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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2382 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2382

To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a priority for the 
    Secretary of Veterans Affairs in processing certain claims for 
                             compensation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2013

Mr. Cook (for himself and Mrs. Negrete McLeod) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a priority for the 
    Secretary of Veterans Affairs in processing certain claims for 
                             compensation.

    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 ``Prioritizing Urgent Claims for 
Veterans Act''.

SEC. 2. PRIORITY FOR PROCESSING CLAIMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 51 of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 5109C. Priority for processing claims
    ``In processing claims for compensation under this chapter, the 
Secretary shall provide the following claimants with priority over 
other claimants:
            ``(1) Veterans who have attained the age of 70.
            ``(2) Veterans who are terminally ill.
            ``(3) Veterans with life-threatening illnesses.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
5109B the following new item:

``5109C. Priority for processing claims.''.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 3400

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 3400.13 Availability of information.

Information regarding the peer review process will be made available to the extent permitted under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), and implementing Departmental regulations (part 1 of this title).
Exhibit 10.12

                           Summary of Cash Bonus Plan

      The  Compensation  Committee of the Board of  Directors of First  Defiance
Financial Corp.  ("First  Defiance")  administers  First Defiance's  annual cash
bonus plan for officers of First Defiance and its subsidiary, First Federal Bank
of the  Midwest.  The  annual  cash  bonus  paid to  officers  is based on First
Defiance's  annual  performance as measured by three key  performance  measures:
earnings per share,  growth in revenue,  and cost controls.  In determining  the
amount of cash bonus to be  awarded,  each of the target  measures is assigned a
weighting factor:  50% for earnings per share and 25% for each of revenue growth
and the efficiency ratios.

      Within each of these three  components,  there are  threshold,  target and
maximum  goals.  Performance  below the threshold  results in no payout for that
component.  Performance  at the threshold  level results in a 50% payout of that
component.  Performance  at the target  level  results in a 100%  payout of that
component.  Performance at or above the maximum goal results in a 150% payout of
that  component.  Exact payout  percentages  for payouts  within the 50% to 150%
range are calculated based on actual results. The payout percentage achieved for
each component is then multiplied by the weighting factor (50% or 25%) and those
three  components  are added  together to determine the  percentage of potential
bonus that will be paid.  For 2004 bonus  purposes,  the payout  percentage  was
72.4%.

      This payout  percentage  is then applied to the bonus  potential  for each
officer.  Mr.  William J. Small has a  potential  bonus equal to 45% of his base
salary,  Mr.  James L. Rohrs and Mr.  John C. Wahl each have a  potential  bonus
equal to 35% of base salary,  and Mr. Gregory R. Allen's bonus  potential is 30%
of base salary.  This other  officers with the rank of Senior Vice  President or
higher have bonus potential ranging between 20% and 30% of base salary depending
upon the officer's level of responsibility.
#### § 30.9 Nondescript.

Any tobacco of a certain type which cannot be placed in other groups of the type, or any nested tobacco, or any muddy or extremely dirty tobacco, or any tobacco containing an unusual quantity of foreign matter, or any crude tobacco, or any tobacco which is damaged to the extent of 20 percent or more, or any tobacco infested with live tobacco beetles or other injurious insects, or any wet tobacco, or any tobacco that contains fat stems or wet butts. The nondescript group is designated by the letter “N”.

[39 FR 11893, Apr. 1, 1974]
#### § 322.35 Ports of entry.

A restricted article may be imported only at a port of entry staffed by an APHIS inspector. To find out if a specific port is staffed by an APHIS inspector, or for a list of ports staffed by APHIS inspectors, contact Permit Unit, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, Maryland 20737-1236; toll-free (877) 770-5990; fax (301) 734-8700.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ROBERTO DUGGANS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:19cv3529-LC-HTC

REGIONAL DIRECTORS,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated December 2, 2019 (doc. 7). The parties have been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an 

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 

636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that 

it should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint (doc.1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:19cv3529-LC-HTC

3. The clerk shall close the file. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 3

rd day of January, 2020.

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

s/L.A. Collier
EXHIBIT 32

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of BlackRock Capital Investment Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30,
2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Steven F. Sterling, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Donna M. Milia, as Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 consolidated financial condition and consolidated
results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                                                  
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Steven F. Sterling
|Name:                  |  | Steven F. Sterling                               
|Title:                 |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                  |  | July 27, 2016                                    
|                      
|/s/ Donna M. Milia    
|Name:                  |  | Donna M. Milia                                   
|Title:                 |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer            
|Date:                  |  | July 27, 2016
(November 24, 1980)

#### Elizabeth R. Baecher, Appellant, v John J. Baecher et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) John Baecher, Respondent, v John J. Baecher, Jr., Respondent, and Elizabeth R. Baecher, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

In consolidated actions to (1) remove a cloud on title to real property and recover damages for fraud, and (2) foreclose on a second mortgage held by respondent John Joseph Baecher, Elizabeth Baecher appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 24, 1979, in the first above-described action, which directed that judgment be entered against her and in favor of respondents, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated July 3, 1979, in the *895second above-described action, which, *inter alia,*awarded the principal sum of $54,380.68 to respondent John Joseph Baecher, and directed that the mortgaged premises be sold at a public sale. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. No opinion. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted. The facts of this case do not support a finding that the appellant is equitably estopped from asserting the defense of the Statute of Limitations (cf. *Scheuer v Scheuer,*308 NY 447). Thus, the action to foreclose the second mortgage is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations (see CPLR 213, subd 4). The oral requests by the mortgagors that respondent John Joseph Baecher make payments on the first mortgage are insufficient to toll the running of the Statute of Limitations (see General Obligations Law, § 17-105). However, the second cause of action asserted in the complaint of respondent John Joseph Baecher, which sounds in unjust enrichment, was timely interposed, and may entitle him to recover the moneys allegedly expended pursuant to the request of appellant and J ohn J. Baecher, Jr., to satisfy their obligation on the first mortgage. A new trial is necessary to resolve that issue. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 21, 2012

h0514 

# Order

May 21, 2012

144473

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144473 COA: 307011 Iosco CC: 10-006091-FH MATTHEW LUKE COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the January 4, 2012 order 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.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Broadcasting Board of Governors

# SUMMARY:

                        The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will be meeting at the time and location listed above. The BBG will be considering protection of BBG journalists, a resolution regarding the Agency's Ethics Program, a report from the Board's Governance Committee, a status report from the International Broadcasting Bureau Coordinating Committee, and research presentations by InterMedia and Gallup. The meeting is open to the public—but due to space limitations via Webcast only—and will be streamed live on the BBG's public Web site at                         *http://www.bbg.gov.*                         The meeting will also be made available on the BBG's public Web site for on-demand viewing.                    

# Contact Person for More Information:

 Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2010-28782 Filed 11-10-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
COMPANY'S FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          14,367
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,413
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (9,658)
<INVENTORY>                                     80,623
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               149,453
<PP&E>                                          18,274
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (16,145)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 151,582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          187,245
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,546,707
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,582,370)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   151,582
<SALES>                                        422,224
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               422,224
<CGS>                                          341,576
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  603,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (181,752)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (182,552)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 14,978
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (167,574)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.04)
        

</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

243 CA 11-02094 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

FRANK M. PIACENTE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JANICE J. PIACENTE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

