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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2011 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2011

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a two-year 
      extension of the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2013

  Mr. Delaney (for himself and Mr. Renacci) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a two-year 
      extension of the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education.

    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 ``Veterans' Advisory Committee on 
Education Improvement Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF VETERANS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON 
              EDUCATION.

    Section 3692 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by inserting ``31,'' after ``30,''; and
                    (B) by striking ``and the Persian Gulf War'' and 
                inserting ``the Persian Gulf War, and the post-9/11 
                operations in Iraq and Afghanistan''; and
            (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``December 31, 2013'' 
        and inserting ``December 31, 2015''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

Inconnection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Advanced LifeSciences Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ending March 31,2006 (the “Report”), I, R. Richard Wieland, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 to the extent applicable; and

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
|        | Date: May 11, 2006                    |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |                                       |
|   |                                       |
|   | /s/ R. Richard Wieland                     |
|   | R. Richard Wieland                         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                    |
|   | Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc. |

 

----
ex10_4.htm


    
      

      

    

    AMENDMENT
#1

     

    to
the

     

    COMMERCIAL
SUPPLY AGREEMENT

    (Originally
effective April 5, 2007)

     

    by
and between

     

    Chi
Mei EL Corporation (“CMEL”)

     

    and

     

    Universal
Display Corporation (“UDC”)

    


    


    This
Amendment #1 shall amend and modify, to the extent of any inconsistency, the
provisions of the above-referenced Commercial Supply Agreement (the
“Agreement”).  The effective date of this Amendment #1 is December 31,
2008.

    


    The
Agreement is hereby amended to such that the term of the Agreement shall
continue for one (1) additional year, through December 31,
2009.  Toward this end, the Section 9.1 of the Agreement is hereby
amended and restated as follows:

    


    “Unless
otherwise extended by mutual written agreement of the parties, the term of this
Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue until the
sooner of December 31, 2009, or the date on which this Agreement is terminated
as permitted hereunder.”

    


    Except as
set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.

    


    


    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties by their duly authorized representatives have
agreed to this Amendment #1:

    


    
      
        
          
            	
                    Chi
      Mei EL Corporation

                  	 
      	
                    Universal
      Display Corporation

                  
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                    By:

                  	
                      
      /s/ Sung Soo Park

                  	 
      	
                    By:

                  	
                      
      /s/ Steven V. Abramson

                  
	
                    Name:

                  	
                      
      Sung Soo Park

                  	 
      	
                    Name:

                  	
                      
      Steven V. Abramson

                  
	
                    Title:

                  	
                      
      President

                  	 
      	
                    Title:

                  	
                      
      President

                  
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                    Date:

                  	
                      
      2009.2.26

                  	 
      	
                    Date:

                  	
                      
      March 16, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 4:89cr4033

AARON HOFFMAN

REFERRAL AND ORDER

The motion/pleading was filed by defendant on 05/31/2005 (document #256), and

referred to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill on 05/31/2005.

Summary of motion/pleading: MOTION FOR ORDER OF ABEYANCE

WILLIAM M. MCCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/ Pamela Lourcey

DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER OF COURT

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 10th day of June, 2005, the

requested relief is treated as a motion for additional time and GRANTED. The clerk shall

forward a copy of p. 3 of doc. 255 to Defendant. Defendant may file a reply no later than June

30, 2005, and the clerk shall refer the file to the district judge on that date.

S/ William C. Sherrill

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:89-cr-04033-WS-WCS Document 257 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 1
AMENDMENT
NUMBER ONE


TO THE
JANUARY 1, 2008 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT





This
amendment number one (“Amendment1”), effective as of July 1,
2008 (the “Amendment1 Effective Date”), amends the
Employment Agreement dated January 1, 2008 between Zoo Games, Inc. (f/k/a
Destination Software, Inc.) (“Zoo”) and David Rosenbaum
(“Rosenbaum”), in full
force and effect as of the date hereof (the “EmploymentAgreement”).  This
Amendment 1, when fully executed, shall constitute the further understanding
between the parties with respect to the Employment Agreement, as
follows:





Section 3
(B) (i) of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted.





Except as
expressly or by necessary implication modified or amended by this Amendment 1,
the terms of the Employment Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed without
limitation or exception.  Capitalized terms used in this Amendment 1
and not otherwise defined shall have the same meaning ascribed to them as set
forth in the Employment Agreement.





The
parties hereto have executed this Amendment 1, which shall be effective as of
the Amendment 1 Effective Date.





Zoo
      Games, Inc.By:
                /s/ Susan Kain
                
                /s/ David RosenbaumDavid
      RosenbaumName:
                Susan KainTitle:
                President




Page 1 of
1
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 0666 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 060 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
#### In the Matter of William Brady, Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 17, 1978, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements (see *Robb*v *New York City Housing Auth.,*71 AD2d 1000). Gibbons, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00661

- CV

STATE FARM COUNTY MU TUAL INSURANCE COMPA NY OF TEXAS

, Appellant

v.

