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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2673 

To amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 to modify the 

disposition of qualified treatment qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues under that Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2011 

Mr. MARKEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 

to modify the disposition of qualified treatment qualified 

outer Continental Shelf revenues under that Act, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gulf Coast Oil and 

5 Gas Royalty Giveaway Repeal and Deficit Reduction Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2673 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISPOSITION OF QUALIFIED OUTER CONTINENTAL 

2 SHELF REVENUES FROM 181 AREA, 181 SOUTH 

3 AREA, AND 2002–2007 PLANNING AREAS OF 

4 GULF OF MEXICO. 

5 Section 105 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security 

6 Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note) is amended to read 

7 as follows: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 105. DISPOSITION OF QUALIFIED OUTER CONTI9 NENTAL SHELF REVENUES FROM 181 AREA, 

10 181 SOUTH AREA, AND 2002–2007 PLANNING 

11 AREAS OF GULF OF MEXICO. 

12 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 9 of the 

13 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338) and 

14 subject to the other provisions of this section, for each ap15 plicable fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 

16 deposit— 

17 ‘‘(1) 87.5 percent of qualified outer Continental 

18 Shelf revenues in the general fund of the Treasury; 

19 and 

20 ‘‘(2) 12.5 percent of qualified outer Continental 

21 Shelf revenues in a special account in the Treasury 

22 from which the Secretary shall disburse100 percent 

23 to provide financial assistance to States in accord24 ance with section 6 of the Land and Water Con25 servation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l–8), 

26 which shall be considered income to the Land and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2673 IH

1 Water Conservation Fund for purposes of section 2 

2 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l–5). 

3 ‘‘(b) USE OF AMOUNTS FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION.— 

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any amounts 

5 received by the United States as rentals or royalties under 

6 leases covered by this title shall be deposited in the Treas7 ury and used for Federal budget deficit reduction or, if 

8 there is no Federal budget deficit, for reducing the Fed9 eral debt in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury 

10 considers appropriate.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DAVID ONDRE CAREW

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 23

- 566

[ May 11, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Cymonie Rowe , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 502009CF015199A

.

David Ondre Carew, Mayo, pro se.

No appearance filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, G ERBER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2633 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2633

 To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the time limits for 
appeals in civil cases to which United States officers or employees are 
                                parties.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2011

 Mr. Coble (for himself and Mr. Cohen) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the time limits for 
appeals in civil cases to which United States officers or employees are 
                                parties.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Appeal Time Clarification Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. TIME FOR APPEALS IN CERTAIN CASES.

