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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 831 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 831

  Expressing support for designation of February 4, 2020, as National 
                         Cancer Prevention Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2020

   Mrs. Dingell (for herself and Mr. Upton) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing support for designation of February 4, 2020, as National 
                         Cancer Prevention Day.

Whereas National Cancer Prevention Day is a day to remind us that, when looking 
        at cancer, we need to look at prevention and reducing risks for human 
        health and the environment;
Whereas when we work to prevent cancer risks, it impacts human health, the 
        environment, and the economy;
Whereas cancer is one of the leading causes of death around the world and has 
        touched the lives of nearly everyone, either directly or indirectly;
Whereas the disease is the cause of nearly 1 out of every 4 deaths in the United 
        States;
Whereas, in 2020, there will be an estimated 1,762,450 new cancer cases 
        diagnosed and 606,880 cancer deaths in the United States;
Whereas cancer is the second most common cause of death among children ages 1 to 
        14 years in the United States after accidents, and in 2020 an estimated 
        11,050 children in this age group will be diagnosed with cancer and 
        1,190 will die from it; and
Whereas February 4, 2020, would be an appropriate date to designate as National 
        Cancer Prevention Day: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of National Cancer Prevention 
        Day;
            (2) recognizes all efforts to raise the awareness for the 
        reduction of cancer risks; and
            (3) recognizes the devastating effect cancer has on 
        families and wishes to expand knowledge, encourage early 
        detection, and work with friends in the medical and scientific 
        fields to put an end to this deadly disease.
                                 <all>
```
rr .. ?ec.l ~ vv\\f, I'} be Costaa1 · C l ~r k; 

, mv na yY)-e ,}'· lrJr. f?edd/e ff~wfttOn. :z awt 

•"CG\'t'Ce'rc<:te~ ~~ ~h.~ ~S7~LLE UN:Zu~ 

5 e n.o( ~ ~ doc.ALC2 t . s h lZ.e t OY\ w "-~ t 7 ha-ve 

\,,ed ~'~"'''t\ vt:}u.'r ~~u~t, 

. f\Jot~f \( . ff\~ ef\ W~~f\;iV'19 01~ ~~~"~ ~@\A h~\le 

v--ece\vecl ~'f\.o\ ~\\~cl o~ ~'I ~e Ka.\~ OY\ ~i p~pte~ 

~a~\~ t~~~ -:L ""-o.....J~ s~~~ \:;<:A t," <t c_J:J\A:\f"'~' 

· 7ha..vdK y@u . ~v y@!l~,ot r ti'M<1 CA. "'et Con >~el'\,'e.VI-: 

Ge\ 

AbeJAoosta, Clerk
NO. 01-14-00486-CR

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARK AUGUSTIN CASTELLANO

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

On Appeal from Cause Number 1363068

From the 184th District Court of Harris County, Texas 

CERTIFICATION OF NOTIFICATION OF RIGHT TO FILE PRO

SE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

Jani Maselli Wood, counsel for Appellant in this case, respectfully

informs the Court that counsel has complied with Rule 48.4 by providing

a copy of the opinion in this case to Appellant and informing Appellant

of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. The Certified

Mail number for confirmation is 7010 1870 0000 4699 1922.

Respectfully submitted,

Harris County Public Defender’s Office

1201 Franklin Street, 13th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

 /s/ Jani J. Maselli Wood

Jani Maselli Wood

Assistant Public Defender

Texas Bar Number 00791195

Jani.Maselli@pdo.hctx.net

(713) 368-0016

ACCEPTED

01-14-00486-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/16/2015 11:39:19 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/16/2015 11:39:19 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No.  33-29612)  pertaining  to the 1987 Stock  Option  Plan of Kimmins
Corp.  and in the related  Prospectus,  of our report dated April 7, 1999,  with
respect to the consolidated  financial  statements and schedule of Kimmins Corp.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.



                                                     /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP




Tampa, Florida
March 26, 2001



1340937
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between MBNA America Bank, N.A., Appellant, and Despina Cucinotta, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 237]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kramer, J.), entered May 9, 2005 in Schenectady County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7510 to confirm an arbitration award, dismissed the petition.

Petitioner sought an order to confirm an arbitration award and the entry of judgment thereon in this consumer credit card collection action. Respondent opposed, arguing that the arbitration hearing was held in an improper venue. Supreme Court agreed and dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.

We reverse. In accordance with the terms of their credit card agreement, either party could demand that any dispute arising under the agreement be submitted to arbitration by the *1065National Arbitration Forum (hereinafter NAF). The agreement further provided that “[a]ny arbitration hearing at which you appear will take place within the federal judicial district that includes your billing address at the time the Claim is filed.” It is not disputed that respondent resides in Schenectady County in the Northern District of New York and that the arbitration occurred in New York County in the Southern District of New York. Nevertheless, the NAF Code of Procedure provides for different kinds of hearings, one being in person and the other being a document hearing at which an arbitrator reviews all submissions but at which the parties do not appear. It is the latter that was held in the instant matter.

