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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 160 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
H. J. RES. 160

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  provide that Federal judges be reconfirmed by the Senate every six 
                                 years.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 1996

Mr. Hayes introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  provide that Federal judges be reconfirmed by the Senate every six 
                                 years.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Except as provided in section 2, no person may serve 
more than six years as a judge of a court created by Act of Congress, 
except with the consent of the Senate, given within the first year at 
the beginning of each successive six-year period after the judge first 
takes office.
    ``Sec. 2. For purposes of this article, any person who first took 
office as a judge of a court created by Act of Congress before the 
adoption of this article shall be divided into three classes. The first 
class, those judges who have twelve or more years of service, shall be 
subject to reconfirmation by the Senate within the first year following 
the adoption of this article. The second class, any person who first 
took office as a judge no fewer than five nor more than twelve years 
before the adoption of this article, shall be subject to reconfirmation 
by the Senate within the second year following the adoption of this 
article. The third class, all other judges, shall be reconfirmed by the 
Senate within the first 365 days at the beginning of each successive 
six-year period after the judge first took office.
                                 <all>
```
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1017

CHARLES W. PARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.

Charles W. Parker , of Durham, North Ca rolina, pro se.

Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr.NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1017 CHARLES W. PARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.

______ ____________________ DECIDED: January 10, 2007

______ ____________________ Before LOURIE, LINN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Charles W. Parker (“Parker”) appeals a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia di smissing his patent infringement action against Microsoft Corporation as frivolous. Parker v. Microsoft Corp. , No. 06-CV-00540 (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2006). We re view a district court’s friv olousness determination for an abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernadez , 504 U.S. 24, 32 (1992). Parker’s allegations that he has patented the “elemental atom” and that Microsoft has infringed his rights by using and improperly claiming inventorship of such an invention are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and “delusional” cont entions supporting the district court’s determination. Id. at 33-34. On appeal, Parker provides us wit h no persuasive basis to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in di smissing the action. We affirm.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 39 Agreed to House (ATH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 39

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding Federal disaster relief.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 1995

  Mr. Emerson (for himself, Mr. Mineta, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
   Dreier, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and Mr. Calvert) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                             March 14, 1995

 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure discharged; considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding Federal disaster relief.

Whereas catastrophic natural disasters are occurring with greater frequency, a 
        trend that is likely to continue for several decades according to 
        prominent scientists;
Whereas the Federal Government has responded to disasters by appropriating 
        relief funds, which provide only short-term assistance to victims but 
        long-term burdens to taxpayers; and
Whereas the increasing reliance on Federal disaster relief has overshadowed the 
        need to perform more comprehensive disaster planning and rely on private 
        insurance for protection against disaster risks: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) persons who live in areas at high risk to natural 
        disasters should assume more responsibility for their actions 
        by insuring against such risks in order to minimize the rising 
        cost of Federal disaster relief;
            (2) sensible, cost-effective disaster mitigation programs 
        should be encouraged and enhanced at the State and local level;
            (3) insurers should create a privately funded pooling 
        mechanism for the spreading of disaster risk in order to 
        encourage the continued availability and affordability of 
        private insurance in all parts of the Nation; and
            (4) a fundamental overhaul of Federal disaster policies 
        should be undertaken to reduce costs to taxpayers and encourage 
        more effective partnerships between the private sector and 
        government at all levels in anticipation of future 
        catastrophes.
                                 <all>
```
§ 49.4291-1 Persons receiving payment must collect tax. Except as otherwise provided in section 4263(a), every person receiving any payment for facilities or services on which a tax is imposed upon the payor thereof under chapter 33 shall collect the amount of the tax from the person making that payment. Under section 7501, all taxes collected in this manner are held by the collecting agent in trust for the United States. If the person from whom the tax is required to be collected refuses to pay it or if for any reason it is impossible for the collecting agent to collect the tax from that person, the collecting agent is required to report to the Commissioner the name and address of that person, the nature of the facility provided or service rendered, the amount paid therefore, and the date on which paid. Applicable October 1, 2004, this report must be made on or before the report due date. Upon receipt of this report the Commissioner will proceed against the person to whom the facilities were provided or the services rendered to assert the amount of tax due, affording that person the same conference, protest, and appellate rights as are available to other excise taxpayers. In addition, when a field or office audit of a collecting agent's records, or of a taxpayer's records, discloses that the collecting agent failed during prior reporting periods to collect taxes due, the Commissioner may assert those taxes directly against the person to whom the facilities were provided or the services rendered, whether or not the collecting agent had attempted collection or the person liable for the tax had refused payment thereof. For purposes of this section, the report due date is— ( a ) In the case of a person using the alternative method of making deposits described in § 40.6302(c)-3 of this chapter, the due date of the return on which the item of adjustment relating to the uncollected tax would be reflected if items of adjustment were determined without regard to the limitation in § 40.6302(c)-3 of this chapter; and
( b ) In any other case, the due date of the return on which the tax would have been reported but for the refusal to pay or inability to collect.
[T.D. 8685, 61 FR 58007, Nov. 12, 1996, as amended by T.D. 9051, 68 FR 15942, Apr. 2, 2003; T.D. 9149, 69 FR 48394, Aug. 10, 2004; T.D. 9221, 70 FR 49870, Aug. 25, 2005]
#### § 26.2611-1 Generation-skipping transfer defined.