DONALD J. MURPHY, UTICA, FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

WILLARD R. PRATT, III, SYLVAN BEACH, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Herkimer County (Michael E. Daley, J.), entered June 6, 2011 in a divorce action. The order directed plaintiff to pay to defendant the sum of $96,564.37, plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating that part directing plaintiff to pay interest prior to the entry of the order and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Herkimer County, for a determination whether plaintiff’s failure to transfer the remaining amount owed to defendant pursuant to the judgment of divorce was willful.
Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order granting, inter alia, that part of defendant’s motion seeking enforcement of the judgment of divorce insofar as it distributed certain assets. Contrary to the contention of plaintiff, the clear and unambiguous language of the parties’ stipulation, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce, provided that plaintiff would pay to defendant a total amount of $130,000 ( see generally Lape v Lape , 66 AD3d 1405, 1406). Thus, we conclude that Supreme Court properly determined that plaintiff was required to transfer to defendant from his IRA account the amount of $96,564.37, i.e., the balance owed to her after the transfer of a joint investment account.
We reject plaintiff’s further contention that the court erred in awarding defendant attorneys’ fees without first conducting a hearing to determine the reasonableness of the fees. Plaintiff did not request such a hearing, and thus he waived that right ( see Bogannam v Bogannam , 60 AD3d 985, 987). In any event, we conclude that the court properly awarded fees to defendant, “the less monied spouse,” in this enforcement proceeding, inasmuch as plaintiff failed to rebut the statutory presumption that defendant is entitled to attorneys’ fees (Domestic Relations Law § 237 [b]).-2- 243 CA 11-02094
Finally, plaintiff contends that the court erred in ordering him to pay interest on the remaining amount owed to defendant from the date he transferred the joint account to defendant to the date of the hearing on the motion. We are unable to determine on this record whether the court found that plaintiff’s failure to transfer the funds from the IRA account was willful ( see Domestic Relations Law § 244; cf. Goldkranz v Goldkranz , 82 AD3d 699, 700). We therefore modify the order by vacating that part awarding defendant interest prior to the entry of the order, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination whether plaintiff’s failure to transfer those funds was willful.

Entered: March 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Ondina Medrano et al., as Administrators of the Estate of Wendy Medrano, Deceased, Respondents, v Frank A. Prado, Also Known as Francisco Prado, Appellant.

Judgment Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 27, 1979, upon a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $450,000 plus interest in this medical malpractice action, reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered on the issue of damages only, without costs or disbursements, unless plaintiffs, within 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order herein, with *603notice of entry, serve and file in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in their favor to $200,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If plaintiffs so stipulate, the judgment, as so amended and reduced, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The damages proven warranted a verdict no greater than the $200,000 to which recovery should be limited. In other respects, the court has examined the contentions of error urged by the defendant-appellant; those of any technical merit are found nonprejudicial or influential only on the quantum of damages we are now rectifying. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler and Bloom, JJ.; Silverman and Lynch, JJ., dissent in part and would substantially reduce the damages found warranted by the majority.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATTHEW DAVID SHELTERS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5261-MCR-HTC

FIRST JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT COURT, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated June 23, 2020. ECF No. 7. The parties were provided 

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and were afforded an opportunity to file 

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made 

a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection was made.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and all objections thereto 

timely filed, I conclude that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-05261-MCR-HTC Document 8 Filed 08/13/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 7, is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e) and 1915A for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

3. The clerk is directed to close this case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of August 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05261-MCR-HTC Document 8 Filed 08/13/20 Page 2 of 2
*Thursday ¡ August 27, 1998*

MOTION DOCKET

97-1117.

#### Simmons-Harris v. Goff.

Franklin App. Nos. 96APE08-982 and 96APE08-991. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal and cross-appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of the motion of Hanna Perkins School et al. for additional oral argument time and the motion of Hope for Cleveland’s Children et al. to extend time for oral argument and to change date of oral argument,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions for additional time for oral argument be, and hereby are, granted, and time is extended to twenty minutes per side.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the motion to change date of oral argument be, *1414and hereby is, denied.

Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., not participating.
#### Standish F. Medina, Petitioner, v State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents.

Order of the Human Rights Appeal Board, entered September 13, 1979, which affirmed as amended an order of the Commission of the State Division of Human Rights entered December 4, 1978, unanimously annulled, on the law, and the petition granted, without costs or disbursements. The record is clear that petitioner did not provide paid sick leave because complainant was terminating her position with petitioner. The evidence establishes that this was petitioner’s uniform practice for female and male employees alike who were employed by him. Only when an employee expected to return to work did he or she receive fully paid sick leave. It therefore follows that complainant was not discriminated against on the basis of her sex and that the decision under review was not supported by substantial evidence (see *Matter of Garrow [Levine],*52 AD2d 708). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Fein, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.