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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 343 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 12, 2005.
Whereas on May 16, 2005, the Parliament of the State of Kuwait amended Article 1 
        of the Election Law 35 of 1962, providing female citizens of Kuwait the 
        right to vote and run in the 2007 elections;
Whereas the rights of women are of paramount importance in international human 
        rights, to be respected and promoted regardless of historical, cultural, 
        or religious heritage;
Whereas the active advancement of women's rights throughout the world is and 
        remains an important policy priority of the United States; and
Whereas the Department of State recognizes that the Kuwaiti parliamentary vote 
        of May 16, 2005, was an important step forward for the women of Kuwait 
        and the nation as a whole, and the United States views this step as a 
        positive development on the road to political reform, serving as a 
        positive example for other governments and societies in the region that 
        are on the path to political freedom, inclusion of women, and full 
        democratization: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That House of Representatives--
            (1) commends the Government and Parliament of the State of Kuwait 
        for providing female citizens of Kuwait the right to vote and hold 
        public office;
            (2) urges the full participation of Kuwaiti women in the political 
        life of their country; and
            (3) encourages the Government of Kuwait to continue taking positive 
        steps to achieve full modernization of its political system and lasting 
        democratic reform.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### In the Matter of William R. Phillips, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, as Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

Submitted June 11, 2007;

decided October 23, 2007

Reported below, 41 AD3d 17.

Motion by Santiago Ramirez for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed.
#### Adelaide Barnes, Plaintiff, v New York City Housing Authority et al., Defendants. (And Third-Party Actions.) Geneva Threats et al., Plaintiffs, v New York City Housing Authority, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Defendant. Adel-Fia Contracting, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants. Sears, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent; Professional Floor Covering Installation, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (And Five Other Actions and Third-Party Actions.)

(Action No. 1.)

(Action No. 2.)

Submitted October 29, 2007;

decided December 20, 2007

Reported below, 43 AD3d 842.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the actions within the meaning of the Constitution.
1

Plaintiff's motion for IFP status should be accompanied by a prison account statement from the

account clerk at the Montgomery County Detention Facility showing the average monthly balance in his

prison account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of this complaint and the average

monthly deposits to his account during the past six months. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

HENRY LEE FORD, III, #170 148 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:06-CV-752-MHT

BRENDA PEN, COI, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

O R D E R

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Kilby Correctional Facility in Mt. Meigs,

Alabama, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on August 23, 2006. He has not submitted the

$350.00 filing fee nor has he filed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff,

therefore, shall be granted additional time to provide the court with the information necessary

for a determination of whether he should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this

cause of action. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. On or before September 12, 2006 Plaintiff shall submit either the $350.00 filing

fee or file the appropriate affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.1

 Plaintiff is cautioned that his failure to comply with this Order will result in a

Case 2:06-cv-00752-MHT-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 1 of 2
recommendation by the undersigned that this case be dismissed; and 

2. The Clerk of Court shall MAIL to Plaintiff a form for use in filing a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. 

