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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3484 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority for certain 

qualifying work-study activities for purposes of the educational assistance 

programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2009 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN (for herself and Mr. BOOZMAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority for certain qualifying work-study activities for purposes of the educational assistance programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3484 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN 

2 QUALIFYING WORK-STUDY ACTIVITIES FOR 

3 PURPOSES OF THE EDUCATIONAL ASSIST4 ANCE PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

5 VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

6 Section 3485(a)(4) of title 38, United States Code, 

7 is amended by striking ‘‘June 10, 2010’’ each place it ap8 pears and inserting ‘‘June 30, 2014’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 June 5, 2019

a0529

Order 

Clerk

June 5, 2019

158454

ROBIN M. OWENS, Personal Representative

of the ESTATE OF KENNETH GENE OWENS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 158454

COA: 338392 

Oakland CC: 2016-152752-NO

MANTHA MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.,

d/b/a TIM HORTON’S OF WATERFORD,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

MECO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, INC., 

LEONARD C. CARNAGHI, INC., NAGLE

PAVING COMPANY, THD DONUT

DELAWARE, INC., and TIM DONUTS US

LIMITED, INC., 

Defendants.

__________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 28, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           10642
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            1324
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      27412
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            4725
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              4654
<LOANS>                                         388877
<ALLOWANCE>                                       4143
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  444155
<DEPOSITS>                                      312518
<SHORT-TERM>                                     74891
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              13392
<LONG-TERM>                                      11936
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                       31375
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  444155
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  31109
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 2543
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   264
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 33916
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               15205
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               20118
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            13798
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      246
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  93
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  10729
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5281
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        5281
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3525
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .75
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.29
<LOANS-NON>                                       1921
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   2439
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  3879
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       45
<RECOVERIES>                                        63
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 4143
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              4143
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           3775
        

</TABLE>
[No. 30075-7-III.

Division Three.

October 9, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Randal Lee Raph, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Ferry County, No. 10-1-00036-4, Allen Nielson, J., entered June 17,2011. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Korsmo, C.J.,

concurred in by Sweeney and Siddoway, JJ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10459

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

$18,140.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, ET AL.,

Defendants,

and

DOUGLAS RAY DUNKINS, JR.,

Claimant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

(4:92-cv-0023)

______________________________________________

 

February 21, 1996

Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Douglas Dunkins appeals the district court's grant of summary

judgment in favor of the Government in this civil forfeiture

proceeding brought pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). We affirm

for the following reasons.
The instant forfeiture of proceeds from illegal drug sales

pursuant to § 881(a)(6) does not constitute "punishment." United

States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 297-300 (5th Cir.), 115 S.Ct. 573

(1994). Because there is no "punishment," there is no double

jeopardy. Id.

The district court did not err in finding probable cause to

believe that the property at issue was the proceeds of illegal drug

transactions. 

Dunkins' argument that he was deprived of a right to appeal to

the district court is without merit because, through his attorney,

Dunkins signed a form consenting to have a magistrate judge conduct

any and all proceedings in his case.

We do not address Dunkins' argument that the district court

erred in awarding costs because he failed to raise that contention

in the district court.

Finally, Dunkins argues that he did not receive notice that

the Government sought forfeiture of certain firearms seized from

his home. Because the instant proceeding did not involve the

forfeiture of any firearms, we are without jurisdiction to

entertain this claim.

AFFIRMED.
Order entered January 10, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00921-CV

FLUOR CORPORATION, FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC., AND FLUOR DANIEL

MEXICO, S.A., Appellants

V.

E.D.G.M., Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-15978

ORDER

The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By order dated October 3, 2019 we granted 

appellant’s petition for permissive appeal, deemed the notice of appeal filed as of that date, and 

ordered the clerk’s record to be filed within twenty days of the date of the order. To date, the 

clerk’s record has not been filed.

So that this accelerated appeal may proceed, we ORDER Felicia Pitre, Dallas County 

District Clerk, to file the clerk’s record in this appeal within TEN DAYS of the date of this 

order. 

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1


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 Greystone Logistics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 28, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Warren F. Kruger, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
The Report fully complies with the 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.
 
