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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4396 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4396

To extend Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management stewardship 
       end result contracting authority, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 18, 2012

 Mr. Lujan (for himself and Mr. Gosar) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in 
     addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management stewardship 
       end result contracting authority, 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 ``Forest Stewardship and Fire Fuels 
Reductions Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. STEWARDSHIP END RESULT CONTRACTING AUTHORITY.

    (a) Extension of Authority.--Subsection (a) of section 347 of the 
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
1999 (as contained in section 101(e) of division A of Public Law 105-
277; 16 U.S.C. 2104 note), as most recently amended by section 323 of 
Public Law 108-7 (117 Stat. 275), is amended by striking ``Until 
September 30, 2013'' and inserting ``Until September 30, 2023''.
    (b) Specified Land Management Goal of Projects.--Subsection (b) of 
such section is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
        (7) and (8), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(6) restoration work, fire fuels reduction, and clearing 
        overgrowth on snowpack watersheds;''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2451 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Baysilone Fluid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Baysilone 

Fluid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BAYSILONE FLUID. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.04.03 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Baysilone Fluid) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2451 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
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 Defense

###### Department of the Navy 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DOD. 

# ACTION:

Notice of open meetings. 

# SUMMARY:

The Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP) will meet to discuss National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) activities. All sessions of the meetings will remain open to the public. 

# DATES:

The meetings will be held on Wednesday, January 5, 2005, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Thursday, January 6, 2005, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. In order to maintain the meetings time schedules, members of the public will be limited in their time to speak to the Panel. Members of the public should submit their comments one week in advance of the meetings to the meeting Point of Contact. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meetings will be held at the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, 1201 New York Ave, NW., Suite 420, Washington, DC 20005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Melbourne G. Briscoe, Office of Naval Research, 800 North Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22217-5660, telephone (703) 696-4120. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice of open meetings is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss NOPP activities. The meetings will include discussions on ocean observations, current and future NOPP activities, and other current issues in the ocean sciences community. 

Dated: December 15, 2004. 

J.H. Wagshul, 

Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 04-27927 Filed 12-21-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Omtool, Ltd. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel A.Coccoluto, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Daniel A. Coccoluto |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Daniel A. Coccoluto     |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| May 12, 2005       |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ROBERT MICHAEL SALAZAR,

Defendant

- Appellant. Nos. 16

- 50351

16

- 50352

D.C. Nos. 2:97

- cr

- 00009

- PA

2:07

- cr

- 00619

- PA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 11 , 2017 **

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS , Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Robert Michael Salazar appeals from the

district court’ s judgment and challenges the 20

- month concurrent sentence s

imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not prece dent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

JUL 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 50351 & 16

- 50352

Salazar contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on facts

not supported by the record in imposing an above

- Guidelines sentence , and by

failing to explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, see United

States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude

that there is none. The record does not support Salazar’s argument that when

imposing the sentence, the district court relied on an assumption that Salazar was

driving under the influence. Rather, the record reflects that the district court

considered Salazar’s history of drug use, which was well documented in the

record , and sufficiently explained its determination that a n above

- Guidelines

sentence was warranted. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.

2008) (en banc)

.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Levonzo Dixon, Appellant.

[717 NYS2d 517]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered October 22, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years,, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the court failed to follow the three-step protocol set forth in *Batson v Kentucky*(476 US 79) is unpreserved for appellate review *(People v De Los Angeles,*270 AD2d 196), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the record supports the court’s determination, unchallenged by de*66fendant at trial, that there was no need to ask the prosecutor to provide race-neutral explanations for the two peremptory challenges at issue, since the reasons for them were obvious.

Defendant has failed to preserve his current claim that the court failed to exercise its discretion in refusing the jury’s request for a readback of the parties’ summations *(People v Velasco,*77 NY2d 469, 474), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court did exercise its discretion, and did so properly *(see, People v McClary,*197 AD2d 640; *People v Santana,*121 AD2d 236, *lv denied*68 NY2d 773). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NUVEEN MUNICIPAL HIGH INCOME

OPPORTUNITY FUND,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-04575 SI

FOURTH

PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED pursuant to F.R.C.P. and the Local Rules of this Court:

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT: September 24, 2010 at 3:00 p.m.

Counsel must file a joint case management statement seven days in advance of the conference.

DISCOVERY PLAN: Per F.R.Civ.P and Local Rules, subject to any provisions below.

NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is October 15, 2010.

DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS: 10/29/10; REBUTTAL: 11/12/10. Parties SHALL conform to Rule 26(a)(2).

EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is December 17, 2010.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL be filed by January 7, 2011; 

Opp. Due January 21, 2011; Reply Due January 28, 2011;

 and set for hearing no later thanFebruary 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE: March 1, 2011 at 3:30 PM. (Pretrial papers due 2/22/11)

JURY TRIAL DATE: March 7, 2011 at 8:30 AM., Courtroom 10, 19th floor.

