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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2494 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2494

    To restrict funds related to escalating United States military 
                         involvement in Syria.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2013

   Mr. Gibson (for himself, Mr. Welch, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Nolan, Mr. 
Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. DesJarlais, and Mr. Jones) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
    and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services and Select 
   Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To restrict funds related to escalating United States military 
                         involvement in Syria.

    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 ``Protecting Americans from the 
Proliferation of Weapons to Terrorists Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDS TO ESCALATE UNITED STATES MILITARY 
              INVOLVEMENT IN SYRIA.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided under subsection (b), no funds 
made available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of 
Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in 
intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for the purpose 
of, or in a manner which would have the effect of, supporting, directly 
or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Syria by any 
nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.
    (b) Exception.--The prohibition under subsection (a) does not apply 
to funds obligated for non-lethal humanitarian assistance for the 
Syrian people provided directly by the United States Government, 
through nongovernmental organizations and contractors, or through 
foreign governments.
    (c) Duration of Prohibition.--The prohibition under subsection (a) 
shall cease to apply only if a joint resolution approving assistance 
for military or paramilitary operations in Syria is enacted.
    (d) Quarterly Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the Secretary 
of State shall submit to Congress a report on assistance provided to 
groups, organizations, movements, and individuals in Syria.
    (e) Non-Lethal Humanitarian Assistance Defined.--In this Act, the 
term ``non-lethal humanitarian assistance'' means humanitarian 
assistance that is not weapons, ammunition, or other equipment or 
material that is designed to inflict serious bodily harm or death.
                                 <all>
```
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION In the

OF MARYLAND * Court of Appeals of Maryland V. Misc. Docket AG No. 21, SEUNG OH KANG September Term, 2015 a/k/a SEUNG E. OH & SANDY 011
ORDER This matter, having come before the Court upon the filing of a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action and request for interim suspension pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-773(d), with attached true test copies of the Order of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board revoking Respondent's right to practice law in Virginia dated January 25, 2013, and supporting documentation; and it appearing that Seung Oh Kang (a/k/a Seung E. Oh and/or Sandy Oh) is also a member of the Bar of this Court; it is this 1st day of June, 2015, ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Respondent, Seung Oh Kang (a/k/a Seung E. Oh and/or Sandy Oh), be, and she is hereby, indefinitely suspended, effective immediately, from the further practice of law in the State of Maryland, pending further order of this Court, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-773(d); and it is further, ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name Seung Oh Kang (a/lc/a Seung E. Oh and/or Sandy Oh) from the register of attorneys, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-760(e), shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State.

/s/ Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. Senior Judge
#### § 29.6006 Class.

A major division of tobacco based on method of cure or principal usage.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightwave Logic, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Zelibor, Chief Executive Officer of our Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to 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 our Company.



Date:  November 13, 2012

/s/Thomas E. Zelibor

Thomas E. Zelibor,

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
(January 17, 1980)

#### Protectors of Pine Oak Woods, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Edward I. Koch, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Appellants.

In an action for a permanent injunction, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated January 16, 1980, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction "for the relief set forth in the order to show cause” dated January 9, 1980. Order modified by adding thereto immediately after the provision, "the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction for the relief set forth in the order to show cause is granted”, the following: "except plaintiffs’ motion is denied as to the relief requested in paragraphs 'a’ and 'd’ of the January 9, 1980 order to show cause and is further denied as to the relief requested in paragraph 'c’ thereof only insofar as it seeks to enjoin 'the defendants Solomon and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation or their agents or employees from taking any votes or other action which relates to a cancellation of the leases with the City of New York relating to property on Staten Island’.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and it is directed that the issues be disposed of expeditiously. The defendants’ service upon the plaintiffs of a notice of appeal from the order of Special Term granting plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction automatically stayed all proceedings to enforce the order pending the appeal (see CPLR 5519, subd [a], par 1). By order to show cause the plaintiffs moved in this court to vacate the statutory stay. The return date of this motion was advanced from January 21, 1980 to January 17, 1980, at which time the parties stipulated that the argument of the motion should be considered the argument of the appeal. Our modification of Special Term’s order consists of permitting the City of New York to take steps with respect to the consideration of a proposed cancellation of the leases the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation has with the City of New York, but not with respect *943to the sale of the property here involved. The steps we are permitting the City of New York to take will not result in irreparable injury to the plaintiffs and, therefore, a stay as to those steps is not warranted. We do not see how the interests of any of the parties will be harmed by the holding of a public hearing and a vote with respect to a proposed cancellation of the leases. Mollen, P. J., Cohalan, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
