alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §9304. Comprehensive program management plan; submittal to Congressional committees

(a) The Secretary shall prepare a comprehensive program management plan for the conduct of the research, development, and demonstration activities under this chapter. Such plan shall include at a minimum—

(1) a presentation of the program strategy which will be used to achieve the purposes of this chapter;

(2) a five-year program implementation schedule, including identification of detailed milestone goals, with associated budget and program resources requirements;

(3) risk assessments;

(4) supporting research and development needed to solve problems which may inhibit or limit development of magnetic fusion energy systems; and

(5) an analysis of institutional, environmental, and economic considerations which are limiting the national magnetic fusion program.

(b) The Secretary shall transmit the comprehensive program management plan to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate not later than January 1, 1982.

(Pub. L. 96–386, §5, Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1541.)

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on Science and Technology of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Jan. 5, 2011.
First Amendment to TradeStation Group, Inc. Nonemployee Director Incentive Stock



  
 Exhibit 10.1

 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 TRADESTATION GROUP, INC. 

NONEMPLOYEE DIRECTOR 
 INCENTIVE STOCK PLAN 
 FIRST AMENDMENT, dated October 20, 2010, to
TradeStation Group, Inc. (the “Company”) Nonemployee Director Incentive Stock Plan (the “Plan”), as authorized, approved and directed by the Board of Directors of the Company at a meeting duly convened and held on
October 20, 2010. 
 The Plan is hereby amended as set forth below. Capitalized terms used herein, if not herein defined,
shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Plan. 
  

	 	1.	Restrictions and Limitations Applicable to Certain Awards. The following is hereby added to the end of Section 4 of the Plan: 


“With respect to Stock Awards, Performance Shares and Performance Units, in no event shall the Award provide for vesting or be
permitted to vest (other than in the case of death, disability or retirement, or change of control of the Company) prior to the first anniversary of the grant date of the Award, and the Company shall have the right and obligation (except that there
shall be no such obligation in the case of death, disability or retirement, or change of control of the Company) to reacquire the Common Shares contained in or underlying the Award, for no consideration, if the Award recipient’s service as a
member of the Board of Directors terminates earlier than the first anniversary of the grant date of the Award.” 
  

	 	2.	Restrictions on Repricing of Options. The following is hereby added to the end of Section 6(a) of the Plan: 


“Except as set for in Section 11 (which includes adjustment provisions for Awards in connection with certain corporate events),
the exercise price for Stock Options may not be altered after their date of grant.” 
  

	 	3.	Incorporation of Amendments. The foregoing amendments may be seamlessly integrated and incorporated in the applicable sections of all published versions of the
Plan, and this First Amendment may be separately publicly filed or otherwise published or disclosed as required or appropriate to comply with applicable laws, rules and regulations or for any other legitimate purpose. 








  

	 	4.	No Other Amendments. Except as set forth in this First Amendment, the Plan has not been modified and remains of full force and effect. 


The undersigned, as Secretary of the Company, hereby certifies that this document accurately reflects the amendments to the Plan
authorized, approved and directed to be made by the Board of Directors of the Company on October 20, 2010, as permitted under Section 17 of the Plan, and that the Board unanimously agreed that such amendments, individually and in the
aggregate, are not material amendments and do not require the approval of the Company’s shareholders. 
  

	
	   /s/ Marc J. Stone

	Marc J. Stone, Secretary
Exhibit
32.1





Net
Element, Inc.


1450 S.
Miami Avenue


Miami, FL
33130





February
3, 2011





Securities
and Exchange Commission


100 F
Street, NE


Washington,
DC 20549





Re:
Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350





Dear
Ladies and Gentlemen:





In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Net Element,
Inc., for the year ended December 31, 2010, each of the undersigned hereby
certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), to the
undersigned’s knowledge that:




1.
            such
      Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Net Element, Inc., for the year ended
      December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
            the
      information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Net Element,
      Inc., for the year ended December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Net Element, Inc.




BY: /S/ Mike ZoiMike
      ZoiChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)BY: /S/ Jonathan NewJonathan
      NewChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Net Element, Inc. and will be
retained by Net Element, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.





In
accordance with Item 601 of Regulation S-K, this certification is
being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.2 to Net Element, Inc.’s annual report and
shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the
liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as
expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.
Order entered January 14 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 21
- 01046
- CV
ROBERT JOSEPH YEZAK , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 199t h Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199
- 04110
- 2021

O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s January 12, 2022 motion requesting the Court provide him with a copy of the docketing statement and “any other standard
forms necess ary to comply with the appellate process.” We GRANT the motion to
the extent that we DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send appellant a paper copy of this Court’s Docketing Statement.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Argelio Saucedo RENTERIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-5055.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2007.