DONE, this 31st day of August, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00752-MHT-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### Leonard Marsh, Respondent, v. Arthur H. Lee & Sons, Inc., Defendant, and Richard Wheelright, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal, as limited by appellant’s brief, is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 16, 1969, as, on reargument, adhered to the original decision striking out appellant’s answer to the complaint because of appellant’s failure to execute a transcript of its examination before trial, etc. Order reversed insofar as appealed from and respondent’s motion to strike out appellant’s answer denied, on condition that appellant pay respondent $10 costs and disbursements of this appeal, which are hereby awarded, within 10 days after service of a copy of the order hereon with notice of entry. In our opinion, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to strike appellant’s answer, since the requested material was furnished prior to the hearing of the motion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 32
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 32 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 32.55 Same: Quality assurance, prohibition of transfer. ( a ) Each person licensed under § 32.53 shall visually inspect each device and shall reject any that has an observable physical defect that could adversely affect containment of the tritium or promethium-147.
( b ) Each person licensed under § 32.53 shall: ( 1 ) Maintain quality assurance systems in the manufacture of the luminous safety device in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the safety-related components of the distributed devices are capable of performing their intended functions; and
( 2 ) Subject inspection lots to acceptance sampling procedures, by procedures specified in paragraph (c) of this section and in the license issued under § 32.53, to provide at least 95 percent confidence that the Lot Tolerance Percent Defective of 5.0 percent will not be exceeded.
( c ) The licensee shall subject each inspection lot to: ( 1 ) Tests that adequately take into account the individual, aggregate, and cumulative effects of environmental conditions expected in service that could adversely affect the effective containment of tritium or promethium-147, such as absolute pressure and water immersion.
( 2 ) Inspection for evidence of physical damage, containment failure, or for loss of tritium or promethium-147 after each stage of testing, using methods of inspection adequate for applying the following criteria for defective: ( i ) A leak resulting in a loss of 0.1 percent or more of the original amount of tritium or promethium-147 from the device;
( ii ) Levels of radiation in excess of 5 microgray (0.5 millirad) per hour at 10 centimeters from any surface when measured through 50 milligrams per square centimeter of absorber, if the device contains promethium-147; and
( iii ) Any other criteria specified in the license issued under § 32.53.
( d ) No person licensed under § 32.53 shall transfer to persons generally licensed under § 31.7 of this chapter, or under an equivalent general license of an Agreement State: ( 1 ) Any luminous safety device tested and found defective under any condition of a license issued under § 32.53, or paragraph (b) of this section, unless the defective luminous safety device has been repaired or reworked, retested, and determined by an independent inspector to meet the applicable acceptance criteria; or
( 2 ) Any luminous safety device contained within any lot that has been sampled and rejected as a result of the procedures in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, unless: ( i ) A procedure for defining sub-lot size, independence, and additional testing procedures is contained in the license issued under § 32.53; and
( ii ) Each individual sub-lot is sampled, tested, and accepted in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2) and (d)(2)(i) of this section and any other criteria that may be required as a condition of the license issued under § 32.53.
[77 FR 43693, July 25, 2012]
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) of Harvest Capital Credit Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Craig R. Kitchin, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|      | /s/ Craig R. Kitchin
|----- | --------------------
|Name: | Craig R. Kitchin    
|Date: | March 31, 2014
#### Latin Quarter Cafe, Inc., Respondent, v. American Guild of Variety Artists et al., Appellants.

Order, entered February 24, 1969, unanimously reversed and vacated, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, motion for temporary injunction denied, and defendants’ cross motion to dismiss complaint granted. The complaint, in an action by restaurant and nightclub owner-operator seeking injunctive relief in connection with a strike and picketing of its premises, fails to state a cause of action subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The plaintiff has heretofore filed unfair labor practice charges against the defendant, American Guild of Variety Artists, and -its representatives, with the National Labor Relations -Board, charging that the union has coerced and restrained plaintiff’s employees, that it has caused or attempted to cause the plaintiff to discriminate against its employees, and that the union has refused to bargain with the plaintiff. The union has also invoked the jurisdiction of the board by charging the plaintiff with unfair labor practices. Thus, inasmuch as the subject matter of this action involves a labor dispute which is the subject of charges pending before the NLRB, exclusive primary jurisdiction over the matters in controversy belongs to the hoard. This court is preempted from jurisdiction. (See *Dooley*v. *Anton,*8 N Y 2d 91; *San Diego Unions*v. *Garmon,*359 U. S. 236; *Vaca*v. *Sipes,*386 U. S. 171.) Furthermore, under the circumstances, jurisdiction may not be assumed by this court on the theory *754that the strike and picketing has induced certain variety entertainers to breach their individual employment contracts with plaintiff; and we find that there is no merit to plaintiff’s contention that such contracts should be regarded as *“*specialized and unique collective agreements.” 'Concur— Stevens, P. J., Eager, Tilzer, McGivem and Steuer, JJ.
Subpart 1846.1—General

Parent topic: PART 1846—QUALITY ASSURANCE

1846.102 Policy.

(f) See NPR 8735.2, Section 2.1, concerning quality assurance for critical acquisition items.