#### § 3300.88 Fees for U.S. ATP certificates.

The fee schedule for issuance of U.S. ATP certificates by the U.S. Department of Agriculture will be calculated according to the criteria in Circular A-25[2] , issued by the Office of Management and Budget. Fees may be revised as required on an annual basis.

###### Footnotes -
  3300.88

[2] A copy of Circular A-25 can be obtained by a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 135374 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 135374 COA: 280799 Gratiot CC: 06-005205-FH; COREY A. NELSON, 06-005266-FH Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 26, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0211 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.

February 19, 2008

Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50361

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PROCOPIO RAMIREZ-ISQUIERDO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-690-1

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Procopio Ramirez-Isquierdo has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Ramirez-Isquierdo has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50361 Document: 00513472912 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2016
No. 15-50361

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-50361 Document: 00513472912 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2016
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7901
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE L. BOSTON, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-99-98, CA-00-962) Submitted: March 12, 2003 Decided: March 27, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie L. Boston, III, Appellant Pro Se. OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Willie L. Boston, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s May 31, 2002, order and judgment accepting the magistrate judge’s May 2, 2001, report and recommendation and denying relief on Boston’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and the district court’s October 21, 2002, order denying Boston’s motion for reconsideration and non-publication. We have independently reviewed the record and cannot conclude that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s rulings debatable. Accordingly, we grant Boston’s pending motion for non-publication of this Court’s opinion, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 2003 WL 431659, at *11 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003). 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Joan Roveccio, Appellant, v Ry Management Company, Inc., Respondent.

[816 NYS2d 114]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated May 23, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant, the managing agent for the subject condominium complex, for summary judgment on the ground that it owed her no duty of care. “[0]rdi-narily, breach of a contractual obligation will not be sufficient in and of itself to impose tort liability to noncontracting third parties upon the promisor” *(Church v Callanan Indus.,*99 NY2d 104, 111 [2002]; *see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs.,*98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]; *Felder v R & K Realty,*295 AD2d 560 [2002]). While a duty of care on the part of the managing agent may arise where there is a comprehensive and exclusive management agreement between the agent and the owner which displaces the owner’s duty to safely maintain the premises *(see Palka v Servicemaster Mgt., Servs. Corp.,*83 NY2d 579 [1994]; *Guerrero v Djuko Realty,*300 AD2d 542 [2002]), the agreement at issue in this case is not such a contract, since the owner *563retained substantial control over the management and operation of the property (see *Usman v Alexander’s Rego Shopping Ctr., Inc.,*11 AD3d 450 [2004]; *Hagen v Gilman Mgt. Corp.,*4 AD3d 330 [2004]; *Perkins v Cosmopolitan Care Corp.,*308 AD2d 437 [2003]; *Ingordo v Square Plus Operating Corp.,*276 AD2d 528 [2000]; *Lennon v Oakhurst Gardens Corp.,*229 AD2d 897 [1996]; *Ioannidou v Kingswood Mgt. Corp.,*203 AD2d 248 [1994]).

In view of the foregoing, the plaintiffs remaining contention need not be reached. Ritter, J.P., Mastro, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### Beekman Properties et al., Appellants, v Planning Board of the Town of East Fishkill, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent which denied petitioners’ application for preliminary subdivision approval, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, dated March 1, 1979 and entered in Dutchess County, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Kelly at Special Term. We additionally note that on oral argument, counsel for the appellants raised for the first time the issue of the constitutionality of the respondent’s action. We do not pass upon that issue in this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.
§ 360.600 Preemption of State and local laws. ( a ) Under section 436 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7756), a State or political subdivision of a State may not regulate in foreign commerce any noxious weed in order to control it, eradicate it, or prevent its dissemination. A State or political subdivision of a State also may not impose prohibitions or restrictions upon the movement in interstate commerce of noxious weeds if the Secretary has issued a regulation or order to prevent the dissemination of the noxious weed within the United States. The only exceptions to this are: ( 1 ) If the prohibitions or restrictions issued by the State or political subdivision of a State are consistent with and do not exceed the regulations or orders issued by the Secretary; or
( 2 ) If the State or political subdivision of a State demonstrates to the Secretary and the Secretary finds that there is a special need for additional prohibitions or restrictions based on sound scientific data or a thorough risk assessment.
