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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3198 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3198

To provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a cost of living 
               adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2011.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2010

 Mr. Nelson of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read 
     twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a cost of living 
               adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2011.

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

SECTION 1. NO COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT IN PAY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) the national unemployment rate for March 2010 was 9.7 
        percent;
            (2) the budget deficit for fiscal year 2009 was 
        $1,400,000,000,000 and the Congressional Budget Office 
        estimates the budget deficit for fiscal year 2010 to be 
        $1,349,000,000,000; and
            (3) the National Bureau of Economic Research has declared 
        the United States economy to be in a recession since December 
        2007.
    (b) No Cost of Living Adjustment.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of 
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to 
cost of living adjustments for Members of Congress) during fiscal year 
2011.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF CBIZ VALUATION GROUP, INC.

As independent valuation consultants, CBIZ Valuation Group, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the name CBIZ Valuation Group, Inc. and references to
CBIZ Valuation Group, Inc. and to references to our report entitled "Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 142 Analysis" prepared for Warren Resources, Inc., or information
contained therein, for disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission in the annual report on Form 10-K of Warren Resources, Inc. for the filing dated on or about
March 5, 2004.

| |  | /s/ CBIZ Valuation Group, Inc. CBIZ VALUATION GROUP, INC.
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------

March
4, 2004
Dallas, Texas

---

QuickLinks
NO. 01-14-00953-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

Bobbie Tremain vs. Jay Oates

On Notice of Appeal by Bobbie Tremain, Appellant Cause No. 2014-06315 from the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas The Honorable Judge Joseph J. Halbach Jr. Presiding

NOTICE OFATTORNEY APPEARANCE FOR JAY OATES, APPELLEE

THE LEWIS LAW FIRM Clint W. Lewis TBA No. 12275250 8445 Gladys Ave. Beaumont, Texas 77706 (409) 899-5600 - telephone (409) 899-5682 

### - facsimile E-mail: lewislawvers(daol.com - ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT JAY OATES ACCEPTED 01-14-953-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/23/2015 4:53:13 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKNO. 01-14-00953-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

Bobbie Tremain vs. Jay Oates

On Notice of Appeal by Bobbie Tremain, Appellant Cause No. 2014-06315from the 

### 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas The Honorable Judge Joseph J. Halbach Jr. Presiding

NOTICE OFATTORNEY APPEAFUNCE FOR JAY OATES, APPELLEE

THE LEWIS LAW FIRM Clint 

### W. Lewis TBA No. 12275250 8445 Gladys Ave. Beaumont, Texas 77706 (409) 899-5600 

### - telephone (409) 899-5682 - facsimile E-mail: lewislaw~ers@,aol.coin ATTORNEY .FORDEFENDANT JAY OATES

### NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FOR JAY OATES, APPELLEE TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, AppelleeIDefendant, Jay Oates, andfiles thisNoticeofAttorneyAppearance indicating that Clint W. Lewis is a counsel ofrecord in connection with this appellate action. Respectfully submitted, 

### THE LEWIS LAW FIRM 8445 Gladys Ave. Beaumont, Texas 77706 (409) 899-5600 telephone
By: Clint W. Lewis TBA No. 12275250 E-mail: lewislawvers@aol.coin



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This isto certifl that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been delivered in compliance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 21 & 21a, via certified mail, return receipt requested, andlorby facsimile to attorney for PlaintiffIAppellant,S. Scott West, The West Law Firm, 1600Hwy 6, Ste 450, Sugar Land, Texas 77478, and attorney for Defendant, Nadia Vredevelt,Law Office ofDavid Black, 122 1 Lamar, Ste 900, Houston, Texas 77010, onll)s the 231dday of January, 201 5.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3106 

To authorize States to exempt certain nonprofit housing organizations from 

the licensing requirements of the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 11, 2010 

Mrs. HAGAN (for herself, Mr. BURR, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. MERKLEY, and Mr. 

CHAMBLISS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize States to exempt certain nonprofit housing organizations from the licensing requirements of the 

S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008. 