Generally, the quality assurance requirements set forth in the NPR for critical acquisition items are

not allowed under part 12 procedures. See FAR 12.208.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06mj72-DRB

 )

JOSHUA WAYNE HESTER )

GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR DETENTION HEARING

Comes now the United States of America, by and through Leura

G. Canary, United States Attorney for the Middle District of

Alabama, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3142(e) and (f) moves for a

detention hearing for the above-captioned defendant.

1. Eligibility of Cases

This case is eligible for a detention order because this case

involves:

 X Crime of violence (18 U.S.C. 3156)

Maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death

10 + year drug offense

 Felony, with two prior convictions in the above categories

Serious risk the defendant will flee

 Serious risk of obstruction of justice

2. Reason For Detention

The Court should detain defendant because there are no

conditions of release which will reasonably assure:

 Defendant's appearance as required

 X Safety of any other person and the community

Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/01/2006 Page 1 of 3
3. Rebuttable Presumption

The United States will invoke the rebuttable presumption

against defendant under Section 3142(e). The presumption applies

because:

X Probable cause to believe defendant committed 10 + year

offense involving a minor under 18 U.S.C. 2251

Previous conviction for "eligible" offense committed while

on pretrial bond

A period of five years has not elapsed from defendant's

conviction or release from imprisonment for the offense

described above

4. Time For Detention Hearing

The United States requests the Court conduct the detention

hearing:

 X At the initial appearance

After continuance of 3 days

The Government requests leave of Court to file a supplemental

motion with additional grounds or presumption for detention should

this be necessary.

Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/01/2006 Page 2 of 3
Respectfully submitted this the 1st day of August, 2006.

LEURA G. CANARY 

United States Attorney

/s/K. David Cooke, Jr.

K. DAVID COOKE, JR.

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334)223-7280

Fax: (334)223-7135

E-mail: david.cooke@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/01/2006 Page 3 of 3
The Classified Opinion is currently undergoing 1

classification review. As soon as it is completed, the

Unclassified Opinion will be made public.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

ALLA ALI BIN ALI AHMED, :

et al., :

:

Petitioners, :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 05-1678 (GK) 

 :

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., :

:

Respondents. :

______________________________:

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in this Court’s Classified

Memorandum Opinion of May 4, 2009, it is hereby 1

ORDERED, that Petitioner Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed’s petition for

a writ of habeas corpus is granted; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Government take all necessary and

appropriate diplomatic steps to facilitate Petitioner’s release

forthwith, and to report back to the Court no later than June 15,

2009, as to the status of Petitioner’s release.

 /s/ 

May 5, 2009 Gladys Kessler

United States District Judge

Copies to: Attorneys of Record via ECF
exv10w31









Exhibit 10.31




SECOND AMENDMENT TO NOTE





     This Second Amendment to Note (the “Second Amendment”) is made as of this 12 day of February,
2010 by and between Bank of America, N.A. (the “Bank”) having an office located at 100 Federal
Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110 and iRobot Corporation (the “Borrower”), a Delaware corporation
having an office at 8 Crosby Drive, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730 to that certain Note dated June 5,
2007 executed by the Borrower in favor of the Bank (as amended, the “Note”). Any capitalized terms
not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings designated in the Note.



W I T N
E S S E T H:




     WHEREAS, the Borrower did on June 5, 2007 execute, seal and deliver to the Bank the Note; and



     WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested that the Bank decrease the maximum principal of the Note;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and
valuable consideration, receipt of whereof is hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed by and
between the Borrower and the Bank as follows:




	1.	 	The Note is hereby amended by replacing where applicable the references to “Forty Five
Million Dollars” and “$45,000,000.00” with “Forty Million Dollars” and “$40,000,000.00”.
	 
