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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5008 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5008

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 14, 2004

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To provide an additional temporary extension of programs under the 
   Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 
          through September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS UNDER SMALL 
              BUSINESS ACT AND SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958.

    The authorization for any program, authority, or provision, 
including any pilot program, that was extended through June 4, 2004, by 
section 1 of Public Law 108-217 is further extended through September 
30, 2004, under the same terms and conditions.

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

    Section 2 of Public Law 108-205 is amended by striking ``October 1, 
2003'' and inserting ``March 15, 2004''. The amendment made by the 
preceding sentence shall take effect as if included in the enactment of 
the section to which it relates.

SEC. 3. COMPENSATION OF AGENTS.

    Section 5 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 634) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (g)(4), by adding at the end the 
        following:
                    ``(C) The Administration may contract with an agent 
                to carry out, on behalf of the Administration, the 
                assessment and collection of the annual fee established 
                under section 7(a)(23). The agent may receive, as 
                compensation for services, any interest earned on the 
                fee while in the control of the agent before the time 
                at which the agent is contractually required to remit 
                the fee to the Administration.''; and
            (2) in subsection (h)--
                    (A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph 
                (3); and
                    (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
            ``(2) The agent described in paragraph (1)(B) may be 
        compensated through any of the fees assessed under this section 
        and any interest earned on any funds collected by the agent 
        while such funds are in the control of the agent and before the 
        time at which the agent is contractually required to transfer 
        such funds to the Administration or to the holders of the trust 
        certificates, as appropriate.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 13, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### DI SILVESTRO v. UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION.

Civ. A. No. 9457.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

Feb. 24, 1950.

See also 9 F.R.D. 435.

Joseph W. Di Silvestro, plaintiff and attorney pro se.

J. Vincent Keogh, United States Attorney, Brooklyn, N. Y., attorney for defendant (Nathan Borock, Asst. U. S. Attorney, Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel).

BYERS, District Judge.

There are two motions now pending in this case which has been the subject of careful and detailed exposition by Judge Galston in D.C., 81 F.Supp. 844. His decision was unanimously affirmed in 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 933, the opinion being 'by Judge ■Clark.

The first motion is to dismiss the amended complaint filed November 4, 1949, pursuant to order dated October 13, 1949, which seems to have been granted in response to the plaintiff’s assertion that he had failed to include allegations essential to his case, because of the limitations attaching to one who acts as his own attorney. It is difficult to believe that the matters set forth in the amended pleading and *21the supporting memoranda were not prepared in a law office.

The allegations, which in form are new, will be found to specify the negligence which the plaintiff imputes to the Veterans Administration in its original failure to recognize the service connected disability which is deemed to have been established by its decision of February 20, 1948.

 For the purposes of this motion, these allegations must be taken as true. They still fall short of the requisite showing stated in the opinion of Judge Galston in the third and fourth paragraphs in the right hand column on page 846 of 81 F. Supp., namely, the plaintiff does not allege that he became entitled to the competitive status by virtue of showing of a service connected disability; nor could he do so truly in light of the facts attending his connection with the office of the Veterans Administration, as related in the said opinion. In other words, the amended complaint merely particularizes that which the Court of Appeals construed to be present; see its opinion, page 935 of 173 F.2d, left hand column, second paragraph.

It results that the amended complaint fails to state a claim Upon which relief can be granted, 'and the motion to dismiss must prevail.

The second motion is to add as parties defendant “United States of America” and “Carl Gray, Jr., as Administrator of Veterans Affairs”.

Federal Rule 21, 28 U.S.C.A., is relied upon but is unavailing because: As to the United States, it has not consented to be sued in this kind of a cause (which is neither under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S. C. § 1402 et seq., nor under an insurance contract, 38 U.S.C. § 445; Id., § 817); it cannot be joined as a party, either alone or as a co-defendant (United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058).

As to Carl Gray, Jr., the only venue applicable to him is the District of Columbia, and it would be an idle thing to grant the motion to add him as a party defendant.

This motion must also be denied.

