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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3737 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3737

  To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-
        Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 26, 2006

   Mr. Lieberman (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Biden, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
  Menendez, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Chafee) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-
        Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail.

    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 ``Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary 
Route National Historic Trail Designation Act''.

SEC. 2. ADDITION TO NATIONAL SCENIC AND NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS.

    Section 5(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(25) Washington-rochambeau revolutionary route national 
        historic trail.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The Washington-Rochambeau 
                Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail, a corridor 
                of approximately 600 miles following the route taken by 
                the armies of General George Washington and Count 
                Rochambeau between Newport, Rhode Island, and Yorktown, 
                Virginia, in 1781 and 1782, as generally depicted on 
                the map entitled `WASHINGTON-ROCHAMBEAU REVOLUTIONARY 
                ROUTE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL', numbered T01/80,000, 
                and dated July 2006 .
                    ``(B) Map.--The map referred to in subparagraph (A) 
                shall be on file and available for public inspection in 
                the appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
                    ``(C) Administration.--The trail shall be 
                administered by the Secretary of the Interior, in 
                consultation with--
                            ``(i) other Federal, State, tribal, 
                        regional, and local agencies; and
                            ``(ii) the private sector.
                    ``(D) Land acquisition.--The United States shall 
                not acquire for the trail any land or interest in land 
                outside the exterior boundary of any federally-managed 
                area without the consent of the owner of the land or 
                interest in land.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
                    UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
   required to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
   10-K of RALI Series 2007-QH3 Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
   do 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,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
   information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
   this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
   based on my knowledge and the compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
   servicer  compliance  statements  required in this report  under Item 1123 of
   Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
   the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
   in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
   asset-backed  securities and their related  attestation reports on assessment
   of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
   be included in this report in accordance  with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
   Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
   report,  except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
   of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
   on Form 10-K.

In giving the  certifications  above,  I have  reasonably  relied on information
provided  to me by the  following  unaffiliated  parties:  Deutsche  Bank  Trust
Company Americas.

Date:  March 24, 2008


By:    /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Managing Director
(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JASON S. RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-0987

[June 10, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Rosemarie Scher,

Judge; L.T. Case No. 502008CF000217B.

Jason S. Rodriguez, Clermont, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., MAY and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 24, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130689 & (81)(88) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

NORTHERN WAREHOUSING, INC., Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. d/b/a NORTHERN FOOD SERVICE, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 130689 

 COA: 260598 

Ct of Claims: 04-000239-MK 

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT

OF EDUCATION, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is 

GRANTED. By order of April 12, 2006, this Court directed the parties to file 

supplemental briefs stating whether the contract between plaintiff and the State of 

Michigan was renewed for the 2005-2006 school year or beyond. The briefs having been 

filed, the application for leave to appeal the March 7, 2006 judgment of the Court of 

Appeals is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave 

to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals. In order to justify the 

extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show a 

likelihood that it will succeed on the merits of the claim. Michigan State Employees 

Ass’n v Dep’t of Mental Health, 421 Mich 152, 157-158 (1984). The Court of Appeals 

erred in finding that evidence supported a likelihood of success on plaintiff’s claim for 

promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel requires reasonable reliance on the part of the 

party asserting estoppel. The contract between the parties contains an integration clause. 

Reliance on pre-contractual representations is unreasonable as a matter of law when the 

contract contains an integration clause. See UAW-GM Human Resource Center v KSL 

Recreation Corp, 228 Mich App 486, 504 (1998). We REMAND this case to the Court 

of Appeals for expedited consideration of the likelihood of success of plaintiff’s other 

causes of action. The motion to stay the Court of Claims injunction is GRANTED 

pending the completion of this appeal. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

WEAVER, J., would deny leave to appeal. 

d0524 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

May 24, 2006 

Clerk
#### In re J.S.B., D.K.B., D.D.J., Z.A.T.J.

Case below: 183 N.C. App. - (15 May 2007)

No. 269P07

Respondent’s (Mother) Motion for Temporary Stay (COA06-1107)

Denied 06/11/07
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Phillip Henry BARFIELD, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-7563.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 21, 2009.

Decided: May 11, 2009.

*202Phillip Henry Barfield, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Henry Barfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bar-field has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Bass *et al. v.*Hightower.

*A*defendant in an action of trover requiring bail, cannot be discharged from legal imprisonment on the ground of his inability to produce the property sued for or to give bond and security according to law, without pursuing the remedy pointed out in £3420(a) of the code. He cannot obtain his discharge for this cause on petition for the writ of *habeas corpus ;*and at the hearing, on the return of such writ, evidence to show the existence of such cause is inadmissible, notwithstanding the facts relied upon may be alleged in the petition for the writ, and notwithstanding the plaintiff in the action of trover may have voluntarily appeared on the hearing of the writ and had himself made a party to the proceeding. The hearing could be conducted only in conformity to the law applicable to proceedings by *habeas corpus,*whether the judge who issued and heard the writ was the judge of the court in which the action of trover was pending, or some other judicial officer empowered to issue and entertain jurisdiction over writs of *habeas corpus.*

June 11, 1894.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Habeas corpus.*Before Judge Jones. City court of DeKalb county. February 7, 1894.

