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

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4338-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4338-DR), dated September 15, 2017, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued September 26, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 15, 2017.

Charlton and Coffee Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2017-21644 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2673 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to match the pension amount paid 

to surviving spouses of veterans who served during a period of war 

to the pension amount paid to such veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2009 

Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself and Mr. BERRY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to match the pension 

amount paid to surviving spouses of veterans who served 

during a period of war to the pension amount paid 

to such veterans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MATCH OF PENSION AMOUNTS FOR SURVIVING 

4 SPOUSES. 

5 Section 1541 of title 38, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2673 IH

1 (1) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘at the annual 

2 rate of $2,379’’ and inserting ‘‘at the annual rate in 

3 effect under section 1521(b) of this title’’; 

4 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘at the annual 

5 rate of $3,116’’ and inserting ‘‘at the annual rate in 

6 effect under section 1521(c) of this title’’; 

7 (3) in subsection (d)— 

8 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘shall be 

9 $3,806’’ and inserting ‘‘shall be at the annual 

10 rate in effect under section 1521(d)(1) of this 

11 title’’; and 

12 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘shall be 

13 $4,543’’ and inserting ‘‘shall be at the annual 

14 rate in effect under section 1521(d)(2) of this 

15 title’’; and 

16 (4) in subsection (e)(1)— 

17 (A) by striking ‘‘shall be $2,908’’ and in18 serting ‘‘shall be at the annual rate in effect 

19 under section 1521(e) of this title for a veteran 

20 who is similarly situated’’; and 

21 (B) by striking ‘‘shall be $3,645’’ and in22 serting ‘‘shall be at the annual rate in effect 

23 under section 1521(e) of this title for a veteran 

24 who is similarly situated’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Order entered September 9, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00463-CR

No. 05-16-00464-CR

JESUS ANTONIO PONCE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-70299-J & F14-33407-J

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s September 9, 2016 motion regarding the reporter’s 

record. We GRANT the motion only to the extent it asks us to determine why the reporter’s 

record has not been filed. We ORDER the trial court to make findings of fact regarding why the 

reporter’s record has not been filed. 

 The trial court shall determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, 

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
**Exhibit 31.4**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Janet M. Biski, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of SRS Labs, Inc.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich 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 included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

a)             designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)            Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d)            Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)             all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)            any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Dated: February 19, 2004 | /s/ Janet M. Biski       |   |
|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                     | Janet M. Biski           |   |
|                     | Chief Financial  Officer |   |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jermaine Watkins, Appellant.

[858 NYS2d 639]

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D’Amico, J.), rendered October 27, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree.

*1259It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; *People v Nichols,*32 AD3d 1316, 1317 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 848, 988 [2007]). That valid waiver encompasses the challenges by defendant to the severity of the sentence *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; *People v Dupont,*292 AD2d 872 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 650 [2002]; *People v Wilson,*284 AD2d 959, 960 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 943 [2001]), and to the denial of his request for youthful offender status *(see People v Kearns,*50 AD3d 1514 [2008]). Present— Smith, J.P, Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2912 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2912

To authorize and request the President to award the congressional Medal 
of Honor posthumously to Captain Felix Sosa-Camejo for his gallant and 
heroic actions during the Vietnam War, ending with his death in combat 
                         on February 13, 1968.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 2009

 Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (for herself, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. 
 Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, and Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize and request the President to award the congressional Medal 
of Honor posthumously to Captain Felix Sosa-Camejo for his gallant and 
heroic actions during the Vietnam War, ending with his death in combat 
                         on February 13, 1968.

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

SECTION 1. POSTHUMOUS AWARD OF CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR TO CAPTAIN 
              FELIX SOSA-CAMEJO.

