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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2275 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2275

 To treat payments by charitable organizations with respect to certain 
                    firefighters as exempt payments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 6, 2013

Ms. Slaughter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To treat payments by charitable organizations with respect to certain 
                    firefighters as exempt payments.

    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 ``Fallen Firefighters Assistance Tax 
Clarification Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENTS BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN 
              FIREFIGHTERS TREATED AS EXEMPT PAYMENTS.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
payments made on behalf of any firefighter who died or was injured as a 
result of the ambush of firefighters responding to an emergency on 
December 24, 2012, in Webster, New York, to any family member of such 
firefighter or aforementioned injured firefighters by an organization 
described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 509(a) of such Code shall 
be treated as related to the purpose or function constituting the basis 
for such organization's exemption under section 501 of such Code if 
such payments are made in good faith using a reasonable and objective 
formula which is consistently applied.
    (b) Application.--Subsection (a) shall apply only to payments made 
on or after December 24, 2012, and before December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 29.3501 Definitions.

As used in §§ 29.3501 to 29.3686, the words and phrases hereinafter defined shall have the indicated meanings so assigned.
#### § 29.2635 Rule 19.

In the B, C, and X groups crude leaves shall be restricted to the fourth and fifth qualities of green grades. Any lot containing 20 percent or more of crude leaves shall be classified as Nondescript.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2




April 21, 2000


Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd
6-9, 3-Chome
Wakinohama-cho, Chuo-Ku
Kobe 651
Japan

Attention:  Naoto Saito, Chairman

Re: Shareholders Agreement for the Europe JVC dated as of June 14, 1999 by and
among The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company ("Goodyear"), Goodyear S.A., a
Luxembourg corporation, Goodyear S.A., a French corporation, Goodyear Canada
Inc. and Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd. (the "European Shareholders
Agreement") and this Amendment No.1.

Dear Saito-san:

Goodyear hereby requests that the other parties to the European Shareholders
Agreement hereby agree to adopt this Amendment No. 1 to such agreement so as to
allow the Birmingham factory site of Goodyear Dunlop Tires Europe B.V. ("GDTE")
and/or Affiliates controlled by it to be closed, discontinued and/or disposed of
notwithstanding any provision of Article 9.10 of the European Shareholders
Agreement limiting such action during the two (2) years after the operational
start-up date (September 1, 1999) of GDTE. The undersigned, as parties to the
European Shareholders Agreement and/or shareholders of GDTE also hereby
authorize and confirm that such a closure, discontinuance and/or disposal of the
Birmingham factory site is authorized for the purpose of Article 3.6 (xiv)
and/or (xv) of the European Shareholders Agreement.

The parties agree that the European Shareholders Agreement shall be amended to
give effect of the foregoing but in all other respects the other terms and
conditions of the European Shareholders Agreement shall continue without change.
All expressions used in this Amendment No. 1 shall have the same meanings as are
ascribed to them in the European Shareholders Agreement unless otherwise
specifically defined herein.

If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please so indicate by signing this
letter and the accompanying duplicate copies, one copy of which is for your
files.



<PAGE>


                                          THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY


                                          By:           /s/ Samir Gibara
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Samir Gibara
                                          Title: Chairman of the Board, Chief
                                                 Executive Officer and President

Confirmed and agreed to by
all the undersigned as of the
date first above written

SUMITOMO RUBBER INDUSTRIES, LTD.


By:           /s/ Naoto Saito
       ------------------------------
       Naoto Saito
Title: Chairman


GOODYEAR S.A.,
a Luxembourg corporation


By:           /s/ Samir Gibara
       ------------------------------
       Samir Gibara
Title: Attorney-in-fact


GOODYEAR S.A.,
a French corporation


By:           /s/ Samir Gibara
       ------------------------------
       Samir Gibara
Title: Attorney-in-fact


GOODYEAR CANADA INC.


By:           /s/ Samir Gibara
       ------------------------------
       Samir Gibara
Title: Attorney-in fact
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:00cr42-RH/WCS

CURLEY LEE MILLER,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER REDUCING SENTENCE

The term of imprisonment to which defendant Curley Lee Miller is

sentenced is hereby reduced to a term of seventy-eight (78) months. In all other

respects the original sentence remains unchanged.

SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:00-cr-00042-RH-WCS Document 93 Filed 08/01/05 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 3400

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3400 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3400.9 Other conditions.

The Director may, with respect to any research project grant or to any class of awards, impose additional conditions prior to or at the time of any award when, in the Director's judgment, such conditions are necessary to assure or protect advancement of the approved project, the interests of the public, or the conservation of grant funds.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Southern National Bancorp of Virginia, Inc. (SNBV) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial officer of SNBV hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge and belief: 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SNBV as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|/s/ Georgia S. Derrico                     
|Georgia S. Derrico, Chief Executive Officer
|                                           
|/s/ William H. Lagos                       
|William H. Lagos, Chief Financial Officer  

August 12,
2010
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

###### Editorial Note on Part 277

#### Editorial Note:

OMB control numbers relating to this part 277 are contained in § 271.8.

#### § 277.1 General purpose and scope.

(a) *Purpose.* This part establishes uniform requirements for the management of administrative funds provided to State agencies and sets forth principles for claiming costs of activities paid with administrative funds under SNAP, and the Food Distribution Program and SNAP on Indian Reservations.

(b) *Scope and applicability.* Upon compliance with the provisions of this part, payments to State agencies will be made for cost(s) incurred for administration of SNAP and for administration of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. To ensure maximum practical uniformity, deviation(s) by a State agency from this part may be authorized only when necessary to meet program objectives, to conserve program funds, or when essential to the public interest. However, any deviations from this part must be authorized by the Administrator of FNS.
#### § 29.1123 Rule 17.

Any lot of lemon, or orange colored tobacco containing over 20 percent of slick tobacco shall be designated by the symbol “S” in the X, C, or B groups.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of Fluor Daniel GTI, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-9756, 33-19289, 33-28059,
33-43156 and 33-65363) of our report dated December 11, 1996, on our audit of
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Fluor
Daniel GTI, Inc. as of and for the Transition Period ended October 31, 1996,
which report is incorporated by reference or included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.



                                                       /s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
January 27, 1998
#### § 3300.52 Response to application for renewal of approval.

The Administrator will, within 30 days of receipt of application and any relevant information required, advise the applicant whether or not approval is renewed. A renewal extends the period of approval for 5 years.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 A0 46 5

. LUZ ALVAREZ v . U.S. BANK NATI ONAL TRUST NATI ONAL ASSOCI ATI ON, AS TRUSTEE O F LS4 9 MASTER PARTI C I PATI ON TRUST.

In Decem b er 2 02 2
, U.S. Ban k Nat i on al Tru s t Nat io n al As s o ci at i o n , as Tru s t ee

o f L SF9 M as t er Part i ci p at i o n Tru st (“ U

. S. Ban k ”) o b t ai n ed ti t le t o cert ai n real

p ro p ert y l o c a t ed in Gwi nn et t Co u n t y at a ju d i ci al fo recl o su re sal e. U.S. Ban k t h en fi led a d i s p o s s es so ry act i o n i n G w i n n et t Co u n t y Mag i s t rat e Co u rt , n am i n g as d efen d an t s t h e p ro p ert y ’ s fo rm er o wn er an d “ al l o t h ers ” wh o m i gh t be res i d i n g at t h e
p ro p ert y

. L u z A l v a r ez an s wered t h e co m p l ai n t , s tat i n g t h at s he was ren t i n g t h e
p ro p ert y p u rs u an t t o a t wo -y ear l eas e ag reem en t . Th e m ag i s trat e co u rt g ran t ed U.S.
Ban k’ s p et i t i o n an d i s s u ed i t a wri t o f p o s s es s i o n fo r t h e p r o p e r t y. F o l l owi n g a d e

n o v o ap peal b y Al v arez, t he s u p eri o r co u rt affi rm ed t h e m ag i s t rat e co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n. Al v arez t h en fi l ed t h i s d i rect ap p eal
, s eek in g t o ch al l en g e t h e wri t o f po s s es s i o n

. W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s di ct i o n. An ap p eal fro m a s u p eri o r c o u r t o r d e r d i s po s in g o f a d e n o v o ap p eal fro m a

m ag i s t rat e co u rt d eci s i o n m u s t b e i n i t iat ed b y fi l i n g an ap p li cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary
ap p eal

. O CGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 1 ), (b ); Bu ll o ck v. S a nd
, 2 6 0 G a

. Ap p

. 87 4
, 8 7 5 (5 8 1
SE2 d 3 3 3 ) (2 0 0 3 ). “ Co m pl i an ce wi t h t h e d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal s p ro ced u re i s ju ri s d i ct i o n al .” Ha i r

Res t o r a t i o n S

p eci a li s ts v. S ta t e o

f Ga

. , 3 6 0 Ga. Ap p

. 9 0 1
, 9 0 3 (8 6 2 SE2 d 5 6 4 ) (2 0 2 1 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted ). November 28, 2023T hu s, Al v arez’ s fai l u re t o fo l l ow t h e p ro p er p ro ced u re d ep ri v es u s o f

ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h is ap p eal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/28/2023
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

NYDEED B.K. NASHAD'DAI,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:03cv297-WS/WCS

LIEUTENANT J.A. PICKLES,

SERGEANT R.W. LONG,

SERGEANT PADGET,

SERGEANT PHILMAN,

SERGEANT BRYAN,

OFFICER D.H. BEVIS,

UNKNOWN MAJOR OF SECURITY,

UNKNOWN OFFICER #2

UNKNOWN OFFICER #3,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the Court upon referral from the Clerk of Court. Previously, 

Defendants filed a motion to permit re-noticing of the taking of Plaintiff's deposition. 

Doc. 72. Ruling on this motion was deferred and Plaintiff was directed to submit a

response to the court order. Doc. 73. Plaintiff has not responded.

Nothing has been received from Plaintiff in this case since Plaintiff submitted a

notice of change of address. Doc. 68. Plaintiff has failed to respond to an order to

show cause. Doc. 70. Plaintiff also failed to appear for his scheduled deposition. It

Case 4:03-cv-00297-WS-CAS Document 74 Filed 05/12/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:03cv297-WS/WCS

was that failure that prompted Defendants to file the most recent motion, doc. 72. 

However, despite Plaintiff being advised that Defendants are entitled to take Plaintiff's

deposition at least one time in this District, doc. 73, and being alerted to the fact that this

case would be dismissed if Plaintiff failed to respond to the show cause order, doc. 73,

Plaintiff has not responded.

It now appears that Plaintiff no longer desires to continue with this case now that

he is released from prison. Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation and this case should

be dismissed.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this civil rights

action be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. 

