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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2032 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2032

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Education, Departmental Management, Office of Civil Rights for fiscal 
                               year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Education, Departmental Management, Office of Civil Rights for fiscal 
                               year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
              EDUCATION, DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF CIVIL 
              RIGHTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Education, 
Departmental Management, Office of Civil Rights for fiscal year 2024 
may not exceed $0.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,849
<SECURITIES>                                     5,957
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,825
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (597)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,275
<PP&E>                                          12,202
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,405
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,394
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,276
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,418
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,926
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,529
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (213)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,927)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,927)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  ($0.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.85)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32(f)

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  FOR PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER
  30, 2003

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Electric Utilities
  Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed
  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered
  Report"), I, the principal financial officer of the Company, pursuant to 18
  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

| |  | The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
        or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                           
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |   |                                                                                                                                                                             
| |  | The information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
        the Company.





|Date: November 10, 2003 | /s/ James E. AbelJames E. AbelTreasurerPPL Electric Utilities Corporation
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
  the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,793,645
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  414,690
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,512,686
<PP&E>                                       2,790,353
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,128,916
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,803,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,802,555
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           94,201
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,310,698)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,803,219
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,033,393
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,836,756
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              75,467
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (910,539)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,870
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (915,409)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (915,409)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARY JANE PIETSCH, : 

:

Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 09-0390 (RMU)

:

v. : Re Document Nos.: 3, 7, 12

:

MCKISSACK & MCKISSACK, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; DENYING AS

MOOT THE PLAINTIFF’S FIRST MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

For the reasons stated in the court’s Memorandum Opinion separately and

contemporaneously issued this 12th day of January, 2010, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s second motion to amend the complaint is GRANTED;

and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s first motion to amend the complaint is

DENIED as moot; and it is

ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED. 

 RICARDO M. URBINA

United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITHSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the following certification is being made to accompany the Registrants Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006:

In connection with the Annual Report of Phoenix Interests, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James D. Tilton, Jr., Acting Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)  
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)  
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/   James D. Tilton,
Jr.                                             
Name:  James D. Tilton, Jr.Title:  Chief Executive Officer and actingChief Financial Officer



April 16, 2007
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 50734 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Ricardo Lozano, Jr.,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:19

- CR

- 43

- 2

Before **Davis, Elrod,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney appointed to represent Ricardo Lozano, Jr., has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lozano has responded . The reco rd is not sufficiently

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 7, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50734 Document: 00515663083 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2020No. 19

- 50734

2 developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Lozano ’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we theref ore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Lozano ’s original and supplemental

response s. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to
withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMI SSED** 

. See **5th Cir. R**

. 42.2.
Lozano ’s untimely request for appointment of new counsel on appeal is
DENIED. See United States v. Wagner , 158 F.3d 901, 902

- 03 (5th Cir. 1998)

. Case: 19-50734 Document: 00515663083 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STANLEY L. BROWN, )

(AIS #267049) )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 08-00694-KD-N

)

WARDEN ROGER GOODMAN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issue

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint be and is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

DONE this May 27, 2010.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00694-KD-N Document 32 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Prince Steam-Shipping Co. *v.*Lehman *et al.**1*

*(District Court, S. D. New York.*

September *4,*1889.)

1. Shipping—Charter-Party—Public Policy.

A stipulation in a charter-party that “all disputes * * * arising on this charter-party, or on bills of lading signed thereunder, shall be settled at port of discharge only, *” is*contrary to public policy, and void.

2. Admiralty—Pleading.

A hearing on an exception to a libel must be determined on the pleadings, and an affidavit on behalf of respondents cannot be considered.

In Admiralty. On exceptions to libel.

*Butler, Stillman & Hubbard,*for libelant.

*R. D. Benedict,*for respondents.

1

Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.

Benedict, J.

This case comes before the court upon an exception to the libel. The suit is brought *in personam*against the respondents upon a charter-party, to recover freight money. A copy of the charter-party is annexed to the libel. The respondents served a general notice of appearance, and then excepted to the libel. The exception raises but one question, and that is whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the action in view of a provision in the charter-party, set forth in the libel, which is as follows:

> “It is further agreed that all disputes, if any, whether arising before or after shipment of cargo, and whether arising on this charter-party or on bills of lading signed thereunder, shall be settled at port of discharge only.”

The libel shows Philadelphia to be the port of discharge.

The provision in the charter-party, upon which the respondents rely, is in legal effect an agreement ousting the jurisdiction of all courts, except those in the port of Philadelphia. Such agreements have repeatedly been held to be against public policy, and void. The provision being void, it makes no difference which party seeks to take advantage of it; being void, it is of no avail to either party. The exceptions must therefore be overruled.

An affidavit submitted on behalf of the respondents cannot be regarded. This is not the hearing of a motion to decline jurisdiction, addressed to the discretion of the court, but the hearing of an exception to the libel, and must be decided on the pleadings. Moreover, a motion to decline jurisdiction, addressed to the discretion of the court, based upon such a stipulation, could not prevail.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 20, 2016

No. 04-16-00420-CV

BARBARA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

STATE FARM LLOYDS and Christopher Blalock,

Appellees

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-10997

Honorable Renée Yanta, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee's second motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time 

is extended to December 21, 2016.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 20th day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Erick T. COOMES, an individual, d/b/a E. Danger Music; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Akbar SHAMJI, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-55411.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 26, 2007.