Insofar as document hearings are concerned, the NAF Code of Procedure has no venue provisions. As a result, there is no merit to respondent’s improper venue argument. Respondent’s remaining appellate arguments are unpreserved as they were not raised either before the arbitrator or in Supreme Court.

Cardona, BJ., Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, petition granted and arbitration award confirmed.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, July 20, 2009, 8 a.m. to July 21, 2009, 7:30 p.m., Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 15, 2009, 74 FR 28260-28262.                

The meeting will be held at the Doubletree Hotel Washington, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005. The meeting dates and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: June 22, 2009.

Anna Snouffer,

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-15580 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Daniel Agathe, Appellant, v Tun Chen Wang et al., Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 766]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated July 11, 2005, as granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

*738Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the cross motion is denied.

The defendants failed to satisfy their burden of establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The defendants’ examining orthopedic surgeon set forth a single range of motion finding with respect to the plaintiffs left knee, but failed to compare that finding to what is considered to be the normal range of motion, as is required *(see Yashayev v Rodriguez,*28 AD3d 651, 652 [2006]; *Sullivan v Dawes,*28 AD3d 472 [2006]; *Browdame v Candura,*25 AD3d 747, 748 [2006]; *Paulino v Dedios,*24 AD3d 741 [2005]; *Kennedy v Brown,*23 AD 3d 625, 626 [2005]; *Baudilio v Pam Car & Truck Rental, Inc.,*23 AD3d 420 [2005]). The defendants’ examining neurologist merely noted that the plaintiff had “excellent” range of motion of the neck and lower back, and he failed to set forth the objective testing performed to arrive at his conclusion that the plaintiff did not suffer from any limitations in movement in those regions *(see Ilardo v New York City Tr. Auth.,*28 AD3d 610, 611 [2006]; *Kelly v Rehfeld,*26 AD3d 469, 470 [2006]; *Nembhard v Delatorre,*16 AD3d 390, 391 [2005]; *Black v Robinson,*305 AD2d 438, 439 [2003]). Since the defendants thus failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is unnecessary to consider whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the cross motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Ilardo v New York City Tr. Auth., supra*at 611; *Nembhard v Delatorre, supra*at 391). Florio, J.E, Crane, Luciano, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1




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 Quarterly Report of Legacy Reserves LP (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Legacy Reserves GP, LLC (the "Company”), the general partner of the Partnership, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:




(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 Partnership.






/s/ Cary D. Brown


/s/ Steven H. PruettCary D. Brown


Steven H. PruettChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board





May 7, 2010


President, Chief Financial Officer and

Secretary



May 7, 2010






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as part of the Report.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 22, 2015

No. 04-15-00213-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.J.R., a Child

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014EM501263

The Honorable Nick Catoe Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT 

OF JURISDICTION.

We order that no costs be assessed again appellant because he is indigent. 

It is so ORDERED on July 22, 2015.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of July, 2015.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
#### GRAY v. BALTIMORE *&*O. R. CO.

Civ. No. 990.

United States District Court S. D. Ohio, W. D.

Feb. 23, 1949.

Mathias H. Heck, of Dayton, Ohio, for plaintiff.

*26P. Eugene Smith, of Dayton, Ohio, for defendant.

NEVIN, Chief Judge.

This cause is now before the court on a motion heretofore, to-wit, on October 9, 1948, filed by and on behalf of plaintiff herein, wherein plaintiff moves the court to require the defendant to make its answer “definite and certain * * * by alleging the facts or acts of commission or omission which the defendant claims contributed to cause the collision.” In a memorandum attached to the motion, plaintiff cites several decisions by the courts of Ohio, in support of her motion.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., it is not necessary in the Federal Court for either the plaintiff (in a petition) or a defendant (in an answer) to do more by way of an allegation of negligence than defendant has done in its answer in the instant case.

There are a number of “Official Forms” contained in the appendix of forms attached to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 84 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that “The forms contained in the Appendix of Forms are sufficient under the rules and are intended to indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules contemplate.”

In the “comment” under Rule 84, it is stated that the rule as now amended clearly states that the official forms “are sufficient to withstand attack under the rules”.

Form No. 9 sets forth what it is necessary to plead in a “Complaint for Negligence”. It applies equally to an allegation contained in an answer (as in the instant case) alleging contributory negligence.