	2.	 	The Note, as amended hereby, shall remain in full force and effect and all terms hereof are
hereby ratified and confirmed by the Borrower. Except for specifically provided herein, all
other terms and conditions of the Note shall remain in full force and effect.
	 
	3.	 	The Borrower by its execution of this Second Amendment in the space provided below,
represents, warrants and agrees that the Borrower has no claims, defenses, counterclaims or
offsets against the Bank through the date of this Second Amendment in connection with the Note
or any of the other documents executed in connection therewith and, to the extent that any
such claim, defense, counterclaim or offset may exist, the Borrower by its execution of this
Second Amendment in the space provided below, hereby affirmatively WAIVES and RELEASES the
Bank from same.
	 
	4.	 	This Second Amendment shall take effect as a sealed instrument under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts as of the date first above written.
	 
	5.	 	Any and all references to the Note and any instrument previously and now hereafter executed
by the Borrower shall be deemed to refer to the Note as amended by this




-1-









 






	 	 	 Second Amendment and
any future amendments hereafter entered into between the Borrower and the Bank.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment as of the date and
year first above written as a sealed instrument.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	WITNESS:	 	 	 	iROBOT CORPORATION	 	 
	/s/ Paul Tavalone
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ John Leahy	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Chief Financial Officer	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Richard Macdonald	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Senior Vice President	 	 






-2-
Exhibit
32





Certification


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)








Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of FNB United Corp., a North Carolina corporation (the
“Corporation”), does hereby certify that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Corporation
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Corporation.








Date:   May
      8, 2009
                /s/Michael
      C. MillerMichael
      C. MillerChief
      Executive OfficerDate:   May
      8, 2009
                /s/Mark
      A. SeversonMark
      A. SeversonChief
      Financial Officer








The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate
disclosure document.
2103.571 Contract clause.       The clause at 2152.203-70 shall be inserted in FEGLI Program contracts and in subcontracts.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2103.5 - Other Improper Business Practices
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the cita tion of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion ma y contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 CITY OF RIO RANCHO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 29,998 9 DALE FROST, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY 12 John F. Davis, District Judge 13 City of Rio Rancho 14 James C. Babin, City Attorney 15 Gina R. Manfredi, Assistant City Attorney 16 Rio Rancho, NM 17 for Appellee 18 Jay R. Mueller 19 Albuquerque, NM 20 for Appellant 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 FRY, Chief Judge. 23 This Court’s calendar notice filed on January 13, 2010, proposed summary 24 affirmance. On February 2, 2010, Plainti ff City of Rio Rancho (the City) filed a 252 memorandum in support of the proposed summary affirmance set forth in the calendar 1 notice. Defendant has not filed a memo randum in opposition, and the time for doing 2 so has passed. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in this Court’s calendar notice, 3 we affirm the order of dismissal and th e order denying the motion to reconsider. 4 AFFIRMED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

7 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 8 WE CONCUR: 9

10 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 11

12 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 13
#### § 171.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval

This part contains no information collection requirements and therefore is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*).

[62 FR 52191, Oct. 6, 1997]
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BRADLEY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 18, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Alfred Bradley (true name Alexander Roworth). A. Caruthers, of New York City, for G. *Z.*of New York City, for the People.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed. Order filed.
§ 1800.11 Definitions. The definitions contained in Article II of the Compact and Article I.B. of the Commission's By Laws shall apply throughout this part. For the purposes of this part, additional terms are defined as follows: ( a ) *By Laws* refers to the Commission's By Laws as adopted and amended by the Commission pursuant to Article IV.c. and Article IV.i.(7) of the Compact, most recently amended on December 10, 1998, and dated July 1999;
( b ) *Person* means an individual, corporation, business enterprise or other legal entity, either public or private, and expressly includes states;
( c ) *Nuclear power station* means any facility holding a license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR Part 50.
( d ) *Existing party states* means Connecticut and New Jersey collectively.