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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3462 

To provide subpoena power to the National Commission on the British 

Petroleum Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 8, 2010 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. 

GILLIBRAND, Mr. KERRY, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. 

BEGICH, Mr. CASEY, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. BENNET, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. 

FRANKEN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. KAUFMAN, and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide subpoena power to the National Commission on 

the British Petroleum Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico, 

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. POWERS OF NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE 

4 BRITISH PETROLEUM OIL SPILL IN THE GULF 

5 OF MEXICO. 

6 (a) HEARINGS.—The National Commission on the 

7 British Petroleum Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico (referred 

8 to in this section as the ‘‘Commission’’) or, at the direction 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3462 IS

1 of the Commission, any subcommittee or member of the 

2 Commission, may, for the purpose of carrying out the du3 ties of the Commission, as the Commission or the sub4 committee or member considers advisable in consultation 

5 with the Attorney General— 

6 (1) hold such hearings, meet and act at such 

7 times and places, take such testimony, receive such 

8 evidence, and administer such oaths; and 

9 (2) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the at10 tendance and testimony of such witnesses and the 

11 production of such books, records, correspondence, 

12 memoranda, papers, documents, tapes, and mate13 rials. 

14 (b) ISSUANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OF SUB15 POENAS.— 

16 (1) ISSUANCE.—A subpoena issued under sub17 section (a) shall— 

18 (A) bear the signature of a Chairperson of 

19 the Commission; and 

20 (B) be served by any person or class of 

21 persons designated by a Chairperson for that 

22 purpose. 

23 (2) ENFORCEMENT.—In the case of contumacy 

24 or failure to obey a subpoena issued under sub25 section (a)(2), the United States district court for 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3462 IS

1 the district in which the subpoenaed person resides, 

2 is served, or may be found may issue an order re3 quiring the person to appear at any designated place 

4 to testify or to produce documentary or other evi5 dence. 

6 (3) NONCOMPLIANCE.—Any failure to obey the 

7 order of the court may be punished by the court as 

8 a contempt of court. 

9 (c) WITNESS ALLOWANCES AND FEES.— 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1821 of title 28, 

11 United States Code, shall apply to a witness re12 quested or subpoenaed to appear at a hearing of the 

13 Commission. 

14 (2) EXPENSES.—The per diem and mileage al15 lowances for a witness shall be paid from funds 

16 available to pay the expenses of the Commission. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [LLORV00000-L10200000.DD0000; HAG 9-0053]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Vale District.

# ACTION:

Meeting notice for the John Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council (JDSRAC).

# SUMMARY:

At the JDSRAC meeting, we will welcome a new member, agree on its annual plan of work for 2009, elect new officers, and conduct the regular business of keeping member representatives informed about Federal actions. The meeting may include such topics as John Day Resource Management Plan, Wallowa-Whitman Weed Management, Forest and BLM Resource Management Planning, Restoration of the Lower Snake River, Transportation Planning, and other matters as may reasonably come before the council.

# DATES:

The JDSRAC meeting is scheduled for February 26, 2009. The meeting will take place at the Oxford Suites, 2400 SW Court, Pendleton, Oregon, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

The meeting is open to the public. Public comment is scheduled for 1 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. (Pacific Time) February 26, 2008. For a copy of the information to be distributed to the Council members, please submit a written request to the Vale District Office 10 days prior to the meeting.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Additional information concerning the John Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council may be obtained from Mark Wilkening, Public Affairs Officer, Vale District Office, 100 Oregon Street, Vale, Oregon 97918, (541) 473-6218 or e-mail                         *mark_wilkening@blm.gov*.                    

Dated: January 14, 2009. 

David R. Henderson, 

District Manager.

 [FR Doc. E9-1426 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
#### Michael James Olsen, Respondent, v Louis F. Kozlowski, Defendant and Shirley F. Kozlowski, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 663]

Motion for clarification denied. Present — Centra, J.E, Fahey, Peradotto, Garni and Sconiers, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5
<CIK>                            0000826345
<NAME>                           GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II-B
                                  
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                 343,723
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                        3,215,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     3,558,881
<PP&E>                              21,677,760
<DEPRECIATION>                      18,814,910
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       6,591,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  101,851
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                           6,401,172
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         6,591,542
<SALES>                              1,429,973
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     4,296,128
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          936,726
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      3,359,402
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  3,359,402
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                         3,359,402
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             8.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0
        
 

</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

812 

KA 12-00990 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STANLEY BETHUNE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank

P. Geraci, Jr., A.J.), entered April 20, 2012. The order determined

that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender

Registration Act. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he

is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act

(Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Defendant was convicted upon his plea

of guilty of, inter alia, aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree

(Penal Law § 130.70), and he was thereafter adjudicated a level three

risk. Contrary to defendant’s contention, Supreme Court properly

determined that he had previously been convicted of a felony sex crime

and applied the corresponding override provision. The case summary

stated that defendant had previously been convicted in the State of

California of, inter alia, the crime of oral copulation. A conviction

of such a crime may be a misdemeanor or a felony, depending upon the

particulars of the conviction (see generally People v Hofsheier, 37

Cal 4th 1185, 1196 n 3). In addition to stating the name of the crime

of which defendant was convicted in California, however, the case

summary repeatedly indicated that defendant had previously been

convicted of a “felony sex crime,” the oral copulation conviction was

defendant’s only prior sex offense, and defendant did not deny having

been convicted of that offense. “The case summary may constitute

clear and convincing evidence of the facts alleged therein and, where,

as here, the defendant does not dispute the facts contained in the

case summary, the case summary alone is sufficient to support the

court’s determination” (People v Guzman, 96 AD3d 1441, 1441-1442, lv

denied 19 NY3d 812; see People v Beames, 100 AD3d 1163, 1164; People v

Hubel, 70 AD3d 1492, 1493). The court therefore properly determined 
-2- 812 

KA 12-00990 

that the override provision applied. 

Entered: July 19, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 10.5
​
Amendment to Appendix 1 – Scope of Employment
​
This document serves as an amendment to the vacation paragraph within your most recent employment agreement appendix. The below paragraph replaces the paragraph related to vacation in its entirety. This amendment does not constitute a new employment agreement or alter any other terms of your employment with Enfusion.
​
In accordance with Enfusion’s Flexible Time Off policy effective July 1, 2022, which may be amended from time to time, Employee is entitled to flexible time off as needed each calendar year. Flexible Time Off will not accrue or vest and therefore will not be paid out at the time of separation of employment. Any unused and unexpired accrued vacation days that Employee earned under the previous policy will expire on December 31, 2022 if unused by the Employee. If the Employee’s Termination Date is on or before December 31, 2022, the Employee will receive a final payment for all vested paid vacation time through their Termination Date. If the Employee’s Termination Date is on or after January 1, 2023, in accordance with Enfusion’s vacation policy, Employee will not be paid out for any expired accrued vacation days. Any employee beginning employment after July 1, 2022 will not accrue vacation days.
​
​
/s/ Bronwen Bastone
​
Bronwen Bastone 
Chief People Officer 
July 01, 2022
​
​
/s/ Steve Dorton
​
Stephen (Steve) Dorton
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3655 

To establish a point of order against certain climate change legislation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2010 

Mr. JOHANNS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

A BILL 

To establish a point of order against certain climate change 

legislation. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE 

4 LEGISLATION. 

5 (a) POINT OF ORDER.—Subject to subsection (b), it 

6 shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any con7 ference report or other legislation that originates in the 

8 House of Representatives as a message, bill, amendment, 

9 or motion, or any Senate bill or related conference report 

10 to which the House of Representatives added a provision, 

11 that addresses climate change through the inclusion of a 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3655 IS

1 cap-and-trade program if the Senate has not considered 

2 and approved a bill addressing climate change that in3 cluded such a cap-and-trade program. 

4 (b) WAIVER AND APPEAL.— 

5 (1) WAIVER.—Subsection (a) may be waived or 

6 suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote 

of 2 7 ⁄3 of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. 

(2) APPEAL.—An affirmative vote of 2 8 ⁄3 of the 

9 Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall 

10 be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the 

11 Chair on a point of order raised under subsection 

12 (a). 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### WHITE et al. v. BISCONTINI et al.

Civ. No. 2358.

District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

Jan. 17, 1946.

R. Lawrence Coughlin, of Wilkes Barre, Pa., for plaintiffs..

E. C. Marianelli, of Wilkes Barre, Pa., for defendants.

WATSON, District Judge.

This action arises under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 as amended, 50 *585U. S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq., to recover damages on account of a sale allegedly in excess of the maximum price allowed under Maximum Price Regulation 136.

Before filing an answer the defendant filed a “Motion for More Definite Statement” upon which arguments were heard and briefs filed. The matter is now before this Court for disposition.

Defendant moves that the plaintiff be directed to file a more definite complaint setting forth, (1), what the applicable maximum price was for the machinery, or how the sum allegedly received by the defendants is $14,500 in excess of the legal maximum prescribed by the Price Regulation No. 136, or how that legal maximum price was made up; and (2), the facts which constitute the basis of the allegations that the equipment was bought for use other than in the course of trade or business; and (3), when, how, and upon whom demand was made for the repayment of the alleged overcharges.

