alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David Reade, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person, will be treated as a motion to dispense with printing. Motion granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file five copies of his brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. Motion for enlargement of time granted. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the November 1960 Term; appeal ordered to be placed on the calendar for November 7, 1960. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Anthony F. Marra, Esq., 100 Centre Street, New York 13, New' York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Beldock, Acting P. J., Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
exv10w6






Exhibit 10.6




Second Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement




     This Second Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement is made effective on the 2nd day of
August 2010, between Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation (“Company”) and Donald J. Birak (“Employee”).



     Whereas,
the parties executed an Employment Agreement dated July 1, 2005 (the
“Employment Agreement”), and



     Whereas the Employment Agreement was further amended and then subsequently restated effective
December 31, 2008 (“Restated Employment Agreement”), and



     Whereas the Restated Employment Agreement was further amended effective July 31, 2009 whereby
the term of the Restated Employment Agreement was extended through July 31, 2011, and



     Whereas the parties desire to further extend the term of the Restated Employment Agreement and
update the compensation as contemplated by the Restated Employment Agreement and as set forth
below;


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained to be kept
and performed by the parties hereto, the parties agree as follows:



1. Term Of Employment. The Restated Employment Agreement shall be amended in Section 2 to
read that the term of employment shall be extended to the 31st day of December 2011,
unless sooner terminated as provided in the Restated Employment Agreement. It is further agreed
that the Restated Employment Agreement may be further considered for additional extension. It is
understood, however, that termination can occur in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7 of
the Restated Employment Agreement, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this SEcond
Amendment to the Restated Employment Agreement.



2. Compensation. The Restated Employment Agreement shall be amended in Section 3 (a) to
read that the Employee shall receive a base salary of $282,000 annually. The Restated Employment
Agreement shall be amended in Section 3 (c) to read that the Employee shall have an opportunity to
earn a bonus during each calendar year targeted to be 50% of Employee’s then current annual salary,
which, at the date of this Agreement, is the potential sum of $141,000 and a maximum of $282,000
(AIP). In





 









 







addition, Employee shall be eligible to earn an award under the Company’s long-term incentive plan
with a target level of 190% or a potential $535,800 (LTIP). Such bonuses are at the discretion of
the board of directors.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Amendment to the Restated Employment
Agreement as of the day and year first written above.



Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation




	 	 	 	 
	By  	/s/ Dennis E. Wheeler	 
	Dennis E. Wheeler, President and CEO 	 
	 
	/s/ Donald J. Birak
 	 
	Employee
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4407 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4407

    To amend the indemnification responsibilities applicable to the 
 Secretary of Defense when Department of Defense property at military 
  installations closed pursuant to a base closure law is conveyed to 
 expand such indemnification responsibilities to include all military 
              installations closed since October 24, 1988.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2012

Mr. Young of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the indemnification responsibilities applicable to the 
 Secretary of Defense when Department of Defense property at military 
  installations closed pursuant to a base closure law is conveyed to 
 expand such indemnification responsibilities to include all military 
              installations closed since October 24, 1988.

    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 ``Base Redevelopment and 
Indemnification Correction Act''.

SEC. 2. INDEMNIFICATION OF TRANSFEREES OF PROPERTY AT ANY CLOSED 
              MILITARY INSTALLATION.