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 ‘‘Nonprofit Mortgage 

5 Licensing Clarification Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF NONPROFIT HOUSING ORGANIZA7 TIONS. 

8 Section 1504 of the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act 

9 of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5103) is amended— 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3106 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the 

2 first comma the following: ‘‘and to subsection (c)’’; 

3 and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub5 section: 

6 ‘‘(c) AUTHORITY FOR STATES TO EXEMPT NON7 PROFIT HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS.—A State may, by 

8 State law, exempt from the requirement under subsection 

9 (a)(1) (relating to registration or licensing) organizations 

10 that are exempt from taxation pursuant to section 

11 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and any 

12 employees and agents of such organizations acting as loan 

13 originators for such organizations, but only to the extent 

14 that such an organization— 

15 ‘‘(1) engages in the business of a loan origi16 nator for the purpose of promoting or facilitating 

17 homeownership for poor or low-income, disabled, or 

18 other disadvantaged persons or families, and in orig19 inating such loans offers loans— 

20 ‘‘(A) at interest rates that are lower than 

21 the bank prime loan rate, as determined under 

22 the Federal Reserve Statistical Release of se23 lected interest rates (commonly referred to as 

24 the H.15) by the Board of Governors of the 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3106 IS

1 Federal Reserve System, for the last day of the 

2 most recent weekly release of such rates; or 

3 ‘‘(B) that are, after adjusting for inflation, 

4 no-interest loans or loans with interest rates 

5 significantly below the interest rates for loans 

6 for purchase of single-family housing generally 

7 available in the market; and 

8 ‘‘(2) does not otherwise engage in the business 

9 of a loan originator or mortgage broker.’’. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
| (1)    | The      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,      2009 (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 results of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the    Report. |

| /s/ Theodore H. Bunting, Jr.Theodore      H. Bunting, Jr.Senior      Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer ofEntergy      Mississippi, Inc.(acting      principal financial officer) |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adan MYERS-PACHECO, also known as Adan Myers, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50253.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Nov. 2, 2006.

*423Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Adan Myers-Pacheco, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Adan Myers-Pacheco appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Myers-Pacheco argues that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because it failed to consider the impact of his belief that he was a United States citizen on the relevant § 3553(a) sentencing factors. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(5). Although the court did not identify each factor under § 3553(a), the court considered and rejected the impact of Myers-Pacheco’s beliefs about his citizenship on the sentencing factors. In fact, the district court’s questioning concerning the contradiction between Myers-Pacheco’s belief and his action in obtaining a resident alien card reflected the court’s skepticism regarding Myers-Pacheco’s belief that he was a citizen. Accordingly, Myers-Pacheco has not overcome the presumption of reasonableness. *See United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 553-54 (5th Cir.2006).

Myers-Pacheco also argues, in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 46-month *term*of imprisonment 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.

Myers-Pacheco’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. Garzar-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Myers-Pacheco properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he *424raises 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.
#### In the Matter of Stephen Rosenblum, Respondent, v New York City Conflicts of Interest Board et al., Appellants.

Submitted January 18, 2011;

decided February 24, 2011

Motion by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed.
#### GS Plasticos Limitada, Appellant, v Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services, Inc., Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 245]

*540Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J), entered August 13, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motions to compel disclosure in response to document request numbers 1, 15, 20, 26, and 28 of plaintiffs third notice of discovery and inspection, document request number 16 of its first notice of discovery and inspection, and numbers 1 through 17 of its Fifth Set of Interrogatories, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this case alleging tortious interference with existing contractual relations, plaintiff, a Brazilian manufacturer of toy premiums for the promotional market, alleges that between August and October of 2006, defendant, a provider of testing and inspection services for consumer products, intentionally issued false reports to plaintiffs client indicating that plaintiffs stamps were unsafe, causing the client to terminate the contract.

On this record, we conclude that the Supreme Court, which has managed a long and contentious discovery process and is intimately familiar with this litigation, providently exercised its discretion in denying nearly all of the discovery demands at issue here, largely upon its findings, supported in the record, that defendant had already sufficiently responded to most of them, and that they otherwise sought irrelevant information for which plaintiff had laid an insufficient factual predicate (see *Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc.,*94 NY2d 740 [2000]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
#### MENDENHALL v. TEXAS CO. (JEFFERSON ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE , Inc., et al., Third-party Defendants).