TRIAL LENGTH is estimated to be days.

SPECIAL DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL PROVISIONS:

The parties have agreed to extend the limit of depositions to 15 instead of 10.

The pretrial conference SHALL be attended by trial counsel prepared to discuss all aspects of the case,

including settlement. Parties SHALL conform to the attached instructions. Plaintiff is ORDERED to

serve a copy of this order on any party subsequently joined in this action.

Dated: 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04575-SI Document 128 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of William McKethan, Appellant, v New York Branch of the New York/New Jersey Port Authority Police Department et al., Respondents.

[716 NYS2d 564]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about July 22, 1999, which determined that respondent had “adequately respond [ed]” to the court’s prior order, dated January 13, 1999, directing respondent to provide further information in this Freedom of Information Law proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly held that respondents adequately established the nonexistence of additional records requested by *16petitioner. Once respondent’s records access officer certified that respondent had provided petitioner with all responsive documents in its possession, petitioner “was required to articulate a demonstrable factual basis to support his contention that the [further] requested documents existed and were within the [Authority’s] control” *(Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept.,*89 NY2d 267, 279). Petitioner has not met that burden. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
#### § 240.1 Purpose.

The purpose of the regulations in this part is to prescribe the procedures and standard terms and conditions applicable to loan guarantees issued for the benefit of the Borrower, pursuant to section 7034(o)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2016 (Div. K, Pub. L. 114-113) (the “Authority”). The loan guarantees will be issued as provided herein pursuant to a Loan Guarantee Agreement signed on June 3, 2016, between the United States of America and Ukraine (the “Loan Guarantee Agreement”). The loan guarantee will apply to sums borrowed during a period beginning on the date that the Loan Guarantee Agreement enters into force and ending thirty days after such date, not exceeding an aggregate total of one billion United States Dollars ($1,000,000,000) in principal amount. The loan guarantees shall ensure the Borrower's repayment of 100% of principal and interest due under such borrowings. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is pledged for the full payment and performance of such guarantee obligations.
exv4w2










Exhibit 4.2



«Name»




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	NAME AND ADDRESS OF SHAREHOLDER
	 	CERTIFICATE NUMBER	 	DISTINCTIVE NUMBERS	 	PAR VALUE PER SHARE
	 	***«cert1»***
	 	FROM
	 	TO
	 	«Currency»«Par»
	«member1»

«mem1addA» «mem1addB»	 	 	-«mem1sharesfrom»-	 	-«mem1sharesto»-	 
	 	DATE OF ISSUE	 	NO. OF SHARES	 	CONSIDERATION PAID
	 	«MtgDate»	 	***«mem1shares»***	 	«Currency»«Con_paid1»






SHARE CERTIFICATE




OF



«Name»



INCORPORATED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS




Authorised Capital: «Currency»«Aut_Cap» divided into «No_ofshare» shares of a nominal or par value
 of «Currency»«Par» each


THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE UNDERMENTIONED PERSON IS THE REGISTERED HOLDER OF THE SHARES SPECIFIED
HEREUNDER SUBJECT TO THE RULES AND LAWS GOVERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMPANY




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	SHAREHOLDER	 	NO. OF SHARES	 	DISTINCTIVE NUMBERS	 	CERTIFICATE NUMBER	 	DATE OF ISSUE
	 
	 	FROM	 	TO	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	«member1»
	 	***«mem1shares»***	 	-«mem1sharesfrom»-	 	-«mem1sharesto»-	 	***«cert1»***	 	«MtgDate»
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 




GIVEN UNDER THE COMMON SEAL OF THE COMPANY ON THE DATE STATED ABOVE AND IN THE PRESENCE OF




	 	 	 

	 
	 

	 	 
	 

	 	 
	DIRECTOR

	 	DIRECTOR/SECRETARY






NO TRANSFER OF ANY OF THE ABOVE SHARES CAN BE REGISTERED UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY THIS CERTIFICATE
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANTELOPE MEDIA, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. CV-08-4050 MMC

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

() Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues

have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The

issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED plaintiff’s application for default

judgment is hereby GRANTED, as follows:

1. To the extent the application seeks an award of statutory damages, the

application is hereby GRANTED, and plaintiff shall have judgment against defendants,

jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,350,000.

2. To the extent the application seeks a permanent injunction to prohibit future

infringement, the application is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, defendants, their

agents, representatives, servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all

others in active concert or participation with them, are hereby ENJOINED from copying,

posting or making any other infringing use or infringing distribution of plaintiff’s

audiovisual works, photographs, or other copyrighted material.

