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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3190 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 403
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3190

                          [Report No. 111-676]

     To restore the rule that agreements between manufacturers and 
 retailers, distributors, or wholesalers to set the price below which 
   the manufacturer's product or service cannot be sold violates the 
                              Sherman Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 2009

  Mr. Johnson of Georgia (for himself and Mr. Conyers) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                            December 8, 2010

     Additional sponsors: Mr. Boucher and Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

                            December 8, 2010

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To restore the rule that agreements between manufacturers and 
 retailers, distributors, or wholesalers to set the price below which 
   the manufacturer's product or service cannot be sold violates the 
                              Sherman Act.

 

    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 ``Discount Pricing Consumer Protection 
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON MINIMUM RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE.

    Any agreement setting a price below which a product or service 
cannot be sold by a retailer, wholesaler, or distributor shall violate 
section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1).

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 403

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3190

                          [Report No. 111-676]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

     To restore the rule that agreements between manufacturers and 
 retailers, distributors, or wholesalers to set the price below which 
   the manufacturer's product or service cannot be sold violates the 
                              Sherman Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 8, 2010

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

PARENT

PVF Capital Corp.

                                            STATE OR OTHER
                                            JURISDICTION OF          PERCENTAGE
SUBSIDIARIES (1)                            INCORPORATION            OWNERSHIP

Park View Federal Savings Bank              Ohio                     100%

PVF Service Corporation                     Ohio                     100%

PVF Mortgage Corp.                          Ohio                     100%

PVF Community Development Corp.             Ohio                     100%

Mid Pines Land Co.                          Ohio                     100%

PVF Holdings Inc.                           Ohio                     100%



(1)  The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in
     the consolidated financial statements contained in the Annual Report to
     Stockholders attached hereto as an exhibit.
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Viva
International, Inc. for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2003, I, Stuart Carnie,
Principal Executive Officer and I, Robert J. Scott, Principal Financial Officer
of Viva International, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September
          30, 2003, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended September 30, 2003, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Viva International, Inc.

Dated:  November 19, 2003

VIVA INTERNATIONAL, INC.


Dated:    November 19, 2003

/s/    Stuart Carnie
---------------------------
Stuart Carnie
Principal Executive Officer

/s/  Robert J. Scott
--------------------------------
Robert J. Scott
Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Agile Software Corporation (the Company)
for the quarter ended July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jay B. Fulcher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to my
knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company
as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.

Date: March 5, 2007



| |  |  |  |  |  |                                       
| |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
| |  |  |  |  |  | /S/    JAY B. FULCHER                 
| |  |  |  |  |  | Jay B. Fulcher Chief Executive
Officer
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00198

- CR

J OSE L. R EVILLA

- V ALLES

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from County Court at

Law No. 2

of Parker County (CCL2

- 18

- 0951)

August 8, 2019

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JU DGME NT

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
## 1996 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
4-5-1996 

# P hi l li p s v . K eyp or t
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ocke t 95-5143

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1996 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" P hi l l ips v . Keypor t " (1996). 1996 D e cisio n s . P ape r 207. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996/207

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 95-5143

_____________ GEORGE PHILLIPS; PHILIP VITALE, Appellants

v. BOROUGH OF KEYPORT; VICTOR RHODES;

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

_____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 93-415)

_____________ Present: SLOVITER, Chief Judge , BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, LEWIS, McKEE, SAROKIN, and ROSENN 1 

## , Circuit Judges .
O R D E R A majority of the active judges having voted for rehearing en banc in the above appeal, it is O R D E R E D that the Clerk of this Court list the above case for rehearing en banc at the convenience of the court.
By the Court, /s/ Dolores K. Sloviter

_____________________________ Chief Judge
Dated: April 5, 1996

1 

## as to panel rehearing only.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3373 

To provide for a study relating to the feasibility of using postal employees 

as census enumerators. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2009 

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

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To provide for a study relating to the feasibility of using 

postal employees as census enumerators. 

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 that— 

5 (1) the Bureau of the Census needs an accurate 

6 count, based on all households in the United States, 

7 to conduct a decennial census; 

8 (2) the Bureau of the Census spends years and 

9 billions of taxpayer dollars to find and then verify 

10 where all such households are located; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3373 IH

1 (3) the Bureau of the Census relies on part2 time enumerators to assist in the constitutionally 

3 mandated decennial census; and 

4 (4) the United States Postal Service has more 

5 experience than any other organization in finding 

6 and delivering services to all households in the 

7 United States, and is thus uniquely positioned to as8 sist the Bureau of the Census to achieve a complete 

9 and accurate enumeration of the population. 

10 SEC. 2. STUDY. 

11 The United States Postal Service shall study and 

12 submit a written report to the appropriate committees of 

13 Congress, by not later than January 1, 2012, on the feasi14 bility of using postal employees to serve as enumerators 

15 in the 2020 decennial census of population. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
*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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 15, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41467

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JAIME ZAGAL-MERAZ

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(7:05-CR-381-ALL)

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This court previously affirmed the conviction and sentence of

Appellant, Jaime Zagal-Meraz. United States v. Zagal-Meraz, 203 F.