Allen Hyman, Esq., Law Offices of Allen Hyman, North Hollywood, CA, Leonard Korobkin, Esq., Leonard Korobkin Law Offices, Beverly Hills, CA, for PlaintiffsAppellees.

Allen B. Grodsky, Esq., Grodsky & Olecki, Santa Monica, CA, Robert S. Meloni, Esq., Robert S. Meloni, P.C., New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously find this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

The district court did not err in holding that Akbar Shamji was properly served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and California Civil Procedure Code section 415.20(b). The three previous service attempts constituted the requisite “reasonable diligence.” *See, e.g., Ellard v. Conway,*94 Cal.App.4th 540, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 399, 402 (2001). Bardic Records was Shamji’s business enterprise, and thus the Bardic office where service was delivered was Shamji’s “usual place of business.” *See*Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 415.20 judicial council’s cmt. subdiv. b. The complaint and summons were left with the managing agent of Bardic Records who was able to accept packages for, and deliver packages to, Shamji, and was thus “apparently in charge.” *See Ellard,*114 Cal. Rptr.2d at 403.

Contrary to Shamji’s assertion, the district court did not rely on actual notice to establish personal jurisdiction. The district court did not err in finding that Shamji had actual notice and deliberately *989chose not to respond; thus his own culpable conduct was the cause of his default. The district court’s factual findings are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. *See Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc.,*840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir.1988). In light of Shamji’s culpable conduct, it is not necessary to consider whether he had any meritorious defenses. *See Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington Rests. Group, Inc.,*375 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 2004).

Shamji’s default, which admits all wellpled allegations, coupled with the declarations submitted to the district court, support the relief granted in the judgment.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30637]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Docket No. FD 35891]


TransDistribution Ridgeland Railroad Company--Acquisition and 
Operation Exemption--Sweetener Supply Company, Inc.

    TransDistribution Ridgeland Railroad Company (TDRR), a noncarrier, 
has filed a verified notice of exemption \1\ under 49 CFR 1150.31 to 
acquire from Sweetener Supply Company, Inc. (SSC), a noncarrier, and to 
operate, pursuant to an operating agreement, approximately 1,230 feet 
(0.23 mile) of rail line referred to as the Berwyn Transload Facility 
trackage in Berwyn, Ill. There are no mileposts on the line. The BNSF 
Railway Company (BNSF) owns the Berwyn Transload Facility trackage and 
currently leases the facility and trackage to SSC for the transloading 
of bagged sugar products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The notice was originally filed on December 11, 2014, but 
was supplemented on December 18, 2014. Therefore, December 18, 2014, 
will be the official filing date and the basis for all subsequent 
dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TDRR certifies that the proposed transaction does not contain any 
provision or agreement that may limit future interchange of traffic 
with a third-party connecting carrier. TDRR states that the line is 
being used to interchange with BNSF.
    TDRR also certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result 
of this transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a 
Class III rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
    TDRR states that it proposes to consummate the transaction on or 
about January 1, 2015. However, the earliest this transaction can be 
consummated is January 17, 2015, the effective date of the exemption 
(30 days after the exemption was officially filed).
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption 
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a 
petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the 
exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than January 9, 
2015 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. 
FD 35891, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each 
pleading must be served on David C. Dillon, Dillon & Nash, Ltd., 111 
West Washington Street Suite 1023, Chicago, IL 60602.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at 
www.stb.dot.gov.
    Decided: December 23, 2014.

    By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of 
Proceedings.

Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2014-30637 Filed 12-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED 
  CANADA
    
    000-30758
    
    62-12-62580(State or other jurisdiction
    
    (Commission
    
    (IRS Employerof incorporation)
    
    File Number)
    
    Identification No.)
 8200 DIXIE ROAD, SUITE 100, BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, CANADA
    
    L6T 5P6(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code 905-863-0000    Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to
simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation
of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General
Instruction A.2. below): o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 2.02
    
    Results of Operations and Financial Condition
 On September 16, 2004, Nortel Networks Corporation issued a press release
providing a status update on its financial restatement process and other
related matters. Such press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and
furnished in accordance with Item 2.02 of Form 8-K. Nortel Networks Corporation owns all of the registrants common shares and the
registrant is Nortel Networks Corporations principal direct operating
subsidiary. Item 8.01
    
    Other Events
 On September 16, 2004, Nortel Networks Corporation issued the press release
attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1, and such press release is incorporated by
reference herein (other than information included on or linked from the
registrants website, referenced in such release, which is not incorporated by
reference into this report). Item 9.01
    
    Financial Statements and Exhibits
 (c)
    
    Exhibits99.1        Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on September 16, 2004.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized. NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITEDBy:
    /s/ Deborah J. NobleDeborah J. NobleCorporate Secretary By:
    /s/ Blair F. MorrisonBlair F. MorrisonAssistant Secretary Dated: September 16, 2004




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on September 16, 2004.