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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 114 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 114

   To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide that activities 
relating to the training and readiness of the reserve components of the 
    Armed Forces during a lapse in appropriations shall constitute 
     voluntary services that may be accepted by the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 14, 2019

    Mr. Hoeven (for himself, Mr. Thune, Mr. Daines, and Mr. Rounds) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide that activities 
relating to the training and readiness of the reserve components of the 
    Armed Forces during a lapse in appropriations shall constitute 
     voluntary services that may be accepted by the United States.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF ACTIVITIES RELATING TO TRAINING AND READINESS 
              OF THE ARMED FORCES DURING A LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS AS 
              VOLUNTARY SERVICES ACCEPTABLE BY THE UNITED STATES.

    Section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new sentence: ``However, the term does include 
any portion of a fiscal year during which the appropriation bill for 
the fiscal year for the Department of Defense or the Department of 
Homeland Security, as applicable, has not become law and an Act or 
joint resolution making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
is not in effect, but only with respect to activities relating to the 
training and readiness of the Armed Forces (including the National 
Guard and the Reserves) carried out during such portion of the fiscal 
year.''.
                                 <all>
```
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DO SUNG UHM; EUN SOOK UHM, a 

married couple, individually and No. 06-35672 for all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No.

CV-06-00185-RSM

v.  Western District of

HUMANA INC., a Delaware Washington,

corporation; HUMANA HEALTH PLAN Seattle

INC., a Kentucky corporation doing ORDER business as Humana,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Filed July 22, 2009

Before: Betty B. Fletcher, Richard A. Paez and

Marsha S. Berzon,* Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Appellees’ request for reconsideration shall be treated as a

petition for panel rehearing and is GRANTED. The opinion

filed on August 25, 2008 and reported at 540 F.3d 980 (9th

Cir. 2008) is WITHDRAWN and shall not be cited as precedent. The petition for rehearing en banc is moot. The panel

will file a new disposition in due course.

*Due to the unavailability of Senior District Judge William Schwarzer,

Judge Berzon has been randomly drawn as a replacement judge. 

9381
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 1 of 33 PageID: 88
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 2 of 33 PageID: 89
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 3 of 33 PageID: 90
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 4 of 33 PageID: 91
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 5 of 33 PageID: 92
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 6 of 33 PageID: 93
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 7 of 33 PageID: 94
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 8 of 33 PageID: 95
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 9 of 33 PageID: 96
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 10 of 33 PageID: 97
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 11 of 33 PageID: 98
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 12 of 33 PageID: 99
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 13 of 33 PageID: 100
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 14 of 33 PageID: 101
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 15 of 33 PageID: 102
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 16 of 33 PageID: 103
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 17 of 33 PageID: 104
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 18 of 33 PageID: 105
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 19 of 33 PageID: 106
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 20 of 33 PageID: 107
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 21 of 33 PageID: 108
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 22 of 33 PageID: 109
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 23 of 33 PageID: 110
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 24 of 33 PageID: 111
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 25 of 33 PageID: 112
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 26 of 33 PageID: 113
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 27 of 33 PageID: 114
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 28 of 33 PageID: 115
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 29 of 33 PageID: 116
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 30 of 33 PageID: 117
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 31 of 33 PageID: 118
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 32 of 33 PageID: 119
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC -MAS Document 6 Filed 12/28/10 Page 33 of 33 PageID: 120
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

298 

CA 16-01126 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

RICHARD COOPER AND DEBRA BECKS COOPER, 

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, 

V ORDER

BENAKA, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

OSBORN, REED & BURKE, LLP, ROCHESTER (L. DAMIEN COSTANZA OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

KELLY WHITE DONOFRIO LLP, ROCHESTER (PAUL D. KELLY OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

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

A. Martin, A.J.), entered March 24, 2016. The order, insofar as

appealed from, granted the motion of plaintiffs for partial summary

judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). 

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance

signed by the attorneys for the parties on February 22, 2017,

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: March 24, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
40 Occupational Outlook Quarterly • Winter 2007–08

One job isn’t enough for some people. Data from 

the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show 

that in 2006, 31 States and the District of Columbia had multiple jobholding rates higher than that of 

the national average, and 19 States had lower rates.

Overall, 5.2 percent of workers had more than one 

job in 2006. This rate was slightly below the 2005 rate 

of 5.3 percent but much lower than the 1996 rate of 6.2 

percent. 

As the map shows, Southern States generally had 

a lower multiple jobholding rate than Northern States. 

Nebraska and South Dakota had the highest multiple 

jobholding rates (9.9 percent), and Georgia and West 

Virginia had the lowest rates (3.5 percent). 

BLS defines a multiple jobholder as an employed 

person who had either two or more wage and salary 

jobs at the same time, was self-employed and also held 

a wage and salary job, or was an unpaid family worker 

who also held a wage and salary job.

Data here come from the Current Population Survey. 

For more information on this study, contact BLS Local 

Area Unemployment Statistics Information and Analysis, 

2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Suite 4675, Washington, 

DC 20212; call (202) 691–6392; or read the article in 

the September 2007 issue of the Monthly Labor Review, 

available online at 

www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/09/rgtrends.pdf.

Multiple jobholders, 2006

7.6 percent or more

4.5 percent or below

4.6 to 5.5 percent

5.6 to 7.5 percent

Alaska

Hawaii

Washington, DC

9.9%

9.9%

3.5%

3.5%
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF REGISTERED 
INDEPENDENT
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING 
FIRM



August 12, 2022





Board of Directors of Ecrid, Inc.:





We hereby consent to the inclusion in the Offering
Circular filed under Form S-1/A amendment 2 of our report dated August 12, 2022, with respect to the balance sheets of Ecrid, Inc. as
of March 31, 2022 and 2021 and the related statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the fiscal year periods
thus ended and the related notes to the financial statements.





/s/ MaughanSullivan LLC

Manchester, VT

August 12, 2022
ORDER OF MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PANEL 

Order Pronounced June 25, 2009 

08-0956 IN RE PETROLEUM WHOLESALE, L.P., AND PWI GP, LLC 

 "OPERATION SPOTLIGHT" LITIGATION. 

 On December 9, 2008, the Panel stayed proceedings in cases pending in Ellis, 

Galveston, and Harris Counties. On February 10, 2009, the Panel granted the request for 