Andrew Wayne BOCK

, Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI19802

Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS

, JUSTICE WATKINS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, appellant’s motion to

dismiss this appeal is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a).

Costs of appeal are taxed against appellant. See id. 42.1(d).

SIGNED March 25, 2020.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF YAGER/KUESTER PUBLIC FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR THE
TWELVE MONTH PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          11,928
<SECURITIES>                                   116,065
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,530
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,523
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,490,024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,662,161
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,490,024
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               558,914
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  442,001
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             145,951
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (29,028)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Estes, 7:20cv137

Hacker, 7:20cv131

Keefer, 7:20cv104

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

EXHIBITS ORDER NO. 3

This Order addresses a portion of the parties’ objections to exhibits. The 

Court’s rulings are set forth in the attached Exhibit 1. 

SO ORDERED, on this 26th day of March, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00137-MCR-GRJ Document 127 Filed 03/26/21 Page 1 of 1
#### X-RAY STOVE POLISH CO., Appellant, v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by the X-Ray Stove Polish Company against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company.

No opinion. Judgment modified by striking out the allowance of costs in the judgment, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Set-tie orders on notice.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:02-CR-032-SPM

CAVETTA CORBETT,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant’s “Stipulated

Motion to Continue Hearing” (doc. 116) filed April 28, 2005. Defendant requests

a 30-day continuance in order to resolve the pending state charges underlying

the violation of supervised release. The motion is unopposed. For good cause

shown, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Continue (doc. 116) is hereby granted.

2. The hearing is reset for Monday, June 27, 2005 at 1:30pm at the

United States Courthouse in Tallahassee, Florida. 

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-ninth day of April, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

/pao

Case 4:02-cr-00032-SPM-WCS Document 117 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
24.1
 
 Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 We have
issued our reports dated March 1, 2005, accompanying the financial statements
and schedules and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Theragenics
Corporation ® on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of
Theragenics Corporation ® on Form
S-8, file numbers 333-48136, 333-15313, 333-40737, 333-40653 and
333-64801.
 
 
 /s/
GRANT THORNTON LLP
 GRANT
THORNTON LLP
 
 Atlanta,
Georgia
 March 11,
2005
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29141]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Rescinding the Notice of Intent for an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS): Harrison and Stone Counties, MS

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Rescind Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS.

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

SUMMARY: This notice rescinds the Notice of Intent for preparing an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed highway, State Route 
601, to provide a connection between Interstate 10 at the Canal Road 
Interchange and State Route 26 in the City of Wiggins, Harrison and 
Stone Counties, Mississippi. The original Notice of Intent for this EIS 
process was published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claiborne Barnwell, Project 
Development Team Leader, Federal Highway Administration, Mississippi 
Division, 100 West Capitol Street, Suite 1026, Jackson, Mississippi 
39269, Telephone: (601) 965-4217.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in cooperation with the 
Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) initiated an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with a Notice of Intent August 12, 
2005, to provide a connector road, to be built to interstate standards, 
between Interstate 10 and State Route 26.
    Due to funding constraints the Notice of Intent is rescinded.

Andrew H. Hughes,
Division Administrator, Mississippi, Federal Highway Administration, 
Jackson, Mississippi.
[FR Doc. 2010-29141 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE M
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

Case 3:20-cv-05493-TKW-EMT Document 3 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 3:20-cv-05493-TKW-EMT Document 3 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 2
§ 4279.221 Rights and liabilities. When a guaranteed portion of a loan is sold to a Holder, the Holder will succeed to all rights of the Lender under the Loan Note Guarantee to the extent of the portion purchased. ( a ) The Lender will remain bound to all obligations under the Loan Note Guarantee, Lender's Agreement, and the Agency Program regulations.
( b ) A guarantee and right to require purchase will be directly enforceable by a Holder notwithstanding any fraud or misrepresentation by the Lender or any unenforceability of the guarantee by the Lender, except for fraud or misrepresentation of which the Holder had actual knowledge at the time it became the Holder or in which the Holder participates or condones.
( c ) The Lender must reimburse the Agency for any payments the Agency makes to a Holder of Lender's guaranteed loan that, under the Loan Note Guarantee, would not have been paid to the Lender had the Lender retained the entire interest in the guaranteed loan and not conveyed an interest to a Holder.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7133
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL WENDELL HAIRSTON, a/k/a Godzilla, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:06-cr-00018-jlk) Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 1, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Wendell Hairston, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Wendell Hairston appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for transcripts at government expense and subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Hairston , No. 4:06-cr-00018-jlk (W.D. Va. June 21, 2007 & July 16, 2007). We deny Hairston’s motion for transcripts at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED