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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 102 

To provide grants to States to combat methamphetamine abuse. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005 

Mr. TALENT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide grants to States to combat methamphetamine 

abuse. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Exile Meth Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF GRANT PROGRAM FOR COM6 BATING METHAMPHETAMINE REPEAT OF7 FENDERS. 

8 The Attorney General shall establish a program that 

9 provides grants to qualified States for combating the prob10 lem of methamphetamine abuse, with a specific focus on 

11 the prosecution of repeat offenders. 
2 

•S 102 IS

1 SEC. 3. DEFINITION. 

2 As used in this Act, the term ‘‘qualified State’’ means 

3 a State that— 

4 (1) had more than 200 methamphetamine lab 

5 seizures in 2004, as reported by the National Clan6 destine Laboratory Database; and 

7 (2) has a law that provides that a person who 

8 possesses or distributes 5 grams or more of meth9 amphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its iso10 mers, or 50 grams or more of a mixture or sub11 stance containing a detectable amount of meth12 amphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its iso13 mers, qualifies for a mandatory minimum sentence, 

14 without the possibility of probation or parole, of 5 

15 to 40 years for a first offense, 10 years to life for 

16 a second offense, and life for a third offense. 

17 SEC. 4. DISTRIBUTION OF GRANT AMOUNTS. 

18 The Attorney General shall distribute grants author19 ized under this Act to 2 States. 

20 SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION. 

21 The Attorney General shall prescribe requirements, 

22 including application requirements, for grants under the 

23 program established under this Act. 
3 

•S 102 IS

1 SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appro3 priated $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 and 

4 2007 to carry out this Act. 

5 (b) AVAILABILITY.—Amounts appropriated pursuant 

6 to the authorization of appropriations in subsection (a) 

7 shall remain available until expended. 

Æ
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00392-CV

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,

Appellant

v.

SEAN D. FLEMING,

Appellee

From the 378th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 88611

ORDER

Appellant is incarcerated. This is one of four interlocutory appeals in which 

appellant is acting as his own counsel.1 He contends that due to his incarceration, he does 

not have adequate access to information and legal resources. He requests a stay in two 

of his appeals until he has adequate access to the information and legal resources needed 

to handle his appeals. By this order, we also address, on our own motion, the advisability 

 

1 See 10-14-00355-CV, Windsor v. Round; 10-15-00069-CV, Windsor v. McDougald; 10-15-00092-CV, Windsor v. 

Joeyisalittlekid, et. al.
Windsor v. Fleming Page 2

of a stay in the other two pending appeals in addition to the two in which motions were 

filed.

Appellant does not contend he is indigent or that he cannot hire counsel to 

represent him in this appeal. 

A stay of this appeal is granted in part. Appellant cannot, however, use his own 

incarceration as a means to indefinitely delay the disposition of this proceeding. This 

appeal is stayed for 35 days. During this time, appellant may deal with his incarceration 

or hire counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. This appeal will be reinstated 

automatically after the expiration of 35 days and will proceed under the timetable 

required in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and as scheduled by the Court, with 

or without retained counsel by appellant. After reinstatement, lack of access to the 

information and legal resources needed to handle his appeal will not be considered as 

grounds to further delay the timely disposition of this proceeding. Moreover, appellant’s 

incarceration cannot be used as an excuse to delay this appeal any longer.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Stay granted

Order issued and filed April 2, 2015
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,297-01

EX PARTE CLYDE LAVERNE FISHER, III, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CM-14-527 A IN THE 369TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM LEON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to engaging in

organized criminal activity, and was sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal

his conviction. 

Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary because he was advised incorrectly

regarding parole eligibility. Apparently, neither his trial counsel nor the trial prosecutor was aware

of a recent change in the law adding engaging in organized criminal activity to the list of offenses
2

for which an inmate must serve at least one-half of his sentence in flat time before becoming eligible

for parole. Applicant alleges that parole eligibility was a primary concern for him during plea

negotiations, and that he was incorrectly advised that he would be eligible for parole when his flat

time plus his good time added up to one-quarter of his sentence. Applicant alleges that he would not

have agreed to plead guilty in exchange for an eighteen-year sentence had he known that he would

have to serve one-half of the sentence in flat time before becoming eligible for parole. 