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 12, 2006.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case 4:03-cv-00297-WS-CAS Document 74 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 2
§ 322.30 Export certificate. Each shipment of restricted articles, except for dead bees, imported into or transiting the United States must be accompanied by an export certificate issued by the appropriate regulatory agency of the national government of the exporting region. The export certificate must state that the articles in the shipment have been treated as follows: ( a ) *Beeswax.* Must have been liquefied, and slumgum and honey must be removed.
( b ) *Honey for bee feed.* Heated to 212 °F (100 °C) for 30 minutes.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0207)
#### GELENTER, Respondent, v. SCHMARTZ, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by Joseh Gelenter against Jacob Schmartz.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                          34,239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,139
<INVENTORY>                                     32,809
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,933
<PP&E>                                          12,981
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,536
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,452
<BONDS>                                         50,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    115,473
<COMMON>                                       128,093
<OTHER-SE>                                   (239,062)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,956
<SALES>                                        196,448
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               196,448
<CGS>                                          149,213
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  262,483
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (2,626)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (68,675)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (61,689)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (61,689)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-2 No. 33-63785) of Interleaf, Inc. and in the related Prospectus, the 
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-03761) of Interleaf, Inc. and in the 
related Prospectus, the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 33-8933, No. 
33-14529, No. 33-30218 and No. 33-59794) pertaining to the 1983 Stock Option 
Plan of Interleaf, Inc., the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 33-13249, 
No. 33-30219, No. 33-40663 and No. 33-69066) pertaining to the 1987 Employee 
Stock Purchase Plan of Interleaf, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 
No. 33-30220) pertaining to the 1989 Director Stock Option Plan of Interleaf, 
Inc., the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 33-69068 and No. 33-61051) 
pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan of Interleaf, Inc., the Registration 
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-80864) pertaining to the 1993 Director Stock 
Option Plan of Interleaf, Inc., and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 
33-84214) pertaining to the 1994 Employee Stock Option Plan of Interleaf, 
Inc. of our report dated June 16, 1997, with respect to the consolidated 
financial statements and schedule of Interleaf, Inc. included in the 
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 1997.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
June 30, 1997
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 4:02cr52-RH/CAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 4:02cr52-RH-CAS

ERIC EUGENE BALCOM,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER REDUCING THE SENTENCE

The defendant Eric Eugene Balcom is serving a life sentence that was 

mandatory when imposed. He is eligible for a sentence reduction under the First 

Step Act. The order of January 28, 2019 explained the issues and indicated that if 

the government consented, Mr. Balcom’s sentence would be reduced to time 

served, effective 14 days after entry of the order announcing the reduction. The 

order noted that, if Mr. Balcom had received all gain time credits for which he was 

eligible, a reduction to time served would be roughly equivalent to a reduction to 

228 months.

Since entry of the January 28 order, Mr. Balcom has moved to reduce his 

sentence to “228 months (time served).” The government has filed a response 

Case 4:02-cr-00052-RH-CAS Document 179 Filed 02/28/19 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:02cr52-RH/CAS

indicating it consents to a reduction to 228 months. This order reduces Mr. 

Balcom’s sentence based on the analysis in the January 28 order, Mr. Balcom’s 

motion, the government’s consent, the entire record, and the sentencing factors in 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Mr. Balcom’s sentence is reduced to the greater of 228 months or time 

served effective as of March 14, 2019. The judgment remains the same in all other 

respects.

2. The clerk must provide copies of this order to the attorneys of record and 

the Federal Public Defender through the electronic filing system. 

SO ORDERED on February 27, 2019.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00052-RH-CAS Document 179 Filed 02/28/19 Page 2 of 2
98-1395.

#### State v. Clinton

Erie App. No. E-97-097. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; *sua sponte,*cause held for the decision in 97-1985, *State v. Cook,*Allen App. No. 1-97-21; briefing schedule stayed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 24, 2011 

h1017 

Order 

 

October 24, 2011 

143389 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143389 

 COA: 295324 

LUIS ALBERTO QUINTANA, Oakland CC: 2008-224240-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 19, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 3.71 Definitions.

As used in this subpart the following definitions will apply:

*Disposable pay* means that part of current basic pay, special pay, incentive pay, retired pay, retainer pay, or in the case of an employee not entitled to basic pay, other authorized pay remaining after the deduction of any amount required by law to be withheld (other than deductions to execute garnishment orders in accordance with 5 CFR parts 581 and 582). Among the legally required deductions that must be applied first to determine disposable pay are levies pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code (title 26, United States Code) and deductions described in 5 CFR 581.105(b) through (f).

*Salary offset* means a reduction of a debt by offset(s) from the disposable pay of an employee without his or her consent.

*Waiver* means the cancellation, remission, forgiveness, or non-recovery of a debt owed by an employee to an agency as permitted or required by 5 U.S.C. 5584, 10 U.S.C. 2774, or 32 U.S.C. 716, 5 U.S.C. 8346(b), or any other law.