( b ) Therefore, in accordance with section 436 of the Plant Protection Act, the regulations in this part preempt all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with or exceed the regulations in this part unless a special need request has been granted in accordance with the regulations in §§ 301.1 through 301.13 of this chapter.
[74 FR 53400, Oct. 19, 2009. Redesignated at 75 FR 68955, Nov. 10, 2010]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA DIVISION

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.1:94CR1009-MMP/AK

JOHN RICHARD KNOCK,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to §

2255. Doc. 1117. 

By prior R&R, the Court denied Defendant’s original motion to vacate, and that

decision is now pending appeal before the Eleventh Circuit. The instant motion,

claiming Defendant is actually innocent of the conviction on Count One, conspiracy to

distribute marijuana, based on a recent Eleventh Circuit case. This is similar to issues

raised in the original § 2255 motion.

Defendant is clearly barred from seeking § 2255 relief at this time on his claims. 

He was previously denied § 2255 relief and may not file a second or successive motion

under § 2255 without prior certification from the Eleventh Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § §

Case 1:94-cr-01009-MP-GRJ Document 1118 Filed 08/27/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.1:94cr1009-mmp/ak

2244(b)(3) & 2255. Even then, a second or successive motion will not be allowed

absent newly discovered evidence or “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” §

2255. Defendant has not sought or been granted leave by the appellate court to file a

second or successive motion to vacate, and thus, review is plainly foreclosed here at

this time.

Even if the Court assumes this is merely supplemental authority for issues being

considered now at the court of appeals, the motion should be denied so that Defendant

may rightfully apprise the Eleventh Circuit of his position with regard to the conviction on

Count One.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Doc. 1117, be

DENIED.

IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida, this 27th day of August, 2008.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

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 1:94-cr-01009-MP-GRJ Document 1118 Filed 08/27/08 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO THE 
 FTI CONSULTING, INC. 
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLAN 

(AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF FEBRUARY 20, 2008) 
 WHEREAS, FTI Consulting, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the FTI Consulting, Inc. Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan, amended and restated effective as of February 20, 2008 (the
“Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 11 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the
“Board”) may at any time and from time to time, alter, amend, modify or terminate the Plan in whole or in part; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan, effective as of the date hereof, as set forth herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE,
the Board takes the following action with regard to the Plan: 
 FIRST: Pursuant to Section 11 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby
amended, effective as of the date hereof, by adding a new Section 7.1(e) of the Plan to read in full as follows: 
 “(e) In the
event of a Non-Employee Director’s cessation of service at the expiration of the then-current term of directorship as a member of the Board due to the Company’s failure to re-nominate such Non-Employee Director for service on the Board
(other than for cause (as determined by the Board in its good-faith discretion), or due to the request of such Non-Employee Director, or as a result of a voluntary resignation) or as a result of the Company’s stockholders failing to re-elect
such Non-Employee Director for service on the Board (other than for cause (as determined by the Board in its good-faith discretion)), all unvested shares of Restricted Stock and all unvested Restricted Stock Units will immediately vest in full on
the Termination Date.” 
 SECOND: Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed in all
respects and remains in full force and effect. 
 Final Approved by Board of Directors on 03.31.09 
  

 1
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2527 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2527

    To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide veterans with 
    counseling and treatment for sexual trauma that occurred during 
                        inactive duty training.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2013

   Ms. Titus (for herself, Ms. Meng, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Jones, Ms. 
 Clarke, Ms. Frankel of Florida, Ms. Bonamici, Ms. Esty, Mr. Loebsack, 
   Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Kuster, Ms. 
   Gabbard, and Ms. Sinema) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide veterans with 
    counseling and treatment for sexual trauma that occurred during 
                        inactive duty training.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COUNSELING AND TREATMENT FOR SEXUAL TRAUMA OCCURRING DURING 
              INACTIVE DUTY FOR TRAINING.

    Section 1720D of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``active duty or 
        active duty for training'' and inserting ``active duty, active 
        duty for training, or inactive duty training''; and
            (2) in subsection (f)--
                    (A) by striking ``this section, the'' and inserting 
                the following: ``this section:
    ``(1) The''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following new 
                paragraph:
    ``(2) The term `veteran', with respect to inactive duty training 
described in subsection (a)(1), also includes an individual who--
            ``(A) is not otherwise eligible for the benefits of this 
        chapter; and
            ``(B) while serving in the reserve components of the Armed 
        Forces, performed such inactive duty training but did not serve 
        on active duty.''.
                                 <all>
```
2006-0869.

#### State v. Powell.

Clermont App. No. CA2005-11-102. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
****NIST Special Publication 500-250:****