    Section 330 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``pursuant to a base 
        closure law'' and inserting ``after October 24, 1988, the date 
        of the enactment of the Defense Authorization Amendments and 
        Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 
        2687 note)''; and
            (2) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (3).
                                 <all>
```
### §3797w. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797w was editorially reclassified as section 10631 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2364

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DIANNE M. CARTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00673-FDW-DCK)

Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 16, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dianne M. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Marion E.M. Erickson, Joan Iris Oppenheimer,

Francesca Ugolini, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, 

D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dianne M. Carter appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to 

the United States on its action seeking to enjoin Carter from preparing federal income tax 

forms. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although 

we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Carter, No. 3:16-cv-00673-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 

2017). We deny Carter’s motions for stay pending appeal and for other relief, and we 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
§ 312.215 What must I include in my drug-free awareness program? You must establish an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about— ( a ) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
( b ) Your policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
( c ) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and
( d ) The penalties that you may impose upon them for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace.
§ 1507.5 Accounting for disclosure of records. ( a ) With respect to each system of records under ADF control, the Foundation will keep an accurate accounting of routine disclosures, except those made to employees of the Foundation in the normal course of duties or pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Such accounting shall contain the following: ( 1 ) The date, nature and purpose of each disclosure, and the name and address of the person or agency to whom the disclosure is made:
( 2 ) Sufficient information to permit the construction of a listing of all disclosures at appropriate periodic intervals; and
( 3 ) The justification or basis upon which any release was made including any written documentation required.
( b ) The Foundation will retain the accounting made under this section for at least 5 years or the life of the record, whichever is longer, after the disclosure for which the accounting is made.
( c ) Except for disclosure made under paragraph (g) of § 1503.3, the Foundation will make the accounting under paragraph (a) of this section available to the individual named in the record at his or her request.
( d ) The Foundation will inform any person or other agency about any correction or notation of dispute made by the agency of any record that has been disclosed to the person or agency if an accounting of the disclosure was made.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.1 CEO CERTIFICATION

I, R. Greg Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Fleetclean Systems, 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(s) 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(s) 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 20, 2004

By:      /s/ R. Greg Smith
         -----------------
         R. Greg Smith
         Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Benedict LOVEJOY, Appellant.

No. 06-2500.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 1, 2007.

Filed: June 6, 2007.

Jan Leslie Holmgren, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux Falls, SD, for Appellee.

Laurie McFarlane Bauer, Bormann *&*Buekmeier Bormann Building, Mobridge, SD, for Appellant.

Benedict Lovejoy, Florence, CO, pro se.

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Benedict Lovejoy appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to abusive sexual contact with a minor under the age of 12, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2244(a)(1), 2241(c), and 2246(3). In a brief filed under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel argues that the 120-month prison sentence is excessive and an abuse of discretion.

We disagree. In sentencing Lovejoy to the statutory maximum (which was also the undisputed advisory Guidelines sentence), the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and nothing in the record indicates that the sentence is unreasonable. *See United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 261-62, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness; § 3553(a) factors will guide appellate courts in determining whether sentence is unreasonable); *United States v. Mathis,*451 F.3d 939, 941 (8th Cir.2006) (reasonableness review is akin to review for abuse of discretion); *United States v. Haack,*403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (abuse of discretion may occur if court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but committed clear error of judgment in weighing them). Further, the sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the crime. *See United States v. Collins,*340 F.3d 672, 679 (8th Cir.2003) (Eighth Amendment forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to crime); *United States v. No Neck,*472 F.3d 1048, 1055 (8th Cir.2007) (affirming sentence of 292 months in prison and lifetime of supervised release for defendant convicted of abusive sexual contact and aggravated sexual abuse).

As for Lovejoy’s pro se assertion that trial counsel’s representation was lacking, ineffective-assistance claims are more properly raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings, where the record can be developed. *See United States v. Hughes,*330 F.3d 1068,1069 (8th Cir.2003).

Having reviewed the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we *410have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

1

. The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
#### § 1006.755 When will I know whether the suspension is continued or terminated?

The suspending official must make a written decision whether to continue, modify, or terminate your suspension within 45 days of closing the official record. The official record closes upon the suspending official's receipt of final submissions, information and findings of fact, if any. The suspending official may extend that period for good cause.