Civ. A. No. 11790.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania

Jan. 22, 1953.

Rose, Rose & Houston, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Dalzell, McFall, Pringle & Bredin, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Texas Co.

Wilson & Salmon, Beaver, Pa., for third-party defendants.

GOURLEY, Chief Judge.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident which occurred within this judicial district.

The plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania and the defendant corporation is a resident of the State of New York. The defendant, by order of court, brought upon the record as third-party defendants, J. E. Nicholson, the operator of the vehicle in which the plaintiff, Mendenhall, was riding, and Jefferson Electric *194Cooperative, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, the employer of Nicholson.

Third-party defendant Nicholson has filed motion to dismiss the Complaint of defendant Texas on the ground that service of process was defective and improper.

Service of process upon the additional defendant, Nicholson, was made by serving the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the manner prescribed by Pennsylvania law relative to service upon non-resident defendants in motor vehicle accidents. 75 Pa.P.S. § 1201 et seq.; 17 Pa.P.S. § 61 et seq.; Rule 2079 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 12 P.S.Pa.Appendix, promulgated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Service was also made in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., Rules 4(d) (1) and 4(d) (7). The motion to dismiss the proceeding for improper service as to the action of the original defendant against, the third-party defendant, Nicholson, is denied.

Each of the third-party defendants, Nicholson and Jefferson Electric, moves the court to dismiss the complaint of the original defendant for the reason the third-party complaint fails to state a cause of action appropriate for the joinder of either Nicholson or Jefferson Electric Cooperative, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation.

It is contended the third-party complaint fails to state a cause of action for the reason that under the provisions of Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a third-party complaint cannot demand recovery against the third-party defendants for all or part of the. recovery made by the plaintiff against the original defendant.

To sustain a third-party complaint it is sufficient if the original defendant alleges that the third-party de- ' fendant' will be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant in the event that the plaintiff obtains judgment on said claim.

Each of the third-party complaints complies with Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the motion to dismiss the cause of action of the original defendant against each of the third-party defendants is refused.

An appropriate order is entered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,421
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  155,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,572)
<INVENTORY>                                    172,154
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               345,809
<PP&E>                                         162,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                (89,858)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 487,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          158,623
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,673
<OTHER-SE>                                     199,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   487,878
<SALES>                                        635,105
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               635,518
<CGS>                                          462,033
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  462,033
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               145,634
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,594
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,741
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,516
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,005
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,511
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,332
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,843
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58


</TABLE>
| (1)    | The      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,      2009 (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 results of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the    Report. |

| /s/ Wanda C. CurryWanda      C. CurryVice      President and Chief Financial Officerof      System Energy Resources, Inc. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**Smokejumper UnitChecklist #14**

**Smokejumper UnitChecklist #14**

**14-1Revised 2008**

**14-11Revised 2008**
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Larry A. Goldstone, President and Chief Operating 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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Larry A. Goldstone

Larry A. Goldstone
President and Chief Operating Officer
March 9, 2004
<PAGE>



                                                        Exhibit 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements 
Nos. 33-24258, 33-24259, 33-60405, 33-54351, 33-54353, 33-54355, 33-
65946, and 333-01687 and in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to 
Registration Statement Nos. 33-20852 and 33-20853 of Armco Inc. on Form 
S-8 of our reports dated February 5, 1996 on the consolidated financial 
statements and financial statement schedule of Armco Inc. and 
subsidiaries appearing in and incorporated by reference in this Annual 
Report on Form 10-K of Armco Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1995.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP



Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 26, 1996


<PAGE>


                                                        Exhibit 23(ii)


                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 No. 33-24258, 33-24259, 33-60405, 33-54351, 33-
54353, 33-54355, 33-65946 and 333-01687 and in Post-Effective Amendment 
No. 1 to Registration Statements No. 33-20852 and 33-20853 of Armco, 
Inc. of our report dated January 31, 1996, with respect to the 
consolidated financial statements of National-Oilwell and subsidiaries 
included in the Armco, Inc. Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended 
December 31, 1995.



                                    /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

                                     ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Houston, Texas
March 26, 1996