Applicant’s trial counsel and the trial prosecutor both acknowledge that they were unaware

of the change in the law, and the parties agree that Applicant should be allowed to withdraw his plea. 

The trial court recommends that relief be granted. 

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. CM-14-527-A in the 369th District Court of

Leon County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Leon County

to answer the charges as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench

warrant within 10 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to theTexasDepartment of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: July 27, 2016

Do not publish
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 117.335 Special requirements applicable to a written assurance. ( a ) Any written assurance required by this part must contain the following elements: ( 1 ) Effective date;
( 2 ) Printed names and signatures of authorized officials;
( 3 ) The applicable assurance under: ( i ) Section 117.136(a)(2);
( ii ) Section 117.136(a)(3);
( iii ) Section 117.136(a)(4);
( iv ) Section 117.430(c)(2);
( v ) Section 117.430(d)(2); or
( vi ) Section 117.430(e)(2);
( b ) A written assurance required under § 117.136(a)(2), (3), or (4) must include: ( 1 ) Acknowledgement that the facility that provides the written assurance assumes legal responsibility to act consistently with the assurance and document its actions taken to satisfy the written assurance; and
( 2 ) Provision that if the assurance is terminated in writing by either entity, responsibility for compliance with the applicable provisions of this part reverts to the manufacturer/processor as of the date of termination.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, David H. Thompson, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1.

To my knowledge, this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.

To my knowledge, the information in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of International Absorbents Inc.



|                         |                                                                             
|------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |                                                                             
|Date: September 11, 2009 | /s/ DAVID H. THOMPSON
David H. ThompsonSecretary and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 1003.5 Effect of regulations on other laws.

The remedies provided for in this subchapter shall be in addition to and not in substitution for any other remedies provided by law and shall not relieve any person from liability at common law or under statutory law.
** **

**Exhibit 21**

 

**SUBSIDIARIESOF SYSTEMAX INC.**

 

DomesticSubsidiaries

 

GlobalComputer Supplies Inc. (a New York corporation)

 

GlobalEquipment Company Inc. (a New York corporation)

 

TigerDirect Inc. (a Florida corporation)

 

NexelIndustries Inc. (a New York corporation)

 

SystemaxManufacturing Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

 

ProfitCenter Software Inc. (a New York corporation)

 

GlobalGov’t/Education Solutions, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

 

PapierCatalogues Inc. (a New York corporation)

 

MiscoAmerica Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

 

MillenniumFalcon Corp. (a Delaware corporation)

 

SystemaxServices Inc. (a New York corporation)

 

SYXDistribution (a Delaware corporation)

 

OnRebate.com(a Delaware corporation)

 

UltraProducts Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

 

MiscoGermany Inc. (a New York corporation)

 

CompUSARealty Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

 

CompUSA.comInc. (a Florida corporation)

 

NewSAH Corp. (a Delaware corporation)

 

1

----

 

# Foreign Subsidiaries

 

MiscoItaly Computer Supplies S.P.A. (an Italian corporation)

 

HC S Global SA (a French corporation)

 

SystemaxEurope Ltd. (a U.K. corporation)

 

MiscoNetherlands BV (a Dutch corporation)

 

MiscoAB (a Swedish corporation)

 

MiscoIberia Computer Supplies S.A. (a Spanish corporation)

 

2

----
FDMS Docket No. FAA-2012-0041

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 6/23/11

Regional Airline Association Connie

Arnold

6/23/11

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 6/23/11

ATA Joe White 6/23/11
Exhibit 4.12(a)







Addendum No. 1 to the Service Agreement, dated February 1, 2014


Dated and Signed April 4, 2017







	
BETWEEN:

	
E-Com Global Electronic Commerce Ltd


Private Company No. 512691767

	 
	 	
Of: 3 Hashikma Street, Azor

	 
	 	
(hereinafter: "the Company")

	
Party of the First Part;


	
AND:

	
Mr. Gil Sheratzky

	 
	 	
I.D. No. 035727957

	 
	 	
Of: 14 Dulchin St, Tel Aviv

	 
	 	
(hereinafter: "Gil")

	
Party of the Second Part;


	
AND:

	
Zero-To-One S.B.L. Investments LTD

	 
	 	
Private Company No. 515048031

	 
	 	
Of: 10 Kdishe Ha'shoa St. Tel Aviv

	 
	 	
(hereinafter: "the Service Provider")

	
Party of the Third Part;





 



	WHEREAS:	
the Company and the Service Provider and Gil have entered into a Service Agreement dated February 1, 2014 (hereinafter: "the Agreement").







