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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2658 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2658

  To clarify that aliens who are not lawfully admitted for permanent 
residence in the United States may not be vaccinated until nationals of 
 the United States and aliens who are lawfully admitted for permanent 
 residence in the United States are fully vaccinated for COVID-19, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2021

   Mr. Keller (for himself, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, and Ms. Mace) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify that aliens who are not lawfully admitted for permanent 
residence in the United States may not be vaccinated until nationals of 
 the United States and aliens who are lawfully admitted for permanent 
 residence in the United States are fully vaccinated for COVID-19, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Saving Hypodermic Injections and 
Offering vaccines to Taxpayers Swiftly Act of 2021'' or the ``SHOTS Act 
of 2021''.

SEC. 2. COVID-19 VACCINE PRIORITY FOR NATIONALS OF THE UNITED STATES 
              AND ALIENS LAWFULLY ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    (a) In General.--An alien who is not lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence in the United States may not be vaccinated for 
COVID-19 until the date on which all nationals of the United States (as 
such term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)) seeking such a vaccine and aliens who are lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence in the United States on the date of 
enactment of this Act seeking such a vaccine are fully vaccinated for 
COVID-19.
    (b) Rulemaking; Guidance.--
            (1) Rulemaking.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and 
        the Head of any other applicable Federal agency, shall issue 
        interim final rules to carry out this Act.
            (2) Guidance.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, and the 
        head of any other applicable Federal agency, shall amend 
        applicable guidance to reflect the priority described in 
        subsection (a).
    (c) Sunset.--This Act shall sunset on the earlier of--
            (1) the date on which the President certifies to Congress 
        that the requirement under subsection (a) has been fulfilled; 
        and
            (2) December 31, 2021.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner 

v.

LEWIS P. HANNAH, III,

Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2666 Disciplinary Board No. 3

No. 53 DB 2019

Attorney Registration No. 57247

(Philadelphia)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of November, 2019, upon consideration of the 

Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board, the Joint Petition 

in Support of Discipline on Consent is granted, and Lewis P. Hannah, III is suspended on 

consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of three years. He shall comply 

with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217 and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board. See

Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed April

9, 2019.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00130- CV

IN RE LEA BERNSEN BROWN, LEON GARRICK BERNSEN, LYNN BERNSEN ALLISON, DOUGLAS ALLISON, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A THE LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS A. ALLISON, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 281st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-39795



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 13, 2019, relator s Lea Bernsen Brown, Leon Garrick Bernsen, Lynn Bernsen Allison, Douglas Allison, Individually and d/b/a The Law Office of Douglas A. Allison filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t2

Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017 ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition,
relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Christine Weems , presiding judge of the 281st District Court of Harris County , to (1) vacate her February 5, 2019 order denying relators’ plea in aba tement and motion to abate, and (2) enter an order granting relators’ motion to abate.
Generally, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy at law,

suc h as an appeal . In re Prudential Ins. Co ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza , 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
Relator has not shown that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. We
the refore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Hassan, and Poissant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,215
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,787
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (7,922)
<INVENTORY>                                    294,679
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               446,049
<PP&E>                                         226,221
<DEPRECIATION>                                (17,209)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 698,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          271,834
<BONDS>                                        335,681
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,403
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   698,587
<SALES>                                        173,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               173,191
<CGS>                                          142,092
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,122
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   326
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,050)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,231)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,819)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,819)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
RONALD LEE JACKSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-3652

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 12, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mallory D. Cooper, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Pamela D. Presnell, Assistant Public 

Defender, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Angela R. Hensel, Assistant Attorney 

General, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, B.L. THOMAS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit32.2

| (1) | the      annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended March 31,      2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));      and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      May 26, 2009 | /s/ Edward Christie      III         |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                     | Edward      Christie III             |
|                     | Senior      Vice President and Chief |
|                     | Financial      Officer               |

----
#### Patricia D. Lakins, Appellant, v 171 E. 205th Street Corp., Respondent.