#### § 309.22 Termination of collection.

Termination of collection action shall be made in accordance with the standards set forth in the FCCS (31 CFR 903.1 and 903.3-903.4).
### §3796gg–0. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796gg–0 was editorially reclassified as section 10442 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
Alphabetical List of Products

Census of Manufactures: 1939, Sixteenth Decennial Census of the United

States

Interactive Table of Contents

Click on the title of the section you wish to view. Document will appear with a “bookmarks” column on

the left side. Use the “Table of Contents” bookmark to navigate back to this page.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Section Title Page Number

I Title Page i

1 Alphabetical List of Products 1-169
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00009-CV

DENNIS RAYNER AND JOE TEX XPRESS, INC., Appellant

V.

KRISTA DILLON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 62nd District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV40921

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

The clerk’s record in this appeal was filed March 11, 2015, and the reporter’s record was 

filed June 17, 2015, making the appellants’ brief due July 17, 2015. After requesting and receiving 

an extension of time, the appellants filed their brief August 17, 2015, making Dillon’s brief due 

September 16, 2015. This deadline was extended twice by this Court on the motions of Dillon’s 

counsel, resulting in the most recent due date of November 16, 2015. Counsel has now filed a 

third motion seeking an extension of Dillon’s briefing deadline.

We have reviewed counsel’s third motion to extend time as well as the appellate record in 

this case, and we find no compelling information to convince us that a third extension of the filing 

deadline is warranted. Consequently, counsel’s third motion to extend time to file Dillon’s 

appellate brief is overruled.

We order counsel to file Dillon’s appellate brief with this Court on or before December 7,

2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: November 17, 2015
### §300ee–23. Definition

For purposes of this part, the term "infection with the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome" includes any condition arising from such etiologic agent.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXV, formerly title XV, §2513, as added Pub. L. 100–607, title II, §221, Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3102; renumbered title XXV, Pub. L. 101–93, §5(e)(1), Aug. 16, 1989, 103 Stat. 612.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2513 of act July 1, 1944, was successively renumbered by subsequent acts, see section 238l of this title.
<PAGE>
                                                                       Ex. 10.30

        ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER FOR PARTICIPATION OF CALL OPTION AGREEMENT

SHANGHAI FOCUS MEDIA ADVERTISEMENT CO., LTD., (registered address: F Room 1003,
No. 1027, Changning Road, Changning District, Shanghai) (hereinafter the
"PARTICIPANT SHAREHOLDER"), and FUZHOU FUKESI ADVERTISEMENT CO., LTD.
(registered address: 18 Floor, Xinduhui Garden Square, 171 Northern Wuyi Rd.
Fuzhou) (hereinafter the "NEW TARGET COMPANY"), as independent party, hereby
agree to participate in the Call Option Agreement among FOCUS MEDIA TECHNOLOGY
(SHANGHAI) CO., LTD., SHANGHAI FOCUS MEDIA ADVERTISEMENT CO., LTD. and other
relevant parties (hereinafter, "CALL OPTION AGREEMENT") dated March 28 2005. The
Participant Shareholder hereby grant Focus Media Technology with an irrevocable
equity Call Option (hereinafter "CALL OPTION") in respect to 70% of the equity
share of New Target Company held by this company. Once this Acknowledgement
Letter is executed by this company, the New Target Company and the newly
increase equity share begin to be the "Target Company" and "Option Equity"
defined under the Call Option Agreement (hereinafter the "CALL OPTION
AGREEMENT") entered into between this company, Focus Media Technology and other
relevant parties dated March 28 2005; and this company immediately make the same
representations and warranties in respect to the New Target Company and relevant
equity Call Option as this company made under the Call Option Agreement in
respect to the defined Target Company and Call Option and undertake the same
obligations therein.

<PAGE>

SHANGHAI FOCUS MEDIA ADVERTISEMENT CO.,
LTD.
(Company chop)


Signature by: /s/ Jason Nanchun Jiang
              --------------------------
Name: Jason Nanchun Jiang
Position: Legal Representative
Date: January 13, 2006


FUZHOU FUKESI ADVERTISEMENT CO., LTD.
(Company chop)


Signature by: /s/ Jason Nanchun Jiang
              --------------------------
Name: Jason Nanchun Jiang
Position: Legal Representative
Date: January 13, 2006


FOCUS MEDIA TECHNOLOGY (SHANGHAI) CO.,
LTD.
(Company chop)


Signature by: /s/ Jason Nanchun Jiang
              --------------------------
Name: Jason Nanchun Jiang
Position: Legal Representative
Date: January 13, 2006


                                        2
#### § 513.625 Exception provision.

The Board head may waive with respect to a particular grant, in writing, a suspension of payments under a grant, suspension or termination of a grant, or suspension or debarment of a grantee if the Board head determines that such a waiver would be in the public interest. This exception authority cannot be delegated to any other official.
| **Fair Value (Narrative) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions** | Mar. 31, 2022 | Dec. 31, 2021 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|
| **Fair Value Disclosures [Abstract]**                        |          |          |
| Other invested assets overseas deposit                       | $ 79          | $ 74          |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Overseas deposits are excluded from the fair value hierarchy because their fair value is recorded using the net asset value per share (or equivalent) practical experiment, which can be redeemed at net asset value in 90 days or less.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cna_OtherInvestedAssetsOverseasDeposit**Namespace Prefix:**cna_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_FairValueDisclosuresAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
ERN

DIST

RI

CT

OF C
#### In re BROOKLYN BAR ASS’N.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 24, 1905.)

In the matter of the application of the Brooklyn Bar Association to punish Eugene R. Hayne, an attorney. No opinion. Report of referee confirmed, except as to the recommendation therein contained, and defendant suspended from practice as an attorney for the term of six months.