 
 April 19, 2011
/s/ Warren F. Kruger
 Warren F. Kruger

President and Chief Executive Officer
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as part of the Report.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       3,866,912
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,120,994
<PP&E>                                         951,138
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,662,737
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,389,809
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     29,925
<COMMON>                                       780,470
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,462,533
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,662,737
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,926
<CGS>                                          113,203
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,524,066
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,580,343)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,580,343)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00198-CR

JOSE L. REVILLA-VALLES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from County Court at 

Law No. 2

of Parker County (CCL2-18-0951)

August 8, 2019

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3514 

To amend the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2009 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area 

Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE 

4 NATIONAL SCENIC AREA ACT. 

5 Section 2(g) of the Columbia River Gorge National 

6 Scenic Area Act (16 U.S.C. 544(g)) is amended by strik7 ing ‘‘and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

8 Reservation;’’ and inserting ‘‘the Confederated Tribes of 

9 the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Confederated 

10 Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon;’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3443 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3443

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the private 
  activity bond rules to except certain uses of intellectual property 
              from the definition of private business use.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2009

 Mr. Cleaver introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the private 
  activity bond rules to except certain uses of intellectual property 
              from the definition of private business use.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC USES EXCEPTED FROM PRIVATE BUSINESS USE 
              FOR PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (6) of section 141(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (defining the term ``private business use'') is 
amended by adding the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Certain scientific research.--
                            ``(i) Exception.--For purposes of this 
                        subsection, the term `private business use' 
                        shall not include the receipt by a person 
                        (other than a natural person) of a right to 
                        intellectual property created by scientific 
                        (within the meaning of section 501(c)(3)) 
                        research conducted by a governmental unit or 
                        501(c)(3) organization, if one or more 
                        governmental units or 501(c)(3) organizations 
                        control (as defined in section 512(b)(13)(D)) 
                        such person.
                            ``(ii) Effect on ownership requirement.--
                        The receipt of a right described in clause (i) 
                        by a person described therein shall not cause a 
                        bond to fail to satisfy section 145(a)(1).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to any receipt of intellectual property after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Steve M. Hanni, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Emergency Filtration Products,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business
issuer and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2003

/s/Steve M. Hanni
Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial Officer
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's Committee on Honorary Awards, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:

# TIME AND DATE:

 October 30, 2017 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT.

# PLACE:

 This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314.

# STATUS:

 Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 (1) Subcommittee Chair's opening remarks; (2) Review and discuss candidates for the 2018 National Science Board Honorary Awards—the Vannevar Bush Award and the NSB Public Service Award; and subcommittee Chair's closing remarks.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

                         Point of contact for this meeting is: Nadine Lymn, 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314,                         *nlymn@nsf.gov,*                         (703) 292-7000. Meeting information and updates may be found at                         *http://www.nsf.gov/​nsb/​meetings/​notices.jsp#sunshine.*                         Please refer to the National Science Board Web site                         *www.nsf.gov/​nsb*                         for general information.                    

Chris Blair,

Executive Assistant to the NSB Office.

[FR Doc. 2017-23045 Filed 10-19-17; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3506 

AN ACT 

To amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide an exception from the continuing requirement for annual privacy 

notices for financial institutions which do not change 

their policies and practices with regard to disclosing nonpublic personal information from the policies and practices that were disclosed in the most recent disclosure 

sent to consumers, and for other purposes. 
2 

•HR 3506 EH

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 ‘‘Eliminate Privacy No5 tice Confusion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO ANNUAL PRIVACY NOTICE REQUIRE7 MENT UNDER THE GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY 

8 ACT. 

9 Section 503 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 

10 U.S.C. 6803) is amended by adding the following new sub11 section: 

12 ‘‘(f) EXCEPTION TO ANNUAL NOTICE REQUIRE13 MENT.—A financial institution that— 

14 ‘‘(1) provides nonpublic personal information 

15 only in accordance with the provisions of subsection 

16 (b)(2) or (e) of section 502 or regulations prescribed 

17 under section 504(b); and 

18 ‘‘(2) has not changed its policies and practices 

19 with regard to disclosing nonpublic personal infor20 mation from the policies and practices that were dis21 closed in the most recent disclosure sent to con22 sumers in accordance with this subsection, 

23 shall not be required to provide an annual disclosure under 

24 this subsection until such time as the financial institution 
3 

•HR 3506 EH

1 fails to comply with any criteria described in paragraph 

2 (1) or (2).’’. 

3 SEC. 3. BUDGET COMPLIANCE. 

4 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

5 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

6 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

7 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

8 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

9 by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 

10 House of Representatives, provided that such statement 

11 has been submitted prior to the vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 14, 2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3506 

AN ACT 

To amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide 

to consumers, and for other purposes. were disclosed in the most recent disclosure sent formation from the policies and practices that with regard to disclosing nonpublic personal inwhich do not change their policies and practices annual privacy notices for financial institutions an exception from the continuing requirement for