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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2529 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2529

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on certain men's 
  footwear, valued over $23/pair, whose height from the bottom of the 
  outer sole to the top of the upper does not exceed 8 inches, with a 
                  coated or laminated textile fabric.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

 Ms. Cantwell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on certain men's 
  footwear, valued over $23/pair, whose height from the bottom of the 
  outer sole to the top of the upper does not exceed 8 inches, with a 
                  coated or laminated textile fabric.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN MEN'S FOOTWEAR, VALUED OVER $23/PAIR, WHOSE HEIGHT 
              FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE OUTER SOLE TO THE TOP OF THE UPPER 
              DOES NOT EXCEED 8 INCHES, WITH A COATED OR LAMINATED 
              TEXTILE FABRIC.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.76 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain men's footwear, 
valued over $23/pair, whose height from the bottom of the outer sole to 
the top of the upper does not exceed 8 inches, with a coated or 
laminated textile fabric) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$20/pair'' and inserting ``$23/pair''; 
        and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Rupert Foster, Also Known as Stephen Foster, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[977 NYS2d 287]

In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), entered December 3, 2012, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the notice of claim did not comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e (2).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint based on his failure to allege in the notice of claim the time, including a date, when his claim against the defendants arose. Compliance with the notice of claim requirements set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e (2) is a condition precedent to the commencement of a common-law tort action against a municipality *(see Tully v City of Glen Cove,*102 AD3d 670, 671 [2013]). The plaintiffs failure to allege with sufficient particularity the time when his claim arose frustrated the defendants’ ability to conduct a meaningful investigation into his claim and to assess the merits of that claim *(see Vallejo-Bayas v New York City Tr. Auth.,*103 AD3d 881, 882 [2013]; *Levine v City of New York,*111 AD2d 785, 786 [1985]).

Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint was properly granted. Dillon, J.R, Leventhal, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.
The District Court of the 21st Judicial District. County of Ravalli.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. *50JASON RINGE, Defendant.

*49CAUSE NO. DC-09-111 DECISION

*50On December 9, 2009, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: A commitment to the Department of Corrections for a period of ten (10) years, with five (5) years suspended, for the offense of Forgery, Common Scheme, a felony. The Court recommends that the defendant be considered for the Connections Corrections Program, followed by a pre-release program. Count II: A commitment to the Ravalli County Detention Center for a period of six (6) months, all suspended, for the offense of Criminal Mischief, a misdemeanor.

On May 7,2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson and Nick Miller. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of May, 2010.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
THIRD QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           8,738
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             454
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                94,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     20,260
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          64,217
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            64,829
<LOANS>                                        996,547
<ALLOWANCE>                                     13,219
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,185,964
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,022,494
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,028
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             15,058
<LONG-TERM>                                     60,662
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,735
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,776
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,185,964
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 50,600
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                8,714
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                59,314
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              33,568
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,054
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           23,260
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      159
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 610
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,659
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,256
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      14,256
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,980
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.38
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.84
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,806
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,223
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      230
<RECOVERIES>                                        67
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               13,219
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            13,219
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         12,798
        

</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 20631 Summary Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus
Robert Davis,
Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:01

- CR

- 140

- 1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * Robert Davis, federal prisoner # 97410

- 079 , appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. We review for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). We need not consider whethe r the district court erred by

* 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 June 24, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-20631 Document: 00516370028 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2022No. 21

- 20631

2 determining that Davis failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction because the district court’s alternative consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors provides a sufficient basis for affirmance. See Ward v. United States , 11 F.4th 354, 360

– 62 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 693

– 94. On appeal, Davis contends that relief is warranted based on his high risk for serious illness if he contracts COVID

- 19 , the extraordinary length of his sentence, intervening changes in sentencin g laws, his acceptance of responsibility , and his record of post

- sentencing rehabilitat ion . However, the district court determined that the sentencing factors did not support a sentence reduction due to Davis’s role in his offense of conviction , the natur e of his offense, and his “extensive criminal history.” Davis ’s disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the Section 3553(a) factors does not warrant reversal. See Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 694.

AFFIRMED

. Case: 21-20631 Document: 00516370028 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2022
#### THE FROST VALLEY. CONNERS MARINE CO., Inc., v. PETTERSON LIGHTERAGE & TOWING CORPORATION.

No. 139-92.

District Court, S. D. New York.

July 22, 1946.

Purdy & Lamb, of New York City (Thomas J. Irving, of New York City, of counsel), for libelant.