The Ohio Decisions cited and relied upon by plaintiff in support of her motion, in the light of the present Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are no longer either controlling or persuasive.

Plaintiff’s motion, therefore, is not well taken and it should be, and it is, overruled.

Counsel may prepare and submit an order accordingly.
EXHIBIT 10.1nn

                           Second AMENDMENT TO LEASE

                               EARLY TERMINATION


That certain lease dated May 21, 1991, by and between Petula Associates Ltd.,
and Koll Woodside Associates, Landlord, and Sequent Computer Systems, Inc., 
Tenant, for the premises located at 15125 S.W. Koll Parkway, Beaverton, 
Oregon 97006, Building 4, Units B-K, consisting of 12,124 square feet, is 
amended this _________ day of ________________, 1995, solely as hereinafter 
described.


Effective at midnight on the 31st day of July, 1995, the above referenced 
Lease Agreement shall be terminated, and Sequent shall be relieved from all 
further responsibility outlined in the Lease Agreement.  This early 
termination shall be contingent on Sequent Computer's execution of the Lease
Amendments for Woodside Buildings 2 and 3.  If Sequent fails to execute 
Amendments for Buildings 2 and 3, this Early Termination shall be null and 
void, and all terms and conditions of the above described Lease shall remain
in full force and effect.



Landlord:         PETULA ASSOCIATES, LTD., an Iowa Corporation and
                  KOLL WOODSIDE ASSOCIATES, a California General partners

                  By:        TIMOTHY E. MINTON, VICE PRESIDENT & SECRETARY
                             JOHN N. URBAN, VICE PRESIDENT

Tenant            SEQUENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.

                  By:        ROBERT B. WITT, VICE PRESIDENT & CIO
                  Date:      JULY 21, 995
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14964]


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

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

June 17, 2009.

TIME AND DATE:  10 a.m., Wednesday, July 1, 2009

PLACE:  The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS:  Open

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  The Commission will consider and act upon 
the following in open session: Secretary of Labor v. Musser 
Engineering, Inc., and PBS Coals, Inc., Docket Nos. PENN 2004-152 and 
PENN 2004-158. (Issues include whether Musser and PBS violated 29 CFR 
75.1200 when the operator of the Quecreek mine failed to maintain an 
accurate mine map showing the boundaries of adjacent abandoned mine 
workings, whether the alleged violations were ``significant and 
substantial,'' whether the companies were guilty of gross negligence, 
and whether the Administrative Law Judge properly increased the 
proposed penalty amounts.)
    Any person attending this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. 
Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and Sec.  2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:  Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950/(202) 708-9300 
for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,
Chief Docket Clerk.
[FR Doc. E9-14964 Filed 6-22-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 2, 

2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00287-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.J.E.B.B., A CHILD, Appellant

Harris County, Texas

315th District Court

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-04874J

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed March 24, 2016. On May 20, 

2016, appellant, Alvin Jermine Byrd, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Jamison.
Exhibit 32.2








SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER








In connection with this Annual Report of Summit Financial Group, Inc. ("Summit “) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert S. Tissue, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Summit, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Summit.










/s/ Robert S. Tissue


Robert S. Tissue,


Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer








Date:  February 28, 2011














The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases

on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 95-10044 Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

THELMA GOODING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN
SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas

(3:93 CV 1675 G)

______________________________________________________ August 31, 1995 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM 1 :

Thelma Gooding appeals the denial of her application for

disability benefits. We affirm.

Gooding correctly argues that the district cou rt erred by

considering new evidence of her obesity which h ad not been

considered by the Commissioner. S ee Harrell v. Bowen

, 862 F.2d

471, 475 (5th Cir. 1988). This error was harmless, however,

because the evidence was not material to the issue of her

disability at the time she applied for benefits or at the time of2

the hearing. J ohnson v . Heckler , 767 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir.

1994); see also Latham v. Shalala

, 36 F.3d 482, 483 & n.2 (5th Cir.

1994). The new evidence relates to periods well after both events.

This evidence may, however, form the basis of a new claim.

Appellant next argues that the Administrati ve Law Judge

misstated her tes timony regarding her daily activities and her

symptoms. The record belies this argument. We are satisfied that

he correctly recounted both her tes timony and her symptoms.

Appellant then complains that the ALJ did not properly apply the

two-step process for evaluating symptoms. Yet Appellant cites no

authority that the record must demonstrate that the steps were each

applied discreetly and indeed th e regulation itself does not so

state. S ee C.F.R. § 404.1529. The judge did state that in making

his findings he had considered all evidence presented relating to

Gooding's complaints.

AFFIRMED.