

mulFtude of skills in kids athleFc coaching. There is no benefit in keeping Mr Collins from

pursuing acFviFes that will be of great benefit to his community as well as having a posiFve

impact on his general well being.

Thank you for your consideraFon

Ellen Rieger MA LCPC CADC

- 

-- 

Ellen Rieger MA, LCPC, CADC

Psychotherapist

1740 Ridge Rd #210

Evanston, Il 60201

847 409 9615

www.ellenriegerlcpc.com

"Be kind. We re all just walking each other home."

Ram Dass

Case: 1:20-cr-00232 Document #: 131-2 Filed: 10/05/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:386
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 92 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 92

To require random drug testing of Federal judicial branch officers and 
                               employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 1997

 Mr. Solomon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require random drug testing of Federal judicial branch officers and 
                               employees.

    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 ``Judicial Branch Drug Testing Act''.

SEC. 2. RANDOM DRUG TESTING IN JUDICIAL BRANCH.

    The Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall require 
random drug testing of officers and employees within the judicial 
branch of the Federal Government.
                                 <all>
```
{"id":12764,"count":3,"description":"","link":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/sustainable-flight-national-partnership\/","name":"Sustainable Flight National Partnership","slug":"sustainable-flight-national-partnership","taxonomy":"category","parent":2874,"meta":{"redirect":"","media-tag":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/12764"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/taxonomies\/category"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/2874"}],"wp:post_type":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts?categories=12764"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/hdsnav?categories=12764"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topic?categories=12764"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gallery?categories=12764"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/reference?categories=12764"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/mission?categories=12764"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/feature?categories=12764"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/press-release?categories=12764"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/stem-content?categories=12764"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/people?categories=12764"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/event?categories=12764"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/image-article?categories=12764"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/nasa-blog?categories=12764"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages?categories=12764"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/migration?categories=12764"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/podcast?categories=12764"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
#### Scott *v.*Mortsinger, in Error.

THE defendant moved that the plaintiff should give security for costs, and founded his motion on an affidavit, (under the statute of 1831,) that the plaintiff Was a non-resident, had no *190just cause of action, &c. *Held,*that, on motions of this kind, there should be no examination of witnesses *viva vocc,*nor any supplementary or counter affidavits. 1 Arch. Pr. *60.*—Lewis v. *Brackenridge, May*term, 1821 (1).

(1)

 So much of the act referred to in the text, as relates to the requiring of security for costs of resident plaintiffs, is repealed. Stat. 1834-, p. 171.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S
NO. WR-88,559-04

IN RE ROBERT B RICE DAUG HERTY, Relator

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NOS. 25886, 25928, AND 25958 IN THE 6T H DISTRICT COURT F ROM LAMA R COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Relator has filed a mot i o n for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. I n i t , h e contends that the District Clerk of L amar County is not forwa rding him three aff

idavits ref ere nced in the trial court’s finding s of fac t and conclusions of law

enter ed on January

17, 2019, reg arding his three habea s applications. The District Clerk of L amar County , Respndent, is order ed to send a copy of these aff idavits to Relator and shall file a response in this Court, with a copy of the re sponse also sent to Relator, c ertify ing the date the copies of the aff idavits are sent. Relato r shall file any further pleading in this Court reg arding this mandamus application or the underly ing habea s applications within 35 day s of the date upon which the District Clerk ce rtifies that the c opies are being sent. This application for leave to f ile a writ of mandamus2

shall be h el d i n abey

ance until Respondent has submitt ed the response . Such response shall be submitt ed within 30 day s of the date of this order. Filed: Apr il 3, 2019 Do not publish
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Rachael Whitefield","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/rachaellwhitefield-2-2-2\/","title":"Kjell N. Lindgren","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"r1T2qlBwPx\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/kjell-n-lindgren\/\">Kjell N. Lindgren<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/kjell-n-lindgren\/embed\/#?secret=r1T2qlBwPx\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Kjell N. Lindgren” — NASA\" data-secret=\"r1T2qlBwPx\" 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\/2016\/03\/jsc2014e079611_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 17, 2021