    The President is authorized and requested to award the 
congressional Medal of Honor posthumously to Captain Felix Sosa-Camejo 
of the State of Florida for his actions during the Vietnam War, ending 
with his death in combat on February 13, 1968. Such an award may be 
made without regard to the provisions of section 3744 of title 10, 
United States Code, and may be made in accordance with award criteria 
applicable at the time of his death.
                                 <all>
```
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF FREDERICK BREWING CO.





ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB





POWER OF ATTORNEY





The undersigned directors and officers of Frederick Brewing Co., a Maryland corporation (the Corporation), do hereby constitute and
appoint, Donald L. Snyder and Patrick J. Leddy and each of them, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, as attorneys-in-fact or attorney-in-fact of the undersigned, for him and in his name, place and stead, to execute and file with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 an Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, with any and all amendments, supplements and exhibits,
thereto and to execute and file any and all other documents to be filed with the Commission in connection therewith, each such attorney to have full power to act with or without the others, and to have full power and authority to do and perform, in
the name and on behalf of the undersigned, every act whatsoever necessary, advisable or appropriate to be done in the premises as full and all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and approving the
act of said attorneys and any of them and any such substitutes.





EXECUTED as of May 17, 2002.





/s/    C. DAVID SNYDER



/s/    CHRISTOPHER J. LIVINGSTONC. David Snyder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer



Christopher J. Livingston, Director and President/s/    DONALD L. SNYDER



/S/    GLENN E. CORLETTDonald L. Snyder Principal Financial and Accounting Officer



Glenn E. Corlett, Director
* 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. 97-40903 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ANGEL RENTERIA-GALAVIZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-97-CR-104-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 12, 1998

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Angel Renteria-Galaviz appeals his guilty-plea conviction

and sentence for reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. Renteria-Galaviz argues that he was charged with and

pleaded guilty to simple reentry under § 1326(a) and that he

could not be sentenced under § 1326(b) because the indictment did

not allege that he had a prior aggravated felony conviction. His

argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v.

Vasquez-Olvera, 999 F.2d 943, 946-47 (5th Cir. 1993).
No. 

-2-

AFFIRMED.
#### BALTIMORE *& O.*R. CO. v. FRIEL et ux.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

December 2, 1896.)

No. 31,

September Term, 1896.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Before DALLAS, Circuit Judge, and BUTLER and WALES, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case is disposed of by the opinion filed herewith in the case of the same plaintiff in error against Friel, defendant in error. 77 Fed. 126. The judgment is affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joey Franklin PHILLIPS, a/k/a Joe Phillips, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6176.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 5, 2011.

Joey Franklin Phillips, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joey Franklin Phillips seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T] he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 22, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on January 22, 2010. Because Phillips failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
#### Donald Salisbury et al., Plaintiffs, v City of New York et al., Defendants. 440 Realty Co., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Knickerbocker Paper Co., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (And a Second Third-Party Action.)

[665 NYS2d 410]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered September 16, 1996, which, in an action by plaintiff, a garbage remover, against a building owner for *12injuries sustained when his foot went through a hole in an abutting sidewalk, denied the motion of third-party defendant, plaintiffs employer, for summary judgment dismissing the building owner’s third-party complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the deposition testimony of the building’s superintendent and a former maintenance person that third-party defendant’s multi-ton garbage truck was routinely backed onto the sidewalk raises an issue of fact as to whether third-party defendant’s negligence created the hole in the sidewalk that allegedly caused plaintiffs injuries *(see, Centeno v City of New York,*204 AD2d 508). The issue is not, as third-party defendant would have it, whether it had control over plaintiffs work site, but whether its employees negligently created the hole by routinely driving onto the sidewalk to pick up the garbage, conduct that third-party defendant did have control over. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2950 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2950

  To direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of 
  repayment contracts between the United States and the Uintah Water 
                         Conservancy District.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2009

 Mr. Matheson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of 
  repayment contracts between the United States and the Uintah Water 
                         Conservancy District.

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

SECTION 1. PREPAYMENT OF CERTAIN REPAYMENT CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE UNITED 
              STATES AND THE UINTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT.

    The Secretary shall allow for prepayment of the repayment contract 
no. 6-05-01-00143 between the United States and the Uintah Water 
Conservancy District dated June 3, 1976, and supplemented and amended 
on November 1, 1985, and on December 30, 1992, providing for repayment 
of municipal and industrial water delivery facilities for which 
repayment is provided pursuant to such contract, under terms and 
conditions similar to those used in implementing section 210 of the 
Central Utah Project Completion Act (Public Law 102-575), as amended. 
The prepayment--
            (1) may be provided in several installments to reflect 
        substantial completion of the delivery facilities being 
        prepaid;
            (2) shall be adjusted to conform to a final cost 
        allocation;
            (3) may not be adjusted on the basis of the type of 
        prepayment financing used by the District; and
            (4) shall be made such that total repayment is made not 
        later than September 30, 2019.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnathan Boston, Appellant.

[858 NYS2d 910]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered December 14, 2005, convicting him of attempted robbeiy in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court *729did not improperly grant the People’s *reverse-Batson*application (s*ee Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79 [1986]; *People v Kern,*75 NY2d 638 [1990]). The court concluded that the facially race-neutral reasons proffered by the defendant’s counsel to explain the two peremptory challenges in question were pretextual. The court’s determination, based upon its credibility assessment, is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record *(see Hernandez v New York,*500 US 352, 364-365 [1991]; *Batson v Kentucky,*476 US at 98 n 21; *People v Quito,*43 AD3d 411, 412-413 [2007]; *People v Williams,*5 AD3d 705, 706 [2004]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P, Fisher, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.