assignment of a pretrial judge to these three cases. In May, the Panel was advised that 

the cases in Ellis and Galveston Counties have been nonsuited, leaving only the Harris 

County case pending, and the parties presented arguments on the effect of these changes 

in circumstances. 

 The Panel's stay order and its order granting the motion to appoint a pretrial judge 

are set aside and withdrawn. An opinion will be issued at a later date. 

__________________________________ 

Blake Hawthorne, 

Multidistrict Litigation Panel Clerk 

ALL CONCUR
@conference{1214976,
  author = {Zhelun Chen and Jin Wen and Steven T. Bushby and Caleb Calfa and Yangyang Fu and Gabriel Grajewski and Yicheng Li and L. James Lo and Zheng O'Neill and Vance (Wm.) Payne and Amanda Pertzborn and Zhiyao Yang},
  title = {Development of a Hardware-in-the-loop Testbed for Laboratory Performance Verification of Flexible Building Equipment in Typical Commercial Buildings},
  year = {2022},
  month = {2022-06-27 04:06:00},
  publisher = {ASHRAE Transactions - 2022 ASHRAE Annual Conference, Toronto, CA},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=933757},
  language = {en},
}
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008 (the “Report”) of Pegasi Energy Resources Corporation (the
“Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Michael Neufeld, as the Chief Executive Officer, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the consolidated financial condition and consolidated results of operations of
the Registrant.






Dated:
      August 6, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Michael
      NeufeldMichael
      NeufeldChief
      Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of an Investigation of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department into the Professional Conduct of an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law, Respondent; Susan Anonymous, Appellant.

Decided January 15, 2013

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### In the Matter of Elijah C., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Michael C., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 764]

The finding of neglect against the father was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including testimony that the much larger father committed acts of domestic violence against the legally blind mother in the child’s presence (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). These violent acts exposed the child to an imminent risk of harm, and no expert or medical testimony is required to show impairment or risk thereof to the child as the result of the domestic violence *(see Matter of Athena M.,*253 AD2d 669 [1998]). There exists no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations *(see Matter of Irene O.,*38 NY2d 776 [1975]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams and McGuire, JJ.
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 7 Filed 12/01/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 27
***Exhibit 31.2******CERTIFICATIONS***     I, Jason K. West, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Mid-America Bancshares, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects, the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.November 14, 2007/s/ Jason K. West
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 Quarterly Report of Market Data Consultants, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, Chief Financial 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Wilson Cheung



Wilson Cheung, Chief Financial Officer

July 10, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         137,913
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             510
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    553,220
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         441,833
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           445,389
<LOANS>                                      1,731,617
<ALLOWANCE>                                     40,211
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,335,045
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,873,942
<SHORT-TERM>                                   343,357
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            468,899
<LONG-TERM>                                    330,917
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,997
<OTHER-SE>                                     291,933
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,335,045
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                171,328
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               65,091
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 5,969
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               242,388
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              99,091
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             139,194
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          103,194
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   13,571
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (1,620)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                203,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,241
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      31,797
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,797
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     3.7
<LOANS-NON>                                     20,939
<LOANS-PAST>                                    15,889
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                17,289
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                39,260
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   21,258
<RECOVERIES>                                     7,168
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               40,211
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 25, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40464

Summary Calendar

WARDELL MOORE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(6:03-CV-27)

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wardell Moore appeals, pro se, the dismissal of his successive

28 U.S.C. § 2254 application, which challenged his sentence

following his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly

weapon. The district court ruled the application was moot due to

Moore’s release from prison. Moore contends his claim is not moot.

The respondent claims the district court lacked jurisdiction to

consider Moore’s successive application.
2

Moore’s first § 2254 application was denied in October 2001.

Moore v. Vandel, No. H-99-3739 (S.D. Tex. 30 Oct. 2001)

(unpublished). The district court could consider Moore’s

successive petition only if he had obtained an order from this

court authorizing the district court to do so. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3); United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir.

2000). Because Moore did not do so, the district court lacked

jurisdiction to consider the successive petition. Key, 205 F.3d at

774. Consequently, we vacate the judgment of the district court

and remand this matter with instructions to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction. See Crone v. Cockrell, 324 F.3d 833, 838 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 540 U.S. 910 (2003).

JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED
FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/22/2015 3:58:56 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           7,962
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,765
<ALLOWANCES>                                       882
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          82,856
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,114
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,595
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,246
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,595
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,819
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,085
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,815
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,186
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,186
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,186
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Chris Wilmot v. Harry A. Bouknight, Junior

Appellate case number: 01-13-00738-CV

Trial court case number: 2010-00373

Trial court: 295th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: April 17, 2015

Party filing motion: Appellant, Chris Wilmot

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: Evelyn V. Keyes

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes

Date: July 28, 2015