[987 NYS2d 345]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered April 18, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that it did not have notice of the allegedly icy condition upon which plaintiff fell. Defendant submitted evidence including plaintiffs deposition testimony that she never observed ice on the ground, and the affidavit of its principal that prior to plaintiffs fall, he never received any complaints of a snow or ice condition in the parking lot where the fall occurred *(see Herrera v E. 103rd St. & Lexington Ave. Realty Corp.,*95 AD3d 463 [1st Dept 2012]).

In opposition, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting climatological data revealing precipitation in the days preceding the accident that left an inch of “snow/ice” on the ground on the day of plaintiffs accident *(see e.g. Massey v Newburgh W. Realty, Inc.,*84 AD3d 564, 567 [1st Dept 2011]; *Rivas v New York City Hous. Auth.,*261 AD2d 148 [1st Dept 1999]). Contrary to defendant’s contention that it was entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall, she testified that she knew she slipped on ice because “[w]hen I was laying on the ground it was cold and wet that night.” Such testimony may be fairly interpreted that plaintiff felt the ice on the ground after she fell, as she consistently stated in her affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.
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 PalWeb Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert H. Nelson, Chief Financial 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.


January 19, 2005                               /s/ Robert H. Nelson
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Robert H. Nelson, Chief Financial
                                               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.
#### Frederick Polipo, Appellant, v Edith Sanders et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[666 NYS2d 406]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about October 16, 1996, which directed plaintiff to return $577,805.25, plus interest, that had been paid to him in partial satisfaction of a judgment that was later vacated, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record is clear that defendants’ primary insurance carrier paid plaintiff $577,805.25 in partial satisfaction of a judgment in plaintiffs favor so that plaintiff would not execute on defendants’ property pending appeal. Plaintiff’s contention that this sum was paid in settlement of any part of the action is without foundation in the record. When the judgment was later reversed and the complaint dismissed (227 AD2d 256, *lv denied*88 NY2d 812), plaintiff was properly directed to make restitution (CPLR 5015 [d]; *see, Mormilo v Allied Stevedores Corp.,*8 AD2d 217). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Tom, JJ. *[See,*170 Misc 2d 833.]
**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 Annual Report of Royaltech Corp. (the “**Company**”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”), I, Chenxi Shi, the Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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 to my knowledge:

(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.

Dated: February 8, 2007

 
| By:    | /s/ Chenxi Shi                                      |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Chenxi Shi, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director                                 |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
**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 theQuarterly Report of LaBranche & Co Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George M.L. LaBranche, IV,Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, and to the best of my knowledge, that:

 

1.             the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

2.             the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company at the end of, and for, the period coveredby the Report.

 
| Date: August 8, 2005 | /s/ George M. L. LaBranche, IV |                              |
|----------------------|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                 | Name:                          | George M.L. LaBranche, IV         |
|                 | Title:                         | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer |
|                 |                           | and President                     |
|                      |                                |                                   |  |

 

 

# **The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not beingfiled as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.**A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to LaBranche& Co Inc. and will be retained by LaBranche & Co Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 4.70







PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

COMPENSATION MEMO



|Date: | February 22, 2017 | 
|----- | ----------------- | 
|To:   | Julian Gangolli   | 
|From: | Justin Gover      | 
|cc:   | Human Resources   | 



**************************************************************************************



Julian,



I am pleased to inform you of the following compensation decisions,
approved by the Remuneration Committee:



| | Annual Salary- Effective January 1, 2017
| | ----------------------------------------
| | Current Salary:                         
| | New Base Salary:                        
| | % Increase:                             



Note: Effective Feb 1, 2017 all of your salary
will be paid through the US payroll.



| | Performance Bonus- Discretionary bonus to be paid Mar 3, 2017
| | -------------------------------------------------------------
| | Bonus Amount:                                                
| |                                                              
| | Long Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) – Grant date January 6, 2017 
| | Restricted Stock Options:                                    
| | Performance Stock Options:                                   
| | Market Priced Options:                                       



Thank you for all of your hard work. I look forward to us working
together to achieve yet more this year.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IGUEL M IR

