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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 317 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 317

To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments 
                        for Members of Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments 
                        for Members of Congress.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF 
              CONGRESS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is repealed.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 601(a)(1) of such 
Act is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)'';
            (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
        paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; and
            (3) by striking ``as adjusted by paragraph (2) of this 
        subsection'' and inserting ``adjusted as provided by law''.
    (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on February 1, 
2011.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                          42,914
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  972,865
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,162
<INVENTORY>                                    674,876
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,740,115
<PP&E>                                       1,865,517
<DEPRECIATION>                                 839,787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,367,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,526,798
<BONDS>                                        853,998
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,148,770
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,367,586
<SALES>                                      6,227,645
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,331,294
<CGS>                                        6,103,220
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   907
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 58,729
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,576
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             56,153
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    56,153
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
5-04; 4:32PM;Andrews Davis 314052358784

FIRST MODIFICTION TO THE PRE-OPENING AGREEMENT

On December 12, 2003, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (Nation), through its
duly authorized representative, and the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or
Commission), by its Chairman, entered into a Pre-Opening Agreement as a condition to
the Commission’s decision to modify the Permanent Order of Closure of the Nation’s
gaming facilities issued by the Commission on May 7, 2002. On March 5, 2003, the
NIGC Chairman issued a letter authorizing the Nation to reopen its I-40 Travel Plaza
gaming facility, after determining that the Nation had complied with the relevant terms
and conditions of the Pre-Opening Agreement. The Nation, through its authorized
representative, and the Commission, by its Chairman now agree to modify the terms of
the Pre-Opening Agreement to facilitate the play of additional games in the I-40 Travel
Plaza gaming facility.

In addition to the games specified in paragraph 22 of the Pre-Opening Agreement,
the Nation proposes to operate other games played with technologic aids that have been
voluntarily submitted to the Commission’s Office of General Counsel by gaming
machine companies for an advisory opinion on whether the game meets Class II gaming
criteria. These games are: Cadillac Jack Triple Threat Bingo, Rocket Games Fast Play
Bingo System, NOVA Games LiveWire Bingo, and IGT Reel Touch Bingo (Version
1.2). It is hereby agreed that for a period of six months beginning on September 15,
2004, through March 15, 2005, or until the Nation operates Class III gaming under a
Tribal-State Compact approved by the Secretary of the Interior, which ever is sooner, the
Nation may operate the games specified above that are pending review for Class II

advisory game classification opinion. Any electronic bingo game from the list above that


16-04; 4:32PM:Andrews Davis 314052358784

is placed in operation in the Nation’s gaming facilities must generally conform to the
description provided as part of the of request for advisory opinion, and specifically must
provide for at least two releases of numbers or other designations in each individual
bingo game before any winning pattern becomes eligible for a prize and must be
configured to play without a so-called “auto-daub” or “bingo-minder” feature. The
Nation agrees that should the Commission’s Office of General Counsel issue an advisory
classification for any of the games specified above confirming that it is a Class II game, it
will offer the game in the version approved as soon as that version becomes
commercially available. The Nation further agrees that it will remove any of the games
specified above upon notice of a determination by the Commission’s Office of General
Counsel that the game does not meet Class II rane All other proyisions of the

Pre-Opening Agreement remain applicable.

For the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma % ia

hci Chambers, Principal Chief ae N. Hogen, Chairman
2xfefa Spent
Date Dat
Exhibit 21.1
 List of Subsidiaries
  Percentage of VotingNAME
    
    Jurisdiction of Organization
    
    Securities OwnedAmerican Locker Security Systems, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %Canadian Locker Company, Ltd.
    
    Dominion of Canada
    
    
    100
    %(1)Security Manufacturing Corporation
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %ALTRECO, Incorporated
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %
 
 (1)
    
    Owned by American Locker Security Systems, Inc.
#### Nicole M. Singleton, Appellant, v Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 215]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered April 16, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant met its prima facie burden by submitting evidence showing that it did not own, control or create the utility cap *492that caused plaintiff to fall *(see Lopez v Allied Amusement Shows, Inc.,*83 AD3d 519, 519 [1st Dept 2011]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. Plaintiff offered no evidence disputing defendant’s claim that the allegedly defective utility cap was for a water valve and not a gas valve owned or controlled by defendant. Moreover, the fact that defendant performed some excavation and installation work in front of a neighboring building almost three months before plaintiffs accident does not raise an issue of fact as to whether such work resulted in the defective cap that caused plaintiff to fall.