*82Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox & Keating, of New York City, for respondent.

Foley & Martin, of New York City, for claimant-respondent impleaded.

KNOX, District Judge.

Respondent’s interrogatories, insofar as libelant’s exceptions thereto are overruled, are clearly designed to obtain evidence in support of respondent’s answer. According to the judicial interpretation of Admiralty Rule 31, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723, they may properly serve this purpose. Admiralty Rule 31 is identical with, and should receive the same broad interpretation that has been accorded Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

For this reason, if libelant can furnish the information sought by the following interrogatories, it should do so — 2(b), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9(b), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Exceptions to interrogatories 9(a) and 10 are sustained. Interrogatory 11 will be reframed so as to read: “State (a) whether libelant gave notice to any party or parties whom it claims damaged the Frost Valley; if so (b) when was such notice given, and (c) whether it was oral or in writing?”
The District Court of the 12th Judicial District. County of Hill.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. NICHOLAS GOAR-WRIGHT, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-09-037 DECISION

On January 4,2010, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years, with three (3) years suspended, for the offense of Assault on a Peace Officer, a felony. The Court *42recommends Defendant be considered for boot camp followed by pre-release.

On May 6,2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was farther advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 6th day of May, 2010.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
#### Alice Kramer, Respondent, v Phoenix Life Insurance Co. et al., Defendants, and Lifemark S.A., Intervenor-Appellant. (And Third-Party Actions.)

Submitted August 30, 2010;

decided November 17, 2010

Motion by intervenor-appellant Lifemark S.A. to strike portions of the brief of defendants Phoenix Life Insurance Co. and Lincoln Life & Annuity Co. of New York denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION** **PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)**
 **OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**
 
 
 I, David L. Weinberg, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10- Q of Columbia Laboratories, Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
 
 c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 
 5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors:
 
 a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
 
 6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date: November  3 , 200 4
 
 
 /s/ David L. Weinberg
David L. Weinberg
Chief Financial Officer


---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

       
<S>                                                               <C>
<ARTICLE>                                                                   5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                                    NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                                      JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                                              1,320,702
<SECURITIES>                                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      16,388,387
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          788,875
<INVENTORY>                                                        30,676,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   51,650,975
<PP&E>                                                             18,901,143
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      6,058,175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     65,735,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              21,955,526
<BONDS>                                                             5,696,578
<COMMON>                                                               12,039
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                                         37,558,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       65,735,015
<SALES>                                                            17,069,864
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                   17,069,864
<CGS>                                                             10,469,153
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     15,325,677
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       1,237
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      25,176
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   305,923
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    1,437,027
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         602,964
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  834,063
<DISCONTINUED>                                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                                         834,063
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                           0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           0.07
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 102 (Friday, May 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 25728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12488]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Southeastern Power Administration


Jim Woodruff Project

AGENCY: Southeastern Power Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time for written comments.

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

SUMMARY: The period for submitting written comments on Southeastern's 
proposed rate adjustment is extended to June 26, 2009.

DATES: Written comments may be submitted until the close of business 
June 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to: Kenneth E. Legg, 
Administrator, Southeastern Power Administration, Department of Energy, 
1166 Athens Tech Road, Elberton, Georgia 30635-6711.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leon Jourolmon, Assistant 
Administrator, Finance and Marketing Division, Southeastern Power 
Administration, Department of Energy, 1166 Athens Tech Road, Elberton, 
Georgia 30635-6711. (706) 213-3800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 11, 2009, Southeastern published a 
Notice in the Federal Register (74 FR 10570) that proposed new rate 
schedules to replace the current wholesale power schedules for the Jim 
Woodruff Project for a 5-year period from September 20, 2009 to 
September 19, 2014. The Notice outlined a public comment process that 
included a public information and comment forum for the Jim Woodruff 
customers and interested parties, which was held in Tallahassee, FL, on 
April 23, 2009. The public information process also provided that 
additional written comments would be due to Southeastern on or before 
June 9, 2009. On May 19, 2009, the Jim Woodruff customers, through 
their representatives, requested an extension of the comment period 
from June 9, 2009 to close of business on June 26, 2009. The additional 
time is needed in order for the customers to review extensive materials 
and information provided and developed at and after the forum and to 
allow sufficient time for such necessary review and preparation of 
informed comments regarding the new proposed rates. Southeastern is 
granting the customers' request for an extension of time.

    Dated: May 20, 2009.
Kenneth E. Legg,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-12488 Filed 5-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P