App’x 598 (5th Cir. 2006). On March 30, 2007, the Supreme Court

vacated our judgment in this case and remanded the case to this

court for further consideration in light of Lopez v. Gonzales, 127

S.Ct. 625 (2006).

Following the Supreme Court’s remand we received supplemental
letter briefs from both parties with respect to the impact of

Lopez. The government concedes and we agree that, under Lopez, the

district court erred in imposing an eight-level enhancement for

Appellant’s prior controlled substance conviction. In light of this

error, the issue on appeal is whether we should vacate the sentence

and remand for resentencing or whether the appeal is now moot.

The parties agree that Zagal-Meraz has completed the

confinement portion of his sentence and has apparently been

deported from the United States, although he remains subject to the

terms of his supervised release. This Court recently found a

similar case moot when the appellant had already been released from

prison and deported. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, __ F.3d

__, No. 05-41400, 2007 WL 926832 (5th Cir. Mar. 29, 2007). Because

the defendant in Rosenbaum-Alanis was barred from entering the

United States, and therefore could not be resentenced, the Court

could not grant the relief requested. Id. at *2.

We find Rosenbaum-Alanis controlling, and because Zagal-Meraz

is barred from entering the United States, we cannot grant his

request to be resentenced. Zagal Meraz recognizes this precedent

and wishes to preserve the issue for further review.

The appeal is moot and therefore DISMISSED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6891

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DAVID PEREZ-GARCIA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lyle E. Strom, Senior

District Judge. (3:01-cr-00036; 3:04-cv-00429)

Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 19, 2007

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Perez-Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

David Perez-Garcia seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Perez-Garcia

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 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
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 10-KSB/A
  þ
    
    Annual Report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 For the fiscal year ended November 30, 2005
 
 o
    
    Transition Report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (No fee
required)
 For the transition period from  to
 Commission file number:1-13484
 COHESANT TECHNOLOGIES INC.
  Delaware
    
    34-1775913(State or Other Jurisdiction
of Incorporation or Organization)
    
    (I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)5845 West 82ndStreet, Suite 102
Indianapolis, Indiana
    
    46278(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 (317) 871-7611
   þ o
 þ
 o þ
 $22,197,702
 $15,324,363




---



##### 



(a)
    
    Exhibits
 31.1
    
    
    302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer31.2
    
    
    302 Certification of Chief Financial Officer32
    
    
    906 Certification of Principal Executive Officers99.1
    
    
    Form 11-K Annual Report for the Companys 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan.
 (b)
    
    Reports on Form 8-K.                     None
    COHESANT TECHNOLOGIES INC.By:
    /s/  Robert W. PawlakRobert W. PawlakChief Financial Officer 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3309 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3309

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to postpone the increase 
                    in the minimum wage for 1 year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2009

  Mr. Olson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to postpone the increase 
                    in the minimum wage for 1 year.

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

SECTION 1. POSTPONEMENT OF WAGE INCREASE.

    Section 6(a)(1)(C) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
U.S.C. 206(a)(1)(C)) is amended by striking ``beginning 24 months after 
that 60th day'' and inserting ``July 24, 2010''.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-17-049]

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

 United States International Trade Commission.

# Time and Date:

 October 31, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

# Place:

 Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# Status:

 Open to the public.

# Matters to be Considered:

1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Vote in Inv. No. TA-201-75 (Remedy) (Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled into Other Products)).

5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

By order of the Commission.

 Issued: October 16, 2017.

William R. Bishop,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2017-22690 Filed 10-16-17; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #15291 and #15292; TEXAS Disaster Number TX-00488]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 4.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Texas (FEMA-4332-DR), dated 09/04/2017.

*Incident:*                         Hurricane Harvey.                    

*Incident Period:*                         08/23/2017 through 09/15/2017.                    

# DATES:

Issued on 10/11/2017.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         11/03/2017.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         06/04/2018.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of TEXAS, dated 09/04/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

*Primary Counties:*                     Caldwell, Comal, Dewitt, Gonzales, Guadalupe, Jim Wells, Lavaca, Milam, Sabine, San Augustine                

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2017-22809 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**EXHIBIT      21**

**Subsidiaries      of the Registrant**

|  Subsidiaries                (a)                | Percentageof                Ownership | Jurisdiction                orState                of Incorporation |
|------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |                                  |                                                                |
| Cascade                Bank                          | 100%                                  | Washington                                                          |
| Cascade                Capital Trust I               | 100%                                  | Delaware                                                            |
| Cascade                Capital Trust II              | 100%                                  | Delaware                                                            |
| Cascade                Investment Services, Inc. (b) | 100%                                  | Washington                                                          |

| (a) | The                operation of the Corporation’s wholly owned subsidiaries are included in                the Corporation’s Financial Statements contained in the Annual Report                attached hereto as Exhibit 13. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b) | Wholly-owned                subsidiary of Cascade Bank. This subsidiary was closed effective                December                31, 2005. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----