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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 2 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 2

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may 
                                 serve.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2017

   Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Tillis, Mr. 
    Rubio, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Perdue) introduced the following joint 
 resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may 
                                 serve.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. No person who has served 3 terms as a Representative 
shall be eligible for election to the House of Representatives. For 
purposes of this section, the election of a person to fill a vacancy in 
the House of Representatives shall be included as 1 term in determining 
the number of terms that such person has served as a Representative if 
the person fills the vacancy for more than 1 year.
    ``Section 2. No person who has served 2 terms as a Senator shall be 
eligible for election or appointment to the Senate. For purposes of 
this section, the election or appointment of a person to fill a vacancy 
in the Senate shall be included as 1 term in determining the number of 
terms that such person has served as a Senator if the person fills the 
vacancy for more than 3 years.
    ``Section 3. No term beginning before the date of the ratification 
of this article shall be taken into account in determining eligibility 
for election or appointment under this article.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 22 (Thursday, February 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 8210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02308]



[[Page 8210]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: NIGMS Initial Review Group; Training and 
Workforce Development Subcommittee--D To Review MARC, U-RISE and G-
RISE Applications.
    Date: March 9, 2021.
    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 
Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Tracy Koretsky, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, 
MSC 6200, Room 3AN.12F, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594 2886, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d5a1a7b4b6acfbbebaa7b0a1a6beac95bbbcbdfbb2baa3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d292f3c3e247336322f38292e36241d333435733a322b">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Biomedical Research and 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 29, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-02308 Filed 2-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### SERVE D JUL Y 2,201 0 I I U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIC^ " 1 1 OFFIC EO FHEARING S ( i WASHINGTON , D.C . I N TH EMATTE RO F ISLAN D HELICOPTER S INTERNATIONAL , LTD .

FA A DOCKE T NO . CP08SO001 3 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S NO . FAA-2008-069 3 ADMINISTRATIV ELA WJUDGE' S ORDE R O N JURISDICTIONA LISSU E

ERRATU M Th e servic e dat e shoul drea d"JUL Y 1 , 2010" .

Isaa c D . Benki n Administrativ e La w Judg eFAA Docke t No . CP08SO001 3 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Hearin g Docke t Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Att : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m2014 '

ON ECOP Y Bradle y P . Hanger , Presiden t Islan dHelicopter s Internationa l P.O . Bo x 290 0 Eas t End , Tortol a Britis hVirgi n Islands , Wes t Indie s TEL : (284)495-253 8 FAX : (954)359-321 3 Raymon dVeatch , Esq . Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Regiona l Coimsel , ASO- 7 SouthernRegio n P.O . Bo x 2063 6 Atlanta , G A 3032 0 TEL : (404)305-520 0 FAX : (404)305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benki n Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Building , Groun dFloo r Roo mE12-35 8 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : (202)366-213 2 FAX : (202)366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso no r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Hearin g Docket , Federa l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m 2014, Washington

, D C 20591 , Att : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raymundo SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10055

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 7, 2007.

Frederick M. Schattman, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Raymundo Sandoval appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his term of supervised release, arguing that his sentence was unreasonable under *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when imposing Sandoval’s sentence. *See United States v. Gonzalez,*250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir.2001). Sandoval’s sentence, which was the statutory maximum, was neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable. *See*
      *386
      *United States v. Hinson,*429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir.2005).

Sandoval also argues that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment when it revoked his release and imposed an additional prison term based on facts found only by a preponderance of the evidence. Sandoval acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by *Hinson,*429 F.3d at 119, but raises it to preserve it for further review.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Patrick J. McInerney, Respondent, v Board of Education of the City of New York, Appellant, and Third-Party Plaintiff. Thomas McKenna et al., Third-Party Defendants.

— Order (erroneously denominated a judgment), Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on November 15, 1977, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Cotton, J., at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Birns, J. P., Evans, Fein, Sullivan and Silverman, JJ.
#### 3.800 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes policies and procedures implementing 31 U.S.C. 1352, “Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and financial transactions.”

[72 FR 46329, Aug. 17, 2007]
#### 3001.7001 Content.

The general format at (HSAR) 48 CFR 3001.704 shall be used to provide a justification to support the requested determination, waiver, exception or approval.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL  OFFICER


UNDER
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cybrdi Inc. (“We") for the
quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission as of the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Xue Bu, the principal
financial officer of us, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of 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 us





Date:  November
      16, 2009/s/
      Xue BuName:  Xue
      Bu, Principal Financial
Officer
#### In the Matter of Lucille Green, Respondent, v. Clinton Green, Appellant.

In a support proceeding by a wife against her husband under article 4 of the Family Court Act, the husband appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, made April 27,1964 after a hearing: (1) an order of support which directed him (a) to pay $100 a week for support of his wife and their three minor children; and (b) to post $15,600 cash to guarantee future payments for three years; and (2) an order of protection which, *inter alia,*directed him “ not to annoy, harrass or strike ” his wife or children. Order of protection affirmed, without costs. Order of support modified on the facts so as to direct: (1) that the husband shall pay $75 per week for the support of the children only; and (2) that the husband, pursuant to section 471 of the Family Court Act, shall either deposit with the Clerk of the Family Court the sum of $11,700 in cash or file with him an undertaking in such amount, with corporate surety, to guarantee such weekly payments of $75 for a period of three years. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. Under all the circumstances disclosed in the record, we find that the wife is not entitled to support from the husband. Hence, the amount awarded is reduced to $75 per week — an amount which we find to be adequate for the children. We also find that, under the circumstances, it was unduly onerous to require the husband to post cash or a “ cash bond ” as security for the weekly payments during the next three years, without giving him the privilege, as an alternative, to file an undertaking with corporate surety. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### 25.504 Evaluation Examples.

The following examples illustrate the application of the evaluation procedures in 25.502 and 25.503. The examples assume that the contracting officer has eliminated all offers that are unacceptable for reasons other than price or a trade agreement (see 25.502(a)(1)). The evaluation factor may change as provided in agency regulations.

[67 FR 21535, Apr. 30, 2002]
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Paul R. Flanders, Chief Financial Officer of Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ PAUL R. FLANDERS                                  
|Paul R. Flanders                                      
|Vice President  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

May 6, 2009
#### 252.217-7002 Offering property for exchange.

As prescribed in 217.7005, use the following provision:

# Offering Property for Exchange (JUN 2012)

(a) The property described in item number ________, is being offered in accordance with the exchange provisions of 40 U.S.C. 503.

(b) The property is located at (insert address). Offerors may inspect the property during the period (insert beginning and ending dates and insert hours during day).

(End of provision)

[56 FR 36479, July 31, 1991, as amended at 77 FR 35882, June 15, 2012]
exv10w2






Exhibit
10.2




	 		
	
	 	555 Maryville University Drive, Suite 400

St. Louis, MO 63141

(314) 216-2600






October 21, 2009



[Employee Name]




     Re: Change in Control Agreement — Effect of Temporary Salary Reduction


Dear _________:



For pay periods beginning on and after September 28, 2009, Huttig Building Products, Inc.
(“Huttig”) temporarily reduced your annual base salary by ten percent (10%) in conjunction
with Huttig’s temporary salary reduction program for its corporate office employees and regional
staff.



Notwithstanding this salary reduction, your base salary as in effect immediately prior to the
salary reduction (or such higher base salary as may be in effect from time to time hereafter)
shall be deemed to be your base salary for the purposes of calculating any termination payment
payable to you  pursuant to Paragraph 6(d)(i)(C) of the existing
Change of Control Agreement between Huttig and you (the “Change of Control Agreement”);
that is, any such termination payment shall be calculated without regard to the salary reduction.



Except as specifically modified by this letter agreement, all of the terms and conditions of the
Change in Control Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. This letter agreement may be
executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but of which shall constitute
one and the same instrument.



Please acknowledge receipt of this letter agreement and acceptance of the terms hereof by signing
both copies of this letter agreement and returning one fully-executed copy to Huttig to the
attention of Mr. Jon Vrabely, President and Chief Executive Officer.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Huttig Building Products, Inc.

 	 
	By:  	 	 
	 	Name: 	Jon Vrabely	 
	 	Title: 	President and CEO	 
	 	 	
	 
	ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO:

 	 
	 	 
	[Employee Name]
#### PECARARO v. PECARARO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

1. Infant—Contract of Employment—Affirmance—Prior Indebtedness— Provision for Payment.

An infant affirming and suing on a contract of employment which provides that part of his wages shall be retained and applied on his prior indebtedness to his employer cannot recover such portion of his wages, whether the indebtedness was for necessaries or not.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.

Action by Leone Pecararo against Peter Pecararo. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Joseph C. Kadane, for appellant.

George W. Simpson, for respondent.

BISCHOFF, J.

The plaintiff, an infant, sues his employer for moneys due on the contract of employment, and his action is based upon his affirmance of that contract. As proven by acceptable evidence, the agreement provided for no greater payments than the plaintiff has received, the balance of the alleged agreed wages being held by the defendant as repayment of the infant’s prior indebtedness to him.

How this indebtedness arose, whether for necessaries or not, is immaterial to the validity of this judgment; for the indebtedness was recognized by the infant, and that recognition is one of the terms of the contract upon which he sues. As to the moneys thus applied upon the indebtedness, the contract has been executed, and the infant, under his *582agreement that the moneys should be so applied, has received payments for his services at the contract rate.

If his services were worth more, and if the contract may be dis-affirmed, the disaffirmance must go to the whole contract; but the record discloses no proof of the value of the. services, apart from the agreement, and the complaint proceeds upon the agreement alone. That agreement, as established, cannot be invoked to give the plaintiff any new rights for active assertion, in disregard of its terms. Rice v. Butler, 160 N. Y. 578, 55 N. E. 275, 47 L. R. A. 303, 73 Am. St. Rep. 703. ■ ‘

Judgment affirmed, with costs.. All concur.
#### In the Matter of Alexander S. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Lucy D., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent. Ronald S., Intervenor-Respondent.

[833 NYS2d 489]

Order of fact-finding and disposition, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Visitación-Lewis, J.), entered May 16, 2006, which, upon a finding against respondent of neglect of the infant Alexander S., and of derivative neglect of the infant Charlotte S., ordered, inter alia, that respondent be placed under the supervision of petitioner Administration for Children’s Services for a 12-month period, that her access to the children continue, for a 12-month period, to be supervised by the privately retained agency already in place, that she pay the lesser of $1,000 or 25% *359of the amount billed by that agency each month as her share of the costs of her supervised access, and that she continue in her psychotherapy and recommended medication regimen and sign releases for petitioner to obtain reports from her treating mental health professionals as to her compliance with the therapy and medication *regimen,*unanimously modified, on the facts, to delete any provision requiring further supervision of respondent or of her access to the children, any provision requiring respondent to pay the costs of supervision, and any provision requiring respondent to undergo psychiatric treatment, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

There is adequate support in the record for the court’s findings of neglect and derivative neglect *(see Matter of Victoria CC.,*256 AD2d 931 [1998]; *and see Matter of R./C. Children,*303 AD2d 172 [2003]).

However, the record does not support the court’s determination that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the children *(see Matter of Gainza v Gainza,*24 AD3d 551 [2005]) and that continued supervision of respondent’s visitation with her children is in their best interests *(see Matter of Valerie Leonice T.,*107 AD2d 327, 329 [1985]).

Nor does the record support the court’s determination that respondent must continue to be supervised by petitioner and to undergo psychotherapy and medication. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
Acct ID RatePlanID ServiceType UsageTypeID CallDate OrigCC OrigNumber OrigLATA OrigOCN 

78474 VO9085B Address Trunk Line Outbound US 07/09/12 18:07:47 1 8558555990 

125512 VO9015B Address Trunk Line Outbound US 07/09/12 19:00:37 1 7733212130 358 47

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 131-3 Filed: 05/22/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:139
CalledNo TermLATA TermOCN BilledDuration OrigGTCode TermGTCode ActualDuration OrigRetailRate 

6148958940 324 9321 114 800/USA Toll‐free 424/US48 111 

6148958940 324 9321 174 424/US48 424/US48 169 

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 131-3 Filed: 05/22/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:139
ErrCode SvcNum RatedDuration DoNotRate UsgCat UsageCharge TotalRetail

0 78474 114 N IE 0.0162 0.01620 125512 174 N IE 0.0218 0.0218

a

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 131-3 Filed: 05/22/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:139
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      12,223,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,627,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,850,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,850,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,143,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,488,411
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,218,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,850,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               626,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               604,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             709,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (687,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (687,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (687,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.46)