Bass sued Hightower in tbe city court of DeKalb ■county, for tbe recovery of certain cattle and currency, and made bail affidavit. Hightower was served, and failing to give bond or to produce the property, the .sheriff, being unable to find any of it except four head of the cattle, committed him to jail. He thereupon brought a petition to the judge of said court for the writ of *habeas*corpus, alleging that he was illegally restrained of his liberty, that he had delivered to the .sheriff' all the cattle in his possession and control, and was unable to give security or produce the property as required by law, for which he could show good cause, •etc. The writ was issued, and the matter coming on to be heard, defendant moved to dismiss the petition, on the grounds that the allegations did not entitle peti*603tioner to the writ and would not authorize his discharge from custody; and that his remedy, if any, was not by this writ but under the code, §3420(a). The motion was overruled, and Bass, having been made a party defendant to the proceeding, objected to the evidence offered in support of the petition, on the ground that it was illegal and irrelevant. The objection was overruled ; and after hearing evidence, the court rendered judgment discharging Hightower from custody. Defendants excepted.

Glenn & Maddox, for plaintiffs in error.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Silvio DUNEZ-DE GRANDE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41845.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Silvio Dunez-De Grande appeals from his guilty-plea conviction of, and sentence *664for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission after deportation. He argues, in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 70-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury.

Dunez-De Grande’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although he contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Dunez-De Grande properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 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. R. 47.5.4.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 422 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore equity and complete 

the transfer of motor fuel excise taxes attributable to motorboat and 

small engine fuels into the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2005 

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. KOHL) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore 

equity and complete the transfer of motor fuel excise 

taxes attributable to motorboat and small engine fuels 

into the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sportfishing and Boat5 ing Equity Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•S 422 IS

1 SEC. 2. ALL MOTOR FUEL EXCISE TAXES ATTRIBUTABLE TO 

2 MOTORBOAT AND SMALL ENGINE FUELS 

3 AVAILABLE FOR TRANSFER TO AQUATIC RE4 SOURCES TRUST FUND. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 9503(b)(4) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain taxes not trans7 ferred to Highway Trust Fund) is amended by adding 

8 ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘, or’’ 

9 at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting a period, 

10 and by striking subparagraph (D). 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxes received in the Treasury 

13 after September 30, 2005. 

Æ
Amendment to the employment agreemented dated May 17, 2000 - James H. Coleman



 Exhibit 10.82 
  
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATED MAY 17, 2000 BETWEEN CORTEX PHARMACEUTICALS AND JAMES H. COLEMAN 

 
 This Amendment, effective as of January 1, 2004, hereby amends Section
6(a) and 6(d) as follows: 
  
 “6 Compensation. As
compensation for the services to rendered hereunder, the Company agrees as follows: 
  
 (a) Effective January 1, 2004, to pay the Executive an annual salary of $210,000 per annum, subject to increase based on annual review by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. 
  
 (b) Executive will also be eligible to receive an incentive bonus of between
0% and 50% of his annual base salary based upon review of Executive’s performance and achievements by his immediate supervisor, and Company performance, in the year under consideration. Whether such bonus shall be paid in any given year and the
amount of such bonus shall be determined by your immediate supervisor, subject to review and approval by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. Such bonus shall accrue and be paid only if the Board of Directors in its sole discretion
determines that the Company has sufficient financial resources to do so. 
  
 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement to be effective as of the day and year first above written. 
  

	
	CORTEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	
	 /s/ Roger G. Stoll


	Roger G. Stoll, Ph.D.
	President and Chief Executive Officer
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ James H. Coleman


	James H. Coleman
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3627-3628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1091]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


National Park System Advisory Board Reestablishment

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Reestablishment of the National Park System Advisory 
Board.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior intends to administratively 
reestablish the National Park System Advisory Board. This action is 
necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance 
of statutory duties imposed upon the Department of the Interior and the 
National Park Service.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernard Fagan, 202-208-7456, or 
Shirley Sears Smith, 202-208-7456.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Park System Advisory Board was 
first established by section 3 of the Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 
667; 16 U.S.C. 463). The Board has been

[[Page 3628]]

statutorily reauthorized several times since then. However, the Board's 
statutory authorization expired January 1, 2009. The advice and 
recommendations provided by the Board and its subcommittees fulfill an 
important need within the Department of the Interior and the National 
Park Service, and it therefore is necessary to administratively 
reestablish the Board to ensure that its work is not disrupted. The 
Board's 12 members will be balanced to represent a cross-section of 
disciplines and expertise relevant to the National Park Service 
mission. The administrative reestablishment of the Board comports with 
the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 
U.S.C., Appendix), and follows consultation with the General Services 
Administration. The reestablishment will be effective on the date the 
charter is filed pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act and 41 CFR 102-
3.70.
    Certification: I hereby certify that the administrative 
reestablishment of the National Park System Advisory Board is necessary 
and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties 
imposed on the Department of the Interior by the Act of August 25, 
1916, 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq., and other statutes relating to the 
administration of the National Park System.

    Dated: January 12, 2009.
Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. E9-1091 Filed 1-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
<SEQUENCE>13

                                  EXHIBIT 32.a


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Regent Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2001, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David A. Nelson, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                        /S/ DAVID A. NELSON
                                        -------------------
Date: September 12, 2005
                                        David A. Nelson,
                                        Chief Executive Officer and Principal
                                        Accounting Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raheem Mayo, Appellant.

Submitted May 4, 2009;

decided May 7, 2009

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
Exhibit
32-1









CERTIFICATION









In
connection with the annual report of Extreme Home Staging, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,   Milka
Fixler, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Executive Officer and  Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (filed
herewith)of the United States Code, that to the best of our
knowledge:







1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      at the dates and for the periods
indicated.





This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.








Extreme
Home Staging, Inc.




/s/Milka FixlerPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer and
              Chief
      Financial OfficerDate:
      November 21, 2008