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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5229

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to provide 

for automatic eligibility for free school lunch and breakfast programs 

to children of parents who are enlisted members of the Armed Forces 

on active duty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 6, 2004

Mr. BACA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 

Act to provide for automatic eligibility for free school 

lunch and breakfast programs to children of parents 

who are enlisted members of the Armed Forces on active 

duty.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds the following: 

5 (1) Families of active duty military are under6 going hardship while the Nation is at war. 
2

•HR 5229 IH 

1 (2) Providing free lunch to children of active 

2 duty military families is a temporary measure to 

3 help alleviate the burden placed upon them during a 

4 time of war. 

5 (3) During this difficult period, the Nation 

6 must ensure that the needs of those who are serving 

7 the Nation are taken care of. 

8 SEC. 2. FREE SCHOOL LUNCH ELIGIBILITY FOR CHILDREN 

9 OF PARENTS ON ACTIVE MILITARY DUTY. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 9(b)(12)(A) of the Rich11 ard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 

12 1758(b)(12)(A) is amended—

13 (1) in clause (v), by striking ‘‘; or’’ and insert14 ing a semicolon; 

15 (2) in clause (vi), by striking the period and in16 serting ‘‘; or’’; and 

17 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

18 clause: 

19 ‘‘(vii) the child of a parent who is an enlisted 

20 member of the Armed Forces on active duty or of 

21 the National Guard on active duty (as such terms 

22 are defined in section 101 of title 37, United State 

23 Code).’’. 
3

•HR 5229 IH 

1 (b) SUNSET.—The amendment made by this section 

2 shall cease to have effect 2 years after the date of enact3 ment of this section.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Katharine S. Hayden

 

v. : Crim. No. 11-405

 

BRIHEEM NERO : ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the joint application

of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the District of New

Jersey (Fabiana Pierre-Louis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, appearing), and

defendant Briheem Nero (Chester Keller, Assistant Federal Public

Defender, appearing), for a status conference in the above-captioned

matter; and a status conference having been held in this matter on

January 18, 2012; and the parties having advised the Court of the

present status of defendant’s State Court matter; and for good cause

shown;

IT IS on this 20 day of January 2012, th

ORDERED that the Continuance Order currently in place which

expires on March 25, 2012 will remain in effect; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status conference will be held in

this matter on March 19, 2012 at 11:30 a.m., at which time the parties

will report on the status of defendant’s State Court matter.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Katharine S. Hayden

 

 KATHARINE S. HAYDEN

 United States District Judge

Case 2:11-cr-00405-KSH Document 14 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 29
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 Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Small Business/Self Employed Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, February 26, 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6098. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Small Business/Self Employed Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, February 26, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. Pacific Time. You can submit written comments to the panel by faxing the comments to 206-220-5760, or write to Janice Spinks, TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Janice Spinks. Ms. Spinks can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6098, or you can contact us at                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues. 

      ( print page 989)    
Dated: December 22, 2008. 

Roy L. Block, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

 [FR Doc. E9-168 Filed 1-8-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4922 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4922

    To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize 
 programs to improve the quality of coastal recreation waters, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2004

  Mr. Bishop of New York (for himself, Mr. Simmons, and Mr. Pallone) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize 
 programs to improve the quality of coastal recreation waters, 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. COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND 
              NOTIFICATION.

    Section 406(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1346(i)) is amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 8 of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal 
Health Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 877) is amended by striking ``2005'' and 
inserting ``2010''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

(609) 989-2182

CHAMBERS OF

FREDA L. WOLFSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building

& U.S. Courthouse

402 East State Street

Trenton, New Jersey 08608

April 5, 2012

Re: U.S.A. vs Carl Barnett, et al.

 Cr. 11-452(FLW) 

Dear Counsel:

Please be advised we have scheduled an in-person status conference (counsel only) for April

20, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5E. To ensure that things move smoothly towards trial on May

21 (THIS IS A FIRM DATE), it would be helpful for all of you to be aware of my trial practices

and expectations. We will discuss scheduling of submissions of voir dire, jury charges, and the

logistics of our trial days. Questionnaires are currently being sent out to prospective jurors due to

the length of the trial. 