Case 3:08-cv-04050-MMC Document 111 Filed 06/01/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. To the extent the application seeks an order prohibiting defendants from

transferring assets until the judgment is paid, the application is hereby GRANTED.

Accordingly, defendants, their agents, representatives, servants, employees, attorneys,

successors and assigns, and all others in active concert or participation with them, are

hereby ENJOINED from transferring any domain name, or the proceeds thereof, formerly

registered to Antelope, until such time as the judgment entered herein has been paid.

4. To the extent the application seeks an award of full costs, including attorney’s

fees, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, the application is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff shall

file a motion for its full costs, including attorney’s fees, no later than 14 days from the

entry of judgment.

Dated: June 1, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Tracy Lucero

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-04050-MMC Document 111 Filed 06/01/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Charles A. Finnegan, Appellant, v. Buffalo Printing Press Feeders and Assistants Union No. 15, Inc., and Others, Respondents.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cleveland Adams, Appellant.

Order entered on July 20, 1959, denying defendant’s application for a writ of error *coram nobis,*unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Valente, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
Exhibit 10.2


 


2005
INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


PERFORMANCE
TARGETS


 


Officers and Executives:


 


Intent:  To
provide a long term and a short-term incentive for retention and to align
goals.


 


Short-term
Incentive Component


 


Measurement Criteria:  Award
based on achieving operating income budgeted plans of MarkWest Hydrocarbon Inc.
(“MarkWest Hydrocarbon”) and MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. (“MarkWest Energy”),
and on department/individual goals and performance, with each criterion
weighted based on individual and department responsibilities to align
performance and goals.


 


Threshold:  The
payout of incentive awards is contingent upon EBITDA (earnings before interest,
taxes, depreciation, depletion and amortization) being a minimum of 90% of
target for both MarkWest Energy and MarkWest Hydrocarbon.


 


Incentive Award Range:  The
incentive award range is set from 30% to 50% of base salary depending on level
and performance achievement, with opportunity for stretch incentive awards in
the range of 20% to 50% if stretch performance is achieved.


 


Payout:  Cash.


 


Long-term
Incentive Component


 


Intent:  To align long-term interests and to
enable executives to develop and maintain a significant long-term ownership
position in the business, as well as to attract, retain and reward executive
officers whose contributions are critical to long-term success.


 


Measurement Criteria:  Award
based on achieving operating income budgeted plans of MarkWest Hydrocarbon and
MarkWest Energy and department/individual goals and performance, with each
criteria weighted based on individual and department responsibilities to align
performance and goals.


 


Incentive Award Range:  The
incentive award range is set from 30% to 50% of base salary depending on level
and performance achievement, with opportunity for stretch incentive.


 


Payout:  MarkWest
Hydrocarbon restricted shares or MarkWest Energy phantom shares. 
Share/Units will vest over a three year period.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

JEROME M. VARANINI, ESQ. (State Bar No. 58531)

TRIMBLE, SHERINIAN & VARANINI

2500 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350 (95833)

P.O. BOX 590

SACRAMENTO, CA 95812-0590

TELEPHONE: (916) 444-8271

Attorney for Defendants James Luders, M.D. and 

California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC JAMES BAKER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COUNTY OF SONOMA; SONOMA COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPATMENT; BILL

COGBILL; CALIFORNIA FORENSIC

MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; JAMES

LUDERS, M.D.; “JOHN DOE”

LINCOLN; “JOHN DOE” CORTEZ;

“JOHN DOE” ESPINO; and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

______________________________/

CASE NO. CIV 08-3433 EDL

REQUEST FOR LEAD TRIAL COUNSEL TO

BE PERMITTED TO APPEAR BY

TELEPHONE AT MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Date: January 7, 2010

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Courtroom: E, 15 Floor th

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules, Rule 16-10(a), Defendants California

Forensic Medical Group, Inc. and James Luders, M.D. respectfully request

that their lead trial counsel, Jerome M. Varanini, be permitted to appear

by telephone at the January 7, 2009, Motion to Compel.

Dated: December 29, 2009 TRIMBLE, SHERINIAN & VARANINI

By /s/ Jerome M. Varanini 

JEROME M. VARANINI

Attorney for Defendants

California Forensic Medical

Group, Inc. and James Luders,

M.D.

AND ORDER THEREON

Case 3:08-cv-03433-EDL Document 122 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________

________________________________

U

United States District Judge

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

January 4, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-03433-EDL Document 122 Filed 01/04/10 Page 2 of 2
### §3711. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3711 was editorially reclassified as section 10101 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title of 1994 Amendment

Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXII, §320701, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2121, provided that subtitle G of title XXXII of Pub. L. 103–322, which amended former section 3760 of this title and enacted provisions formerly set out as a note under former section 3760 of this title, could be cited as the "Safer Streets and Neighborhoods Act of 1994".