No. 04-21-00509-CV

BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT,

Appellants

v.

LUCIFER LIGHTING COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-CI-09696

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On October 8, 2021, the trial court signed an order denying appellant Bexar Appraisal 

District’s plea to the jurisdiction. An appeal from an interlocutory order that denies a plea to the 

jurisdiction is an accelerated appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(8); 

TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(a). Therefore, Bexar Appraisal District’s notice of appeal was due within 

twenty days after the order was signed, which was October 28, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b), 

28.1(b). However, Bexar Appraisal District did not file its notice of appeal until November 15, 

2021. 

The clerk’s record shows that Bexar Appraisal District filed a motion in the trial court to 

extend appellate timetables pursuant to Rule 306a.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See

TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a.5; TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2. However, the clerk’s record does not include a 

written order finding the date that Bexar Appraisal District received notice or acquired actual 

notice that the order denying its plea to the jurisdiction was signed. See PDG, Inc. v. Abilene 

Vill., LLC, 07-19-00118-CV, 2019 WL 1716785, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 17, 2019, 

order) (To gain additional time under Rule 306a.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, “a 

party must file a sworn motion in compliance with Rule of Civil Procedure 306a.5 and obtain a 

written order that finds the date when the party or the party’s attorney first received notice or 

acquired actual knowledge that the judgment was signed.”). Without a written order finding the 

date Bexar Appraisal District received notice or acquired actual knowledge that the trial court 

signed the plea to the jurisdiction order, it appears that the notice of appeal is untimely and this 

court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. 

FILE COPY
We order Bexar Appraisal District to show cause in writing, on or before January 5, 

2022, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Bexar Appraisal District’s 

motion for extension of time to file its brief is HELD IN ABEYANCE. 

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of December, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00468

- CR

J ASON W AYNE C ARLILE

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 78th District

Court

of Wichita County ( 61,562

- B )

November 24, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in th e tria l court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

Justice Wade Birdwell
|   | 1.     | Citibank SD is the Servicer under the Trust Agreement.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|   | 2.     | The undersigned is a Servicing Officer, duly authorized to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Trustee.                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|   | 3.     | During the calendar year ended December 31, 2010, in the course of my duties as a Servicing Officer, I would normally obtain knowledge of any breach by the Servicer of any of its duties under the Trust Agreement that is likely to have a material adverse effect on any investor certificateholder. |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|   | 4.     | To the best of my knowledge, no breach by the Servicer of any of its duties under the Trust Agreement has occurred or is continuing that is likely to have a material adverse effect on any investor certificateholder.                                                                                 |

----

|   | By:   /s/ Andrew J. Lubliner          |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |         Andrew J. Lubliner                                |
|   |         Servicing Officer                                 |

----

----
Exhibit 99.1

Annual Statement of
ComplianceProtective Life Secured Trust 2004-24 (the "Trust")

I, Millie
Cicero, a duly elected and acting officer of The Bank of New York ("Indenture Trustee"), do hereby certify on
behalf of the Indenture Trustee, that:

1.     I
have reviewed and examined the performance by the Indenture Trustee of the
collection and distribution of trust money pursuant to
Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the Indenture
pursuant to which the Trust's notes (the "Notes") were issued during the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2004 (the "Relevant
Year"); and

2.     Based
upon my review and examination described in 1 above, and except as provided in the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, dated March 30, 2005, prepared by the Trust's
independent registered public accounting firm in accordance with Section 10 of the Expense and Indemnity
Agreement, to the best of my knowledge, the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to noteholders
pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the
Indenture was performed in a satisfactory manner in all material respects
throughout the Relevant Year.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Indenture Trustee

|By: |  | /s/MILLIE CICERO
      Name:  Millie
      CiceroTitle:    Assistant Treasurer |  |  |  | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | 

Date:  March 30, 2005