Very truly yours,

 /s/ Freda L. Wolfson 

FREDA L. WOLFSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cr-00452-MAS Document 207 Filed 04/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 594
Case 2:10-cv-06482-SDW -MCA Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 23
Case 2:10-cv-06482-SDW -MCA Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

:

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF :

NEW JERSEY, INC., :

: Civil Action No. 10-3984 (FSH)

Plaintiff, :

 :

v. :

:

TEAMSTERS-EMPLOYERS LOCAL, : ORDER ON INFORMAL

945 PENSION FUND, ET AL., : APPLICATION

:

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

This matter having come before the Court on the application of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,

Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. [“movant”], attorneys for Defendants Teamsters-Employers

Local 945 Pension Fund and Trustees of Teamsters-Employers Local 945 Pension Fund, for the

pro hac vice admission of Ronald E. Richman, Esq., Sara E. Solfanelli, Esq., and Jaimie C.

Davis, Esq. [“counsel”], pursuant to L. Civ. R. 101.1;

and the Court having considered the submissions in support of the application, which

reflect that counsel satisfies the requirements set forth in L. Civ. R. 101.1(c)(1); 

and there being no opposition to this application; 

and for good cause shown,

IT IS ON THIS 7th day of September, 2010.

ORDERED that the application for the pro hac vice admission of counsel is granted; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall abide by all rules of this Court, including

all disciplinary rules, and shall notify the Court immediately of any matter affecting counsel’s

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 09/07/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 151
standing at the bar of any court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel is deemed to consent to the appointment of the

Clerk of the Court as the agent upon whom service of process may be made for all actions against

counsel that may arise from counsel’s participation in this matter;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the movant shall (a) be attorneys of record in this case

in accordance with L. Civ. R. 101.1(c); (b) be served all papers in this action and such service

shall be deemed sufficient service upon counsel; (c) sign (or arrange for a member of the firm

admitted to practice in New Jersey to sign) all pleadings, briefs, and other papers submitted to

this Court; (d) appear at all proceedings; and (e) be responsible for the conduct of the cause and

counsel in this matter; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall make payments to the New Jersey

Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection, pursuant to N.J. Court Rule 1:28-2, for each year in which

counsel represents the client in this matter;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall each pay $150.00 to the Clerk of the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for admission pro hac vice in

accordance with L. Civ. R. 101.1(c)(3); and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all terms of the Orders entered in this case, including

all deadlines set forth therein, shall remain in full force and effect and no delay in discovery,

motions, trial or any other proceeding shall occur because of the participation of counsel or their

inability to be in attendance at proceedings.

s/Patty Shwartz 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 09/07/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 152
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6240

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROMERO DAVIS, a/k/a BeBe,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CR-98-360, CA-99-3879-19-0)

Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Romero Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Romero Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United

States v. Davis, Nos. CR-98-360; CA-99-3879-19-0 (D.S.C. filed Oct.

23, 2000, entered Oct. 24, 2000; filed Jan. 23, 2001, entered Jan.

24, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Amit Kumar SHARMA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72666.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 5, 2012.

Filed Dec. 18, 2012.

Inna Lipkin, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner.

*624Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Justin Robert Markel, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Amit Sharma petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying his claims for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1281(b)(3). We deny the petition. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recite it here.

The Board adequately addressed Shar-ma’s claims of persecution based on membership in a particular social group as Sharma presented his arguments to the Board. To the extent Sharma argues that his claim of membership in a particular social group of his immediate family was distinct from his claim of membership in a particular social group consisting of people who violate the social norm of refusing to support their extended families, Sharma did not adequately “ ‘put the BIA on notice’” that these claims were separate. *See Arsdi v. Holder,*659 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2011) (quoting *Zhang v. Ashcroft,*388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam)).

Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Sharma failed to establish that he was persecuted on account of his membership in any purported social group and instead was persecuted on non-protected grounds. *See Parussimova v. Mukasey,*555 F.3d 734, 740-42 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case 2:11-cv-03329-JLL-MAH Document 37 Filed 12/27/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 836
Case 2:11-cv-03329-JLL-MAH Document 37 Filed 12/27/11 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 837
Case 2:11-cv-03329-JLL-MAH Document 37 Filed 12/27/11 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 838
Case 2:11-cv-03329-JLL-MAH Document 37 Filed 12/27/11 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 839
Case 2:11-cv-03329-JLL-MAH Document 37 Filed 12/27/11 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 840
Case 2:11-cv-03329-JLL-MAH Document 37 Filed 12/27/11 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 841
Case 2:11-cv-03329-JLL-MAH Document 37 Filed 12/27/11 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 842
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Keith R. Phillips, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Wellman, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or  (b) caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be  (c) designed under our supervision, to ensure that  (d) material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is beingprepared;Designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; andDisclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of  b) internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;andAny fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.        Date  April 29, 2008 By:  /s/ Keith R. Phillips    Chief Financial Officer
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CODRUT RADU RADULESCU 

Codrut Radu Radulescu Attorney At Law

West Orange, New Jersey 07052

Voice 973 536 2608

SYNC LABS LLC AND

CODRUT RADU RADULESCU,

PLAINTIFFS,

V.

FUSION-MANUFACTURING AND 

MICHAEL FERCHAK,

DEFENDANTS

HON. MADELINE COX ARLEO

CIV. ACTION NO. 11-CV-03671 

(WHW)(MCA)

CERTIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISQUALIFY ATTORNEY CODRUT 

RADU RADULESCU AS COUNSEL 

FOR PLAINTIFF SYNC LABS LLC

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY 

FILED

I, Codrut Radu Radulescu, attorney at law admitted to practice in the United States District Court 

of the District of New Jersey, do hereby certify that the documents attached as Plaintiff Exhibits 

Set B and the documents included in Plaintiff Exhibits Set A which are specified in the following 

list are a true copy of the originals. These documents are respectfully submitted in support of the 

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff Codrut Radu Radulescu as 

the attorney for co-plaintiff Sync Labs LLC, owned by the attorney Codrut Radu Radulescu. 

Case 2:11-cv-03671-WHW-MCA Document 33 Filed 05/04/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 384
2

List of certified documents

Plaintiff Exhibits Set B

Not Reported Cases in the Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to Motion to Disqualify Attorney:

Electronic Laboratory Supply Co., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.

Oswell v.Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Inc

Garza v. McKelvey

Wellington Place Condominium Ass'n v. Carty

BSW Development Group v. City of Dayton

Bailey v. Gibbons

Advisory Comm. On Prof'l Ethics Op. 243, 95 N.J.L.J. 1145 (1972)

Advisory Comm. On Prof'l Ethics Op. 527, 113 N.J.L.J. 384 (1984)

Plaintiff Exhibits Set A

PE1

RPC 1.7

RPC 1.8.

RPC 3.7.

PE2

Advisory Comm. On Prof'l Ethics Op. 343, 99 N.J.L.J. 665 (1976)

PE3

Advisory Comm. On Prof'l Ethics Op. 353, 99 N.J.L.J. 862 (1976)

PE4

Advisory Comm. On Prof'l Ethics Op. 617, 122 N.J.L.J. 1226 (1988)

PE5

Plaintiffs Email requesting opposing counsel for all discovery materials on Feb 29, 2012.

PE6

Case 2:11-cv-03671-WHW-MCA Document 33 Filed 05/04/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 385
3

List of Plaintiffs Rule 26 documents and records produced in Oct 2011.

PE7

Funding agreement written and signed by Defendant Ferchak

PE8

2009 Partnership loss

PE 9

Partnership tax return 2010 part of form 1065

PE 10

Lawyers contacted by Plaintiffs for representation under contingency agreement.

Promise for $250,000 funding wrote by Defendant Ferchak, 2009.

Funding agreement for $250,000 wrote by Defendant Ferchak, 2009.

Confirmation receipt for $20,000 performed in Aug. 2010 by Defendant Ferchak.

NJ Science and Technology Commission Grant award letter (Nov, 2010)

Four year term Work Made for Hire Agreement between Plaintiff Radulescu and

Defendant Ferchak.

Defendant’s Ferchak letter attempting blackmail on Jan 2010.

Declaration of Plaintiff Company negative balance.

Letter written by Defendant Ferchak indicating his valuation of Plaintiff’s Sync Labs 

LLC Units of Profit Interest. 

Case 2:11-cv-03671-WHW-MCA Document 33 Filed 05/04/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 386
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5204 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5204

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
  To amend section 340E of the Public Health Service Act (relating to 
 children's hospitals) to modify provisions regarding the determination 
    of the amount of payments for indirect expenses associated with 
    operating approved graduate medical residency training programs.

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

SECTION 1. DISREGARD OF NEWBORN BASSINETS IN CALCULATING CASE MIX FOR 
              RECEIPT BY CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS OF FUNDING FOR GRADUATE 
              MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 340E(d) of the Public Health Service Act 
(42 U.S.C. 256e(d)) is amended--
        (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``related to'' and inserting 
    ``associated with''; and
        (2) in paragraph (2)(A)--
            (A) by inserting ``ratio of the'' after ``hospitals and 
        the''; and
            (B) by inserting at the end before the semicolon ``to beds 
        (but excluding beds or bassinets assigned to healthy newborn 
        infants)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to payments for periods beginning with fiscal year 2005.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```