 



	
AND WHEREAS:

	
the parties wish to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional term of three years;







 


THEREFORE, THE PARTIES DECLARED, AGREED AND STIPULATED AS FOLLOWS:


 


According to Section 6.1 to the Agreement, the term of the Agreement shall be extended for additional three years, starting from February 1, 2017.


 


        AND IN WITNESS THEREOF THE PARTIES HAVE AFFIXED THEIR SIGNATURES:












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


GIL                                       THE COMPANY












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


THE EMPLOYER
§ 1309.36 Amendments to and withdrawals of applications. ( a ) An application may be amended or withdrawn without permission of the Administration at any time before the date on which the applicant receives an order to show cause pursuant to § 1309.46. An application may be amended or withdrawn with permission of the Administrator at any time where good cause is shown by the applicant or where the amendment or withdrawal is in the public interest.
( b ) After an application has been accepted for filing, the request by the applicant that it be returned or the failure of the applicant to respond to official correspondence regarding the application, including a request that the applicant submit the required fee, when sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, shall be deemed to be a withdrawal of the application.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Fitzpatrick, Overton and Senior Judge Hodges Argued at Salem, Virginia

STEVEN BRENTLY PARKER MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1721-95-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON JULY 2, 1996 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge John Varney, Assistant Public Defender (Office of the Public Defender, on brief), for appellant. Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. Steven Brently Parker was convicted of grand larceny under Code § 18.2-95 for stealing the handset of a cordless phone unit. He appeals on the grounds that the Commonwealth did not prove that the value of the stolen property was $200 or more, and that the evidence therefore does not support a conviction of grand larceny. "Generally, the opinion testimony of the owner of personal property is competent and admissible on the question of the value of such property, regardless of the owner's knowledge of property

values." Walls v. Commonwealth , 248 Va. 480, 482, 450 S.E.2d 363, 364 (1994); Haynes v. Glenn , 197 Va. 746, 750, 91 S.E.2d 433, 436 (1956).- 2 - Upon review of the record, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom, we cannot say that the ruling below was plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence. Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed. Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 21.1 SUBSIDIARIES Jurisdiction OfName
    
    OrganizationClare Canada, Ltd.
    
    CanadaClare Capital, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Components, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Electronics, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare France S.A.R.L.
    
    FranceClare, Inc.
    
    MassachusettsClare Instruments, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Micronix Integrated Systems, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaClare N.V.
    
    BelgiumClare Services, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Systems, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Technologies, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Technologies (Taiwan), Inc.
    
    TaiwanC.P. Clare Electronics GmbH
    
    GermanyC.P. Clare Foreign Sales Corporation
    
    DelawareC.P. Clare International N.V.
    
    NetherlandsC.P. Clare Mexicana S.A. de C.V.
    
    MexicoDirected Energy, Inc.
    
    ColoradoIXYS Berlin GmbH
    
    GermanyIXYS CH GmbH
    
    SwitzerlandIXYS Holdings Ltd.
    
    United KingdomIXYS Korea Ltd.
    
    South KoreaIXYS Semiconductor, B.V.
    
    NetherlandsIXYS Semiconductor GmbH
    
    GermanyIXYS UK Ltd.
    
    United KingdomIXYS Unterstuetzungseinrichtung GmbH
    
    GermanyIXYS USA, Inc.
    
    DelawareMicrowave Technology, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaWestcode Industries Ltd.
    
    United KingdomWestcode Semiconductors, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaWestcode Semiconductors, Ltd.
    