ANDA-SANTANA, AKA M igue l Sa

nta na M i randa , Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-70471 Age n c y No. A205-466-951
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d April 14, 2023 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : S.R . THOM A S and H.A. THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R AKOFF, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED APR 18 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Je d S. R akoff, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.M igue l M iranda -Sa nta n a pe titions for re vie w of a

fina l orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) a ffirm ing a n im m igrat ion judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a

pplic a tion for c anc e lla

tion of re m o va l for c e rta i n nonpe rm ane nt
re side nts unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w . 1. The B IA a

pplie d the c orre c t le ga l sta

n da rds a n d did not ignore

re l e va nt
e vide nc e . The B IA’ s a

na ly sis of theha

rdships M iranda -Santa

na ’ s c hildre n would fa c e upon the ir fathe r’ s re m ova l wa s pla inly forward looking, s e e Figue roa v . Muk ase y , 543 F.3d 487, 497 (9th C ir. 2008), abrogate d on othe r grounds by Abe be
v . Muk ase y , 554 F.3d 1203 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba n c ), and c onside re d the ha rdship fa c t ors c um

ulat i ve ly , se e In reGonzale z Re c inas , 23 I& N De c . 467, 472 (B IA 2002) (e n ba

nc ). Nothing in the

re c ord ove rc om e s our pre s um ption tha t the B IA
c onside re d a ll re le va

nt e v i de nc e . Se eSzony i

v . Barr , 942 F.3d 874, 897 (9th C ir. 2019). 2. M iranda -Sa nta

n a doe s not “ spe c ific a lly

and distinc tly ” argue tha

t the B IA im prope rly a pplie d the “ e x c e ptiona l a

nd e xtre m e ly

unusua l ha

rdship” sta

nda rd in § 1229b(b)(1)(D) to thee sta blishe d fa c ts of his c a se and the re fore forfe its a ny suc h
c la im
. C astro-Pe re

z v . Gonzale

s , 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th C ir. 2005) (quoting Arpin v . Santa C

lara Valle y Transp. Age nc

y , 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th C ir. 2001)). M iranda -Sa nta

na ’ s brie fing a

rgue s tha t we would ha

v e jurisdic tion ove r suc h a
2c la im , but doe s not a d dre s s the m e rits of the ha rdship que stion. Tha

t is, M iranda Santa n a d oe s not e xpla in why

the e sta blishe d fa c ts of his c a se am ount to
e xc e ptiona l a

nd e xtre m e l y

unusua l ha

rdship to a

qua l ify i ng re l a tive upon re m ova l. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3
## NO. 12-09-00114-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S RAN DA LL RAY

MO ND CRO SBY

, § APP

EAL FRO

M T HE APPELLANT V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TH E ST ATEOFTEX

AS, APP ELL EE § SMI TH CO UN TY

, T EXAS MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM This appea l is being dismi ssed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant wa s convicted of driving while intoxicated, a nd sentenc e wa s imposed on March 3, 2009. There afte r, Appellant tim ely filed a no tic e of app e a l. To be sufficient to invoke t he appellate court’s full jurisdiction, the not ice of appea l filed by a n a pp e lla nt i n a

c ri min a l c a se mus t be ar the tr ia l c ou rt ’s c e rt if ic a tio n o f the app e llant’ s righ t to appea l under Te xas Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 25.2( a)( 2). T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d). The c e rt if ic a tio n s ho uldbe pa

rt of the re c or d w he n n oti c e is f ile d, bu t may b e a dd e d b y ti me ly amendment or

supplementation. Id . Appellant’s n o t ice of appea l does not include the re quired certification. On A pri l 24 , 2 00 9, thi s c ou rt no tif ie d A pp e llant, pu rs ua nt t o T e xa s Ru le s o f A pp e llate Procedur e 25.2 and 37.2, that the notice of appea l doe s not inc lude the trial court certification. The notice also informed Appellant t h at t h e appeal would be dismissed unless, on or be fore May 11, 2009, the cler

k’s re cord w as ame nded to include the r equire d certification. The de adline for

responding to t his court’s notice has expired, and the clerk’s record ha s not be e n a me nd e d to s ho w A pp e lla nt’ s righ t to app e a l. T he re fo re , th e app e a l is dismiss ed for want of jurisdiction

. Opinion delivere d May 29, 2009. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J. (DO N OT PUBLISH)