Settle separate orders on notice.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4755-4756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1665]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

[[Page 4756]]

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Communication Disorders Review Committee.
    Date: February 11-13, 2009.
    Time: February 11, 2009, 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Baltimore Marriott Waterfront, 700 Aliceanna Street, 
Baltimore, MD 21202.
    Time: February 12, 2009, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Baltimore Marriott Waterfront, 700 Aliceanna Street, 
Baltimore, MD 21202.
    Time: February 13, 2009, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Baltimore Marriott Waterfront, 700 Aliceanna Street, 
Baltimore, MD 21202.
    Contact Person: Shiguang Yang, DVM, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NIDCD, NIH, 6120 Executive Blvd., Suite 400C, Bethesda, 
MD 20892, 301-435-1425, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#334a525d54405b5a735d5a5750571d5d5a5b1d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97eef6f9f0e4fffed7f9fef3f4f3b9f9feffb9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, 
Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 16, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
 [FR Doc. E9-1665 Filed 1-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
----

**Exhibit 3.2**

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 SK3 Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Amit Sankhala, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.

|                      |        |                                                                            |
|----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: April 15, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Amit Sankhala                                                          |
|                 |   | Amit Sankhala

Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer |
|                 |   |                                                                       |

----
EX-10.35



 Exhibit 10.35 
 Exhibit 10.35 
 The following executive officers have a percentage benefit
multiplier under the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “Plan” of 2.4% or 2.0%, as indicated below, in lieu of the 1.6% of final average monthly remuneration benefit multiplier described in the Plan: 

 

			
	2.4%	  	2.0%
		
	Blake W. Krueger	  	Donald T. Grimes
		
		  	Pamela L. Linton
		
		  	Michael Jeppesen
		
		  	James D. Zwiers
# Cover

Data dictionary                                                            for the CE Public Use Microdata (PUMD)

Division of Consumer Expenditure Surveys

May 6th, 2024

http://bls.gov/cex/pumd.htm
http://bls.gov/cex/pumd.htmmailto:CEXINFO@bls.govhttps://www.bls.gov/cex/csxsurveyforms.htmhttps://www.bls.gov/cex/pumd-getting-started-guide.htmhttps://www.bls.gov/cex/pumd_data.htmhttps://www.bls.gov/cex/pumd.htm

# Variables

# Codes 

# image1.png
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50762

Summary Calendar

 

BRUCE CLIFTON HOFFMAN

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION

Respondent - Appellee

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-99-CV-376

--------------------

January 30, 2002

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bruce Clifton Hoffman, Texas prisoner #806077, has filed a

28 U.S.C. § 2254 application alleging that: (1) his mandatory

release date was rescinded in violation of the Ex Post Facto

Clause; (2) the State of Texas did not provide any remedies for

him to pursue his instant claims, thereby negating the exhaustion

requirement; and (3) application of Texas House Bill 1433, which

amended TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 508.149(a), to Hoffman, thereby

rendering him ineligible for mandatory supervision, constituted

cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment
No. 00-50762 

-2-

of the U.S. Constitution. Hoffman concedes that he has not

exhausted his state remedies, stating instead that state court

review is not possible. But state court review of Hoffman’s

argument in Texas state court is possible. See, e.g., Ex parte

Hall, 995 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Thus, Hoffman has

failed to exhaust his state court remedies as required by 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). See Mercadel v. Cain, 179 F.3d 271, 275

(5th Cir. 1999). The judgment of the district court dismissing

Hoffman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350 Certifications

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dollarama Group L.P. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending
October 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Larry Rossy and Robert Coallier, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the general partner of the Company,
Dollarama Group GP Inc., certify that to our knowledge:

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

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: December 8, 2006



/s/ LARRY ROSSYLarry RossyChief Executive Officer




/s/ ROBERT COALLIERRobert CoallierChief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.

Plaintiff,

V.

LEAH EDRTNGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

This matter having come before the Court by way of Plaintiffs Motion for Default

Judgment filed on February 2, 2011 [CM/ECF Docket Entry No. 10]; and it appearing that

Defendants do not oppose this motion; and the Court having thoroughly reviewed the record and

the submissions of Plaintiff; and it further appearing that the Complaint seeks damages as a

result of Defendants’ violation of 47 U.S.C. §553 or §605; and the Court having reviewed

Plaintiffs certifications as to damages, attorney’s fees, and costs; and for the reasons given in the

accompanying Opinion,

IT IS on this / day of February, 2012,

ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment is hereby GRANTED as to

Defendant Leah Edrington and The Blu Door Cigar Lounge, LLC as to damages and costs; and it

is further

ORDERED that Judgment is hereby entered against Leah Edrington and The Blu Door

Cigar Lounge, LLC, jointly and severally, in the amount of $4,200 in statutory and enhanced

damages and $4,395 in attorney’s fees and costs.