    United Kingdom
May 30, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

SHAWN DUNN , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00292

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

______________________ __________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. We further order appellant pay all costs e xpended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Societe Generale ISDA Amendment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.4 
 AMENDMENT AGREEMENT 
 AMENDMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment Agreement”), dated as of
July 21, 2006 between Societe Generale, New York Branch (“Party A”) and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (“Party B”). All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the respective meanings provided
in the ISDA Master Agreement referred to below. 
 W I T N E S S E T H:

 WHEREAS, Party A and Party B are parties to an ISDA Master Agreement, dated as of February 25, 2005 (as amended, modified or
supplemented from time to time, the “Master Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, Party A and Party B wish to amend the Master Agreement as
herein provided; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed: 
 1. Part 1(i)(i) of the Schedule to the Master Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the words “Credit Agreement dated as of February 25, 2005” and substituting the words “First Amended and
Restated Credit Agreement dated as of July 21, 2006” in lieu thereof. 
 2. Part 5(e)(vi) of the Schedule to the Master Agreement
is hereby amended by deleting the word “Nominal” and substituting the word “Notional” in lieu thereof. 
 3. This
Amendment Agreement is limited as specified and shall not constitute a modification, acceptance or waiver of any other provision of the Master Agreement. 
 4. This Amendment Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by the different parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which counterparts when executed and delivered shall be an original, but
all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument. A complete set of counterparts shall be lodged with Party A and Party B. 
 5. This Amendment Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of New York (without reference to choice of law doctrine). 
 6. This Amendment Agreement shall become effective on the date when Party A and Party B shall have signed a copy hereof (whether the same or different
copies) and delivered (including by way of telecopier) the same to each other. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused a counterpart of this Amendment Agreement to be
duly executed and delivered as of the date first above written. 
  

									
	 SOCIETE GENERALE,
 NEW YORK
BRANCH
	 		 	SABINE PASS LNG, L.P.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Leon Valera
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Graham McArthur

	Name:	 	Leon Valera	 		 	Name:	 	Graham McArthur
	Title:	 	Director	 		 	Title:	 	Treasurer
§ 1311.150 Additional requirements for internal application audits. ( a ) The application provider must establish and implement a list of auditable events. Auditable events must, at a minimum, include the following: ( 1 ) Attempted unauthorized access to the electronic prescription application, or successful unauthorized access where the determination of such is feasible.
( 2 ) Attempted unauthorized modification or destruction of any information or records required by this part, or successful unauthorized modification or destruction of any information or records required by this part where the determination of such is feasible.
( 3 ) Interference with application operations of the prescription application.
( 4 ) Any setting of or change to logical access controls related to the issuance of controlled substance prescriptions.
( 5 ) Attempted or successful interference with audit trail functions.
( 6 ) For application service providers, attempted or successful creation, modification, or destruction of controlled substance prescriptions or logical access controls related to controlled substance prescriptions by any agent or employee of the application service provider.
( b ) The electronic prescription application must analyze the audit trail at least once every calendar day and generate an incident report that identifies each auditable event.
( c ) Any person designated to set logical access controls under §§ 1311.125 or 1311.130 must determine whether any identified auditable event represents a security incident that compromised or could have compromised the integrity of the prescription records. Any such incidents must be reported to the electronic prescription application provider and the Administration within one business day.
§ 121.150 Food defense verification. ( a ) *Food defense verification activities.* Food defense verification activities must include, as appropriate to the nature of the mitigation strategy and its role in the facility's food defense system: ( 1 ) Verification that food defense monitoring is being conducted as required by § 121.138 (and in accordance with § 121.140);
( 2 ) Verification that appropriate decisions about food defense corrective actions are being made as required by § 121.138 (and in accordance with § 121.145);
( 3 ) Verification that mitigation strategies are properly implemented and are significantly minimizing or preventing the significant vulnerabilities. To do so, you must conduct activities that include the following, as appropriate to the facility, the food, and the nature of the mitigation strategy and its role in the facility's food defense system: ( i ) Review of the food defense monitoring and food defense corrective actions records within appropriate timeframes to ensure that the records are complete, the activities reflected in the records occurred in accordance with the food defense plan, the mitigation strategies are properly implemented, and appropriate decisions were made about food defense corrective actions; and
( ii ) Other activities appropriate for verification of proper implementation of mitigation strategies; and
( 4 ) Verification of reanalysis in accordance with § 121.157.
( b ) *Written procedures.* You must establish and implement written procedures, including the frequency for which they are to be performed, for verification activities conducted according to § 121.150(a)(3)(ii).
( c ) *Documentation.* All verification activities conducted in accordance with this section must be documented in records.