If the plaintiff is to recover at the trial of the case it will be necessary to prove that the alleged maximum price is the legal maximum price. It is not necessary that the plaintiff describe in detail in the complaint the manner in which he arrived at the precise overcharge alleged. The number and type of item here involved is definite, and it is not a case of an undesignated quantity of several different items. The first request must be denied.

The second and third requests will be granted so that the defendant may know the specific use for which the article was purchased, and also the person upon whom and at what time a demand was made for the repayment of the alleged overcharge.

Now, January 17, 1946 the plaintiff is ordered and directed to file a more definite complaint setting forth; (1), the specific use or consumption other than in the course of trade or business for which the machine was bought; and, (2), the time, place, and the person or persons upon whom, and by whom, the demand for the repayment of the alleged overcharge was made.
NO. CAAP-19-0000502

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

REMAX PROPERTIES, authorized agent for RICHARD K. TAHARA and MARJORIE T. TAHARA, owners of the subject property, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant

A PPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT PUNA DIVISION (CIVIL NO. 3RC-18-1-1186)

ORDER (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge) Upon consideration of the "Motion to Strike or Dismiss Defendant-Appellant Christopher Young's [( Appellant )] Notice of Redress to the State of Hawaii Legislature for an Investigation to Address the Treasonous Acts Did Cause Deprivation of Appellant's Due Process, Equal Access and Protection of the Law Committed an Act of Mixed War Against We the People; Appellant is Requesting the Uniform Bonding Code Information from All Bar Members Involved in This Case Pursuant to Code 5.2(1)-(6), 5.4, 5.5., Filed on April 14, 2020," and "Motion to Declare [Appellant] a 'Vexatious Litigant' and Order Requiring [Appellant] to Post Security," both filed on April 28, 2020, by Plaintiff-Appellee ReMax Properties, authorized agent for Richard K. Tahara and Marjorie T. Tahara, the papers in support, Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000502 07-MAY-2020 09:58 AMand the record, it appears that on February 28, 2020, the court

dismissed the appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions are dismissed as moot.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, May 7, 2020.
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the financial statements of AquaPenn Spring Water Company, Inc. for the
quarter ended December 31, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                       U.S.$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                             170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,409
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (100)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,691
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,956
<PP&E>                                          36,427
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (7,229)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,416
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,694
<SALES>                                          7,999
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,077
<CGS>                                            6,795
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (283)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (181)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (68)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (113)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (113)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Oathout, Appellant.

Submitted May 6, 2013;

decided May 30, 2013

Motion by John A. Aretakis for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein etc. dismissed as untimely *(see*Rules of Ct of Appeals [22 NYCRR] § 500.23 [a] [1] [iii]).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

AMENDMENT OF RULE 2.3 OF

THE CODE OF JUDICIAL 

CONDUCT 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 483

JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2017, it is ORDERED, pursuant to Article V, 

Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, that Rule 2.3 of the Code of Judicial 

Conduct is amended in the attached form.

To the extent that notice of proposed rulemaking would otherwise be required by 

Pa.R.J.A. No. 103, the immediate promulgation of the amendments is found to be in the 

interests of justice and efficient administration.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and the 

amendments herein shall be effective immediately. 

Additions are shown in bold and are underlined.
<PAGE>

Apogent Technologies Inc.                                   EXHIBIT 12
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
            3/31/02                                                   Six Months
                                                                         Ended
                                Fiscal Year Ended September 30,        March 31,
                       -----------------------------------------------
                        1997        1998     1999     2000     2001      2002
                        ----        ----     ----     ----     ----      ----
Fixed Charges:
 Interest expense       24,999      33,772   40,073   48,684   48,698    20,531
 Deferred financing        152         151      224      533      563     1,741
 1/3 Rental expense      1,076       1,343    2,235    3,145    3,751     2,108
                       -----------------------------------------------  --------
                        26,227      35,266   42,532   52,362   53,012    24,380
Earnings:
 Pre tax income from
 continuing operations  73,996      86,836  127,392  144,325  180,739    98,926
Add: Fixed charges      26,227      35,266   42,532   52,362   53,012    24,380
Earnings               100,223     122,102  169,924  196,687  233,751   123,306

Ratio of Earnings
 to Fixed Charges          3.8         3.5      4.0      3.8      4.4       5.1
                       ===============================================  ========

Rental Expense           3,229       4,028    6,704    9,434   11,253     6,325
                       ===============================================  ========
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            BKF CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

                           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 BKF Capital Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John A. Levin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 (including subsections (a) (b) and (c) thereof), 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/ JOHN A. LEVIN
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          John A. Levin
                                          Chief Executive Officer

March 15, 2004