    Section 2107 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``order or decree'' each place it 
                appears and inserting ``order, or decree'';
                    (B) by striking ``suit or proceeding'' and 
                inserting ``suit, or proceeding''; and
                    (C) by striking ``filed, within thirty'' and 
                inserting ``filed within 30''; and
            (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
    ``(b) In any such action, suit, or proceeding, the time as to all 
parties shall be 60 days from such entry if one of the parties is--
            ``(1) the United States;
            ``(2) an agency of the United States;
            ``(3) an officer or employee of the United States who is 
        sued in an official capacity; or
            ``(4) a current or former officer or employee of the United 
        States who is sued in an individual capacity for an act or 
        omission occurring in connection with duties performed on 
        behalf of the United States, including any instance in which 
        the United States represents that person when the judgment, 
        order, or decree is entered or files the appeal for that 
        person.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on December 1, 
2011.
                                 <all>
```
CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

#### North American Engineering Co. v. John Vukic et al.

March 25, 1970

Case No. (Chancery) 17747

By JUDGE WILLIAM L. WINSTON

The objections of defendants Vukic and Chapola to the interrogatories propounded by the complainant are overruled. All would be the proper subject of depositions under Rule 4:1(b) in that they relate to issues which are relevant, not privileged, and are calculated to lead to the discovery of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts.

The complainant’s objection to Interrogatory 10 g, h, and i is overruled in that the prior possession of the information by the defendants is no ground for objection. The objection to Interrogatory 17 f and g is sustained on the ground that it is irrelevant. The objection to Interrogatory 22 i, ii, and iii is overruled on the ground that such amounts bear directly upon the calculation of the defendants’ compensation. If the answers to Interrogatory 22 iv, v, and b are insisted upon, the Court will hear counsel on the question of how many transactions are involved and the amount of effort that would be required to furnish the answers and whether or not they would be of any consequence if items i, ii, and *417iii are fully answered. The objection to Interrogatories 36 and 37 is overruled on the same ground that the defendants’ objection to all of complainant’s interrogatories was overruled. The objection to all other interrogatories is sustained on the ground that to require answers thereto would be to require the complainant to prepare and file a complete summation of virtually all the evidence which it intends to present when the case is heard. The court will, however, require the complainant to furnish a list of the names of any witnesses having knowledge of the matters covered by these interrogatories so that they may be deposed.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCTOBER 7, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 11-11531 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 5:09-cv-00399-PAM-MCR

DONALD P. WATSON, 

CHRISTINE H. WATSON, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants.

 versus

LAKE COUNTY, 

a political subdivision of the State of Florida, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(October 7, 2011)
Before HULL, PRYOR, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The summary judgment in favor of the appellee is affirmed for the reasons

set forth in the Memoranda and Orders of the District Court dated February 22,

2011 and March 7, 2011. 

AFFIRMED. 

2
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF 

### TEXAS AUSTIN iRu.m a.MANN i,'"' hnomnn O~"~u. \ElonorableLee hrw - ~qge 8

IOU are rempestfully advised that it is the opinion of this department your question should be answered in the tkfsirmative.
t8S, &&division 6, of Artiale 426, Revised Civil gtatuinsofar a8 pertinent, 

### wwidesr

*In 

### bond6or notes awmuwLby first BUM%- gage, first deed of trust, or other first lion on imprwed real estate in Texas * + * such bouis or notes to run for Q ternsof not longer than ten (lo)years, and tobe always 

### acoompanied **by** a complete abstl?aotof title to the property mwtgaged, 

### cindanattornejta Gertifioste approving the title or a title insuranoe polzlay in some cosnpsnylnoorporated 

### under the laws of Texas guaranteeing the title andguaranteeing that s&d bonds 

### ornotes retain 

### a firet lien on the land mortgaged.*

The obvious purpose of the statute in thus safeguarding the funds of 

### oursavings depsrtroeats,was to see that such loans 

### orixnestmnts vGre 

### notmade fer an unraasonabls t&s, and the Legislature ha6 named ten years for such reasonable t&nut. The ten yeare natma nrarlt the 

### time for which the **bunk** w put out ite money. The statute ie prospeotire and

### not retrospective. It is not oonewned 1~2ththe past rumxlng of the note, but is **ooncrerned** only **vlth** the~futuro time for MI%G~ it will run. The idlttmof our language is such that ths infimitive *to ru@ Gonnotes the future and not the past. 80 that, the period saidbolvlsor not.68my run dates from the tim.aof the soquisition thereof.by the bauk, azudsot from the date OS the exeaution of the lnstn\arent.
very truly yours

ocie spe& Assistant
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 30, 2013

s0722

Order 

Clerk

July 30, 2013

146598 & (17)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146598

COA: 311135

Saginaw CC: 05-026592-FC

HUBERT JAMES HOKING, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 14, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2552 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to change the state of mind 

requirement for certain identity theft offenses, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2011 

Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself and Mr. SCHIFF) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to change the state 

of mind requirement for certain identity theft offenses, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Identity Theft Im5 provement Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STATE OF MIND REQUIREMENT FOR IDENTITY 

7 THEFT AND AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT. 

8 Section 1028 of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2552 IH

1 ‘‘(j) STATE OF MIND PROOF REQUIREMENT.—In a 

2 prosecution under subsection (a)(7) or under section 

3 1028A(a), the Government need not prove that the de4 fendant knew the means of identification was of another 

5 person.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Order entered July 20, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00648-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF JOHN M. HOUSTON, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Collin County Probate

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PB-001-56605

ORDER

Before the Court is county clerk Stacey Kemp’s July 18, 2017 request to extend time to 

file the clerk’s record until appellant files a request and pays the fee. We ORDER appellant to 

provide the Court within TEN DAYS written verification that (1) the clerk’s record has been 