Decided: April 30, 2007.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, Jr., First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Argelio Saucedo Renteria pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession of a short-barreled shotgun in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). The district court sentenced Renteria to 120 months of imprisonment. Renteria’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal but requests this Court to review whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. Renteria was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

Here, the statutory mandatory minimum set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(B)(i) (2000) became the applicable guidelines range. In sentencing Renteria, the district court considered the properly calculated advisory sentencing guidelines range and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 *&*Supp.2006). The sentence imposed is the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. Under these circumstances, absent a Government substantial assistance motion, the district court lacked discretion to impose a lesser sentence. *See United States v. Robinson,*404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Renteria’s sentence is reasonable.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record for any meri*172torious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Allied Building Inspectors International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 211, AFL-CIO, et al., Respondents, v Office of Labor Relations of the City of New York et al., Appellants.

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, dated August 10, 1976, denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the petition herein, by which petitioners sought to compel appellants to implement certain wage and salary provisions contained in a collective bargaining agreement between the parties, unanimously reversed, on the law, petition dismissed, without costs, and without disbursements, and the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration. The agreement between the parties provides for arbitration and specifically states that: "The grievance and arbitration procedure contained in this agreement shall be the *exclusive remedy*for the resolution of disputes defined as 'grievances’ herein” (art VI, § 12; emphasis added). The definition of the term grievance contained in section 1 of article VI includes, "A dispute concerning the application or interpretation of the terms of this collective bargaining agreement”. The present dispute between the parties, therefore, obviously constitutes a "grievance” under the agreement. Petitioners themselves initially followed the grievance provisions of the collective bargaining agreement when they, pursuant to section 5 of article VI, utilized "Step IV” of that article. They then, however, failed to go forward with "Step V”, which calls for "impartial arbitration”. Instead, they brought this article 78 proceeding. It follows, that appellants are correct when they contend that petitioners did not exhaust their administrative remedies and that those remedies mandate arbitration. Neither the proceedings involving the removal of this matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the remand back to the State court, nor the decision of Judge Tenney, holding that removal had been improper, dealt, on the merits, with the issues presently raised. Hence, we hold that appellants have not waived their right to seek arbitration as urged by petitioners. Concur — Birns, J. P., Evans, Capozzoli and Markewich, JJ.
### §9312. Authorization of appropriations; contract authority

(a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981, such sums as are provided in the annual authorization Act pursuant to section 7270 of this title.

(b) In carrying out the provisions of this chapter, the Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts only to such extent or in such amounts as may be provided in advance in appropriations Acts.

(Pub. L. 96–386, §13, Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1544.)
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

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIZABETH KARNAZES,

Plaintiff,

    v.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and DEBORAHTITONE,

Defendants.                                                                      /

No. C 09-0767 MMC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On August 6, 2010, plaintiff failed to appear as ordered at a regularly scheduled

Case Management Conference in the above-titled action.  Counsel for defendants

appeared.  This is plaintiff's second failure to appear as ordered at a scheduled Case

Management Conference.

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause, in writing, filed with the Court

and served on opposing counsel no later than August 20, 2010, why the case should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute and why other sanctions should not be imposed.

If plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Order, the case will be dismissed pursuant to

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2010                                                            MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC   Document 105   Filed 08/06/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T07:45:57-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
### §7300. Report to Congress; effect on personnel

The Civil Service Commission shall, as soon as practicable but not later than one year after October 1, 1977, prepare and transmit to the Congress a report on the effects on employees of the reorganization under this chapter which shall include—

(1) an identification of any position within the Department or elsewhere in the executive branch, which it considers unnecessary due to consolidation of functions under this chapter;

(2) a statement of the number of employees entitled to pay savings by reason of the reorganization under this chapter;

(3) a statement of the number of employees who are voluntarily or involuntarily separated by reason of such reorganization;

(4) an estimate of the personnel costs associated with such reorganization;

(5) the effects of such reorganization on labor management relations; and

(6) such legislative and administrative recommendations for improvements in personnel management within the Department as the Commission considers necessary.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title VII, §712, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 609.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in introductory provisions and pars. (1) and (2), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95–91, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 565, known as the Department of Energy Organization Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7101 of this title and Tables.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions vested by statute in United States Civil Service Commission transferred to Director of Office of Personnel Management (except as otherwise specified) by Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1978, §102, 43 F.R. 36037, 92 Stat. 3783, set out under section 1101 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, effective Jan. 1, 1979, as provided by section 1–102 of Ex. Ord. No. 12107, Dec. 28, 1978, 44 F.R. 1055, set out under section 1101 of Title 5.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

CRAIG JOSEPH AUCOIN

NO. 2021 KW 1323

FEBRUARY 14, 2022

In Re: Craig Joseph Aucoin, applying for supervisory writs, 

32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, 

Nos. 803306, 811447. 

BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED ON THE SHOWING MADE. Relator failed to include

a copy of the motion for discovery and inspection filed with the

district court, a

copy of the district court' s

ruling on the

motion, and any other portions of the district court record that

might support the claims raised in the writ application. 

Supplementation of this writ application and/ or an application

for rehearing will not be considered. See Uniform Rules of

Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 2- 18. 7 & 4- 9. In the event

relator elects to file a new application with this court, the

application must be filed on or before April 11, 2022. Any

future filing on this issue should include the entire contents

of this application, the missing items noted above, and a

copy

of this ruling. 

It is noted that as an indigent inmate, relator is entitled

to receive certain court documents, such as the guilty plea

transcript, the bill of information or indictment, the

commitment papers, the court minutes for various portions of the

trial, and the minutes of his sentencing, free of charge without

the necessity of establishing a particularized need. See State

ex rel. Simmons v. State, 93- 0275 ( La. 12/ 16/ 94), 647 So. 2d

1094, 1095 ( per cur.iam). As to all other documents, an indigent

inmate has the constitutional right to free copies only in those

instances in which he shows that denial of the request will

deprive him of an adequate opportunity to present his claims

fairly. Meeting that constitutional threshold requires a showing

of a particularized need. An inmate therefore cannot make a

showing of particularized need absent a

properly filed

application for postconviction relief, which sets out specific

claims of constitutional errors requiring the requested

documentation for support. See State ex rel. Bernard v. 

Criminal District Court Section " J", 94- 2247 ( La. 4/ 28/ 95), 653

So. 2d 1174, 1175 (per curiam). See also State ex rel. McKnight

v. State, 98- 2258 ( La. App. lst Cir. 12/ 3/ 98), 742 So. 2d 894, 

895 (per curzam) . 

PMc

JEW

Theriot, J., concurs. 

94DET

AL, FIRST CIRCUIT

LERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
### §7279. Identification in budget materials of amounts for certain Department of Energy pension obligations

The Secretary of Energy shall include in the budget justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of Energy budget for a fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31) specific identification, as a budgetary line item, of the amounts required to meet the pension obligations of the Department of Energy for contractor employees at each facility of the Department of Energy operated using amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Energy.

(Pub. L. 111–84, div. C, title XXXI, §3143, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2716.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, and not as part of the Department of Energy Organization Act which comprises this chapter.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

January 13, 2006

Before

Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 04-2662

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TEK NGO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of

Wisconsin

No.03-CR-110-C

Barbara B. Crabb,

Chief Judge

O R D E R

After the Supreme Court held that the sentencing guidelines are to be

applied only in an advisory fashion, United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005),

we ordered a limited remand to determine whether the district court would have

sentenced Ngo differently had it known that it was not bound by the guidelines. 

See United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 481 (7th Cir. 2005). The district judge

replied that she would have imposed an identical sentence even under advisory

guidelines. We invited the parties to file arguments concerning the reasonableness

of Ngo’s sentence, and after considering both responses, we affirm.

 The district court, after determining that Ngo is a career offender, imposed a

sentence of 210 months—the low end of the range of 210 to 240 months. Ngo makes

no argument as to why this sentence might be unreasonable. Instead he argues

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 04-2662 Page 2

that the “only appropriate remedy for the Booker violation in this case is a remand

for resentencing” and that the sentencing error was plain “regardless of the district

court’s speculation as to what it might have done.” In short, he challenges the

procedure outlined by Paladino. But he has not rebutted the presumption of

reasonableness that applies to a sentence within the properly calculated guideline

range. See United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). 

The district court acknowledged, in accordance with our May 3 opinion, that

whether Ngo should be considered a career offender under the guidelines is a close

question in light of the relatedness of the predicate crimes. Upon reconsideration

the district judge has decided that it was indeed appropriate to sentence Ngo as a

career offender. We cannot say that its conclusion is unreasonable given the

advisory nature of the guidelines and, more importantly, Ngo’s failure to offer any

argument on the subject. The district court considered the factors set forth in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) and found that the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of

the interests in holding Ngo accountable for the severity of his crimes and

protecting the community from further criminal conduct. We therefore AFFIRM

the judgment of the district court.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL HORAN,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 10-01383 MHP

REFERRAL ORDER

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(c), the Court refers this matter to Judge Thelton E.

Henderson for the purpose of determining whether it is related as defined in Civil Local Rule

3-12(a) to C 09-1128 TEH Michael Horan -v- Service Employees International Union Local 1021 et

al.

Dated: 4/14/2010

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01128-TEH Document 37 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Case No. C 10-01383 MHP April 14, 2010

SERVICE LIST (Plaintiff is instructed to serve the attached court document on all defendants

NOT listed below):

Plaintiff(s):

x

Defendant(s):

x

Case 3:09-cv-01128-TEH Document 37 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 2