The court did not err in considering the affidavit of defendant’s employee in connection with defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Although the employee’s identity had not previously been disclosed, the employee was not a notice witness to the extent that he stated that defendant’s valve caps were square and not round *(cf. Dunson v Riverbay Corp.,*103 AD3d 578, 579 [1st Dept 2013]) and that he performed an inspection three months after the accident. Furthermore, even if defendant’s disclosure was untimely, plaintiff has not made a showing of prejudice since the employee’s statement regarding the shape of defendant’s valve caps was consistent with the deposition testimony of defendant’s designated deponent, which plaintiff herself submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion *(see Palomo v 175th St. Realty Corp.,*101 AD3d 579, 580 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                   EXHIBIT 12
 
                         AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
 
                  STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NUMBER OF TIMES
                              FIXED CHARGES EARNED
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Year ended December 31,
                                              -----------------------------------------------------
                                                1996       1995       1994       1993       1992
                                              ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
                                                                             (Thousands of dollars)
<S>                                           <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Income
  Income before income taxes and cumulative
     effect of changes in accounting
     principles.............................   $298,559   $287,459   $259,110   $225,784   $203,913
                                               --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
  Fixed charges to be added back to
     income --
     Interest and debt expense..............    426,260    455,379    334,084    324,211    370,884
     Rentals (one-third of all rent and
       related costs charged to income).....     15,015     14,905     13,942     14,378     15,460
                                               --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
          Total fixed charges...............    441,275    470,284    348,026    338,589    386,344
                                               --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
Income before income taxes, cumulative
  effect of changes in accounting principles
  and fixed charges.........................   $739,834   $757,743   $607,136   $564,373   $590,257
                                               ========   ========   ========   ========   ========
Ratio
  Number of times fixed charges covered by
     income before income taxes, cumulative
     effect of changes in accounting
     principles, and fixed charges..........     1.7        1.6        1.7        1.7        1.5
                                                 ===        ===        ===        ===        ===
</TABLE>
 
                                       S-3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              26,450
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       11,458
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (1,000)
<INVENTORY>                                         80,928
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   234,159
<PP&E>                                              48,415
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (18,649)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     326,546
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              752,125
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             3,646
<OTHER-SE>                                        (556,725)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       326,546
<SALES>                                            281,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   346,037
<CGS>                                              111,042
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   424,594
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  28,945
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (218,544)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Fidencio Pelaez, Respondent, v Alan Silverstone et al., Appellants, and State Insurance Fund et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Submitted May 29, 2012;

decided June 28, 2012

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal purportedly on behalf of Silverbrook Farm, Inc. dismissed upon the ground that Silverbrook Farm, Inc. must appear by an attorney *(see*CPLR 321 [a]); motion, insofar as Alan Silverstone and Janice Silver-stone seek leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order as affirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board denying reconsideration or full Board review, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the Appellate Division order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal by Alan Silverstone and Janice Silverstone otherwise denied.
#### REYNOLDS-FITZGERALD, Inc. v. JOURNAL PUB. CO.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Feb. 5, 1954.

*404Sage, Gray, Todd & Sims, New York City, Edward H. Spencer, George W. McGrath, Jr., New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.

Davies, Hardy & Schenck, New York City, John W. Burke, Jr., Burton H. Brody, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

The defendant assumes that plaintiff’s allegation that it “duly performed all the terms and conditions” of the contract refers to and pleads performance of conditions precedent. Accordingly, its general denial' is insufficient to raise an issue with respect thereto, since Rule 9(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., requires that a denial of performance of conditions precedent shall be made specifically and with particularity. As much is conceded by defendant. It urges, however, that what is put in issue by the general denial is performance of the “terms” of the contract, pleaded conjunctively with “conditions." However, if “terms" refers to conditions subsequent1 and defendant intends to rely upon non-performance thereof, it would be required to plead it as an affirmative defense.2 Thus, in either event the denial is insufficient.

The denial of ¶6 of the complaint is stricken with leave to the defendant to plead anew.

Settle order on notice.

1

. “In contract writing [condition] * * is often used as synonymous with ‘term,’ ‘provision,’ or ‘clause’ * * 3 Cor-bin on Contracts, § 627.

2

. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., ¶ 9.-04; see Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Nichols, 224 U.S. 346, 32 S.Ct. 475, 56 L.Ed. 795.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7493

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MILTON SYLVESTER CURRIE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-98-289-V, CA-00-157-V)

Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milton Sylvester Currie, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Milton Sylvester Currie seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Currie, Nos. CR-98-289-V; CA00-157-V (W.D.N.C. July 5, 2001). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3246 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3246

   To exclude from consideration as income under the Native American 
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 amounts received 
by a family from the Department of Veterans Affairs for service-related 
                disabilities of a member of the family.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 22, 2010

 Mr. Wyden (for himself and Mr. Thune) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To exclude from consideration as income under the Native American 
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 amounts received 
by a family from the Department of Veterans Affairs for service-related 
                disabilities of a member of the family.

    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 ``Indian Veterans Housing Opportunity 
Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM INCOME.

    Paragraph (9) of section 4 of the Native American Housing 
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4103(9)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Any amounts received by any member of the 
                family as disability compensation under chapter 11 of 
                title 38, United States Code, or dependency and 
                indemnity compensation under chapter 13 of such 
                title.''.
                                 <all>
```
{"agency":"NIGC","generated":"2015-02-26 16:46:26","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"}],"value":"2013"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q2"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["NIGC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["10"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["9"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["20"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2013","quarter":"Q2"}
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      10,670,081
<SECURITIES>                                 3,153,116
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,821,452
<ALLOWANCES>                                   215,000
<INVENTORY>                                 45,260,869
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            65,033,312
<PP&E>                                       2,623,854
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,828,519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              71,239,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,130,439
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       191,391
<OTHER-SE>                                  68,917,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                71,239,266
<SALES>                                      6,831,535
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,831,535
<CGS>                                        4,389,770
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,389,770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,274,914
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                166,851
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            166,851
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   166,851
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>