requested; and (2) the fee has been paid or that appellant has made arrangements to pay the 

clerk’s record; or (3) appellant has been found to be entitled to proceed without payment of 

costs. Our July 18, 2017 notice regarding the record may be disregarded. 

If the Court does not receive the requested documentation within the time specified, the 

Court may dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). We DENY Ms. Kemp’s request as 

moot. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### Gonzalo S. GONZALEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 07-55277.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 21, 2007.

*69Carla J. Johnson, Esq., Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Herbert S. Tetef, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gonzalo Gonzalez was convicted by a California state jury of one count of lewd conduct with a child in violation of CaLPenal Code § 288. After exhausting his direct appeals, he filed a petition for federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that the state court committed a constitutional error by excluding from trial the expert witness in child psychology.

The parties are familiar with the facts. We proceed to the law. Gonzalez’s petition, filed on April 7, 2006, is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under AEDPA, this court may grant a writ of habeas corpus only if the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or if the ruling was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.” *Id.*

The trial court’s exclusion of the expert’s testimony was neither contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. The expert’s exclusion did not deny Gonzalez a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense because he was not precluded from introducing factual evidence. Rather, he was barred merely from introducing expert testimony assisting the jury to evaluate the truthfulness of substantive evidence, such as the victim’s testimony. Such testimony may have been helpful to the jury but its exclusion did not constitute an unreasonable application of federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge,

specially concurring.

I concur for the sole reason that the trial court’s exclusion of the expert testimony in this case was neither contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2579 

To require the Corps of Engineers to take into account all available hydrologic 

data in conducting Missouri River basin operations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 18, 2011 

Ms. JENKINS (for herself and Mr. TERRY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Corps of Engineers to take into account 

all available hydrologic data in conducting Missouri River 

basin operations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF ALL AVAILABLE HYDRO4 LOGIC DATA. 

5 Effective beginning on the date of enactment of this 

6 Act, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 

7 of Engineers, shall take into account all available hydro8 logic data in conducting Missouri River basin operations. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ex4_1.htm



















	
CUSIP No. 276650108

	
13D

	
Page 11 of 11







 










EXHIBIT 4.1







JOINT FILING AGREEMENT







Each of the undersigned agrees that the Statement on Schedule 13D relating to shares of Eastern Light Capital, Inc. to which this Agreement is attached is being filed on behalf of each of the undersigned.  This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same Agreement.







Dated as of February 16, 2011













	  	
/s/ Stephen Lange Ranzini & Lisa Ranzini Joint Tenants by the Entirety


	  	
Stephen Lange Ranzini & Lisa Ranzini Joint Tenants by the Entirety, by Stephen Lange Ranzini


	  	
individually and by Lisa Ranzini, individually


	  	  
	  	
/s/ Angela Clare Ranzini


	  	
Angela Clare Ranzini, individually by Stephen Lange Ranzini under Power of Attorney


	  	  
	  	  
	  	
/s/ Stephen Lange Ranzini SEP IRA


	  	
Stephen Lange Ranzini SEP IRA, Stephen Lange Ranzini, Trustee


	  	  
	  	  
	  	
/s/ Stephen Lange Ranzini 401k


	  	
 Stephen Lange Ranzini 401k, Stephen Lange Ranzini, Trustee


	  	  
	  	  
	  	
/s/ Ranzini Family Trust dated 12/20/1989


	  	
Ranzini Family Trust dated 12/20/1989, Stephen Lange Ranzini, Trustee


	  	  
	  	  
	  	
/s/ Jove Corporation


	  	
Jove Corporation, Stephen Lange Ranzini, Chairman
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6687

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. GARLIN RAYMOND FARRIS, a/k/a G , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:18

- cr - 00099

- RJC

- DCK

- 1 )

Submitted : October 13, 2022 Decided: October 18, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Garlin Raymond Farris , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6687 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Garlin Raymond Farris appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Crim.
P. 33 motion and a subsequent order denying reconsideration . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s orders

. United States v. Farris , No. 3:18

- cr - 00099

- RJC

- DCK

- 1 (W.D.N.C. May 20 , 2022 ; June 7,
2022 ) . We deny Farris’ motion to remand. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not ai d the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6687 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/18/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
EX-35.1
(logo) LNR
Partners, LLC


ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

OF

LNR PARTNERS, LLC


The undersigned, Job Warshaw, being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the
"Special Servicer"), as special servicer under the applicable Pooling and
Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule II hereto, hereby
certifies, subject to any limitations listed on Schedule II hereto, as of the
date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an
authorized officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity,
as follows:

1. A review of the activities performed by the Special Servicer during the
   period commencing on January 1, 2013 and ending on December 31, 2013 (or any
   other shorter period set forth on Schedule II hereto) (the "Reporting
   Period"), and of the Special Servicer's performance under the Pooling and
   Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable
   servicing criteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has
   fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing
   Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.


LNR PARTNERS, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company

By: /s/ Job Warshaw
        Job Warshaw
        President


Dated: February 28, 2014


1601 Washington Avenue * Suite 700 * Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164
Telephone: (305) 695-5600 * Fax: (305) 695-5601


(page)


Schedule II

Transaction                                   Certificate Restrictions (if any)
GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2013-GCJ14
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 Creative  Eateries  Corporation (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended March 31, 2006,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Cheryl Brock, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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  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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/ Scott Campbell
---------------------------
Scott Campbell, Vice President of Finance
May 23, 2006