Civil Action No.: 10-3789 (CCC)

ORDER

HON. CLAIRE C. CECCHI

United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-03789-CCC -JAD Document 23 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 159
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2908

ELDON WAYNE RILEY, JR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WEYERHAEUSER PAPER COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CA-94-11-3-MU)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Eldon Wayne Riley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Max Daniel McGinn,

BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders granting

summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and denying his motion

for reconsideration. With regard to the entry of summary judgment,

Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period

established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period

provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to relief

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established by Fed.

R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United

States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court

entered its order on September 5, 1995; Appellant's notice of

appeal was filed on October 18, 1995. Appellant's motion for

reconsideration, filed more than ten days after the order granting

summary judgment, does not toll the appeal period. Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(4)(F). Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain

an extension of the appeal period deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss this portion of

the appeal.

Appellant's notice of appeal is timely with respect to the

district court's order denying the motion for reconsideration. We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the

motion for reconsideration on the reasoning of the district court.

Riley v. Weyerhaeuser Paper Co., No. CA-94-11-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Oct.
3

11, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion to bar Defendant from contacting "potential witnesses" and his motion to prevent Defendant

from making architectural changes to its facilities pending appellate review. 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 IN PART and AFFIRMED IN PART
Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1505

Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 2 of 16 PageID: 1506

Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 3 of 16 PageID: 1507

Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 4 of 16 PageID: 1508

Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 5 of 16 PageID: 1509

Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 6 of 16 PageID: 1510

Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 7 of 16 PageID: 1511

Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 8 of 16 PageID: 1512

Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 9 of 16 PageID: 1513

Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 10 of 16 PageID: 1514

Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 11 of 16 PageID: 1515

Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 12 of 16 PageID: 1516

Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 13 of 16 PageID: 1517

Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 14 of 16 PageID: 1518

Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 15 of 16 PageID: 1519

Case 2:11-cv-01624-JLL-MAH   Document 62   Filed 09/21/12   Page 16 of 16 PageID: 1520
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 12 , 202 3

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 3

- 00 6 50

- CV

J.B. FIDELIS , Appellant

V.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK & CO. D/B/A CHASE BANK, Appelle e

On Appeal from the 1 51st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2022

- 76311

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a judgment signed August 17, 2023. By its terms, the judgment dismissed all of appellant’s claims against appellee while awarding appellee reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs. However, the judgment
did not reduce the award of fees and costs to a sum certain, but rather specified that appellee’s counsel could provide a supplemental motion for summary judgment as to fees and costs. As near as can be determined from the appellate record, the trial court has not yet award ed a specific amount of fees and costs or otherwise resolved2 that issue. Accordingly, the judgment is interlocutory rather than final, and it is accordingly not appealable. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) (“A judgment that fin ally disposes of all remaining parties and claims, based on the record in the case, is final, regardless of its language.”); McLernon v. Dynegy, Inc. , 347 S.W.3d 315, 322 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (acknowledging that a judgment awardin g relief must incorporate “language ordering recovery of a sum certain” in order to be a final judgment). The appealed

from judgment also lacks any apparent basis for being immediately appealable. See
CMH Homes v. Perez , 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) (acknowledging the general rule that “interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable”).

On September 15 , 2023 , the parties were informed the appeal was subject to
dismissal without further notice for want of jurisdiction unless any party demonstrated by September 25 , 2023 that this court had jurisdiction

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). The parties’ responses do not demonstrate this court can properly exercise jurisdiction over this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismisse d

. PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Hassan and Wilson.
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 Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration

Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 20, 2009, Organix Inc., 240 Salem Street, Woburn, Massachusetts 01801, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Marihuana (7360), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule I.

The company plans to manufacture a synthetic cannabinol in bulk for sale to its customers for research purposes. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.

Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).

Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than September 11, 2009.

Dated: July 1, 2009.

Joseph T. Rannazzisi,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. E9-16521 Filed 7-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P