A generation-skipping transfer (GST) is an event that is either a direct skip, a taxable distribution, or a taxable termination. See § 26.2612-1 for the definition of these terms. The determination as to whether an event is a GST is made by reference to the most recent transfer subject to the estate or gift tax. See § 26.2652-1(a)(2) for determining whether a transfer is subject to Federal estate or gift tax.
#### Town of Riverhead, Respondent, v Bruce R. Madonna et al., Defendants. Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc., Nonparty Appellant. (Matter No. 1.) In the Matter of Bruce Madonna et al., Petitioners, v Town of Riverhead et al., Respondents. (Matter No. 2.)

[804 NYS2d 251]

In an action pursuant to Town Law § 268 (2) to enjoin certain construction on residential real property in the Town of Riverhead (matter No. 1), and in a related hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Riverhead dated August 20, 2002, reaffirming an earlier acceptance of a certain road as a town highway, and for a judgment declaring, among other things, that the Town of Riverhead had no right, title, or interest in the subject road (matter No. 2), the nonparty Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), entered February 6, 2004, as granted that branch of the motion of the Town of Riverhead, made in matter No. 1, which was to impose costs and sanctions against it pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, imposed a sanction upon it in the sum of $5,000, to be paid to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, directed it to pay an attorney’s fee in the sum of $9,900 to the Town of Riverhead, and, in effect, denied its motion for recusal and to deem the motion of the Town of Riverhead for costs and sanctions to be abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48.

Ordered that the order and judgment is modified, on the facts, on the law, and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the first, second, third, and fifth decretal paragraphs thereof and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the *376motion of the Town of Riverhead, made in matter No. 1, which was to impose costs and sanctions against the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in directing the appellant to pay an attorney’s fee and a sanction pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 *(see Gottlieb v Gottlieb,*291 AD2d 532 [2002]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Dillon, JJ., concur.
Ex-10.17 First Amendment to ResortQuest Long-Term



 





Exhibit 10.17




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

RESORTQUEST INTERNATIONAL, INC.

AMENDED AND RESTATED 1998 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

(the “Plan”)





	1.	 	Section 4(c) of the Plan is amended to read as follows:






     (c) Adjustments. In the event that any unusual or non-recurring transaction,
including an unusual or non-recurring dividend or other distribution (whether in the form of
an extraordinary cash dividend, dividend of Stock or other property), recapitalization,
forward or reverse split, reorganization, merger, consolidation, spin-off, combination,
repurchase or exchange of Stock or other securities, liquidation, dissolution, or other
similar corporate transaction or event, affects the Stock, then the Committee shall, in an
equitable and proportionate manner, adjust any or all of (i) the number and kind of shares
of Stock reserved and available for Awards under Section 4(a), including shares reserved for
the ISOs and Restricted and Deferred Stock, (ii) the number and kind of shares of Stock
specified in the Annual Per-Participant Limitations under Section 4(b), (iii) the number and
kind of shares of outstanding Restricted Stock or other outstanding Award in connection with
which shares have been issued, (iv) the number and kind of shares that may be issued in
respect of other outstanding Awards and (v) the exercise price, grant price or purchase
price relating to any Award (or, if deemed appropriate, the Committee may make provision for
a cash payment with respect to any outstanding Award). In addition, the Committee is
authorized to make equitable and proportionate adjustments in the terms and conditions of,
and the criteria included in, Awards in recognition of unusual or nonrecurring events
(including, without limitation, events described in the preceding sentence) affecting the
Company or any subsidiary or the financial statements of the Company or any subsidiary, or
in response to changes in applicable laws, regulations, or accounting principles. The
foregoing notwithstanding, no adjustments shall be authorized under this Section 4(c) with
respect to ISOs or SARs in tandem therewith to the extent that such authority would cause
the Plan to fail to comply with Section 422(b)(1) of the Code, and no such adjustment shall
be authorized with respect to Options, SARs or other Awards subject to Section 7(f) to the
extent that such authority would cause such Awards to fail to qualify as “qualified
performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m)(4)(C) of the Code.


Adopted February 7, 2007.
§ 54.9825-2T Applicability (temporary). ( a ) *In general.* The requirements in §§ 54.9825-4T through 54.9825-6T apply to group health plans (including grandfathered health plans as defined in § 54.9815-1251), except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Exceptions.* The requirements in §§ 54.9825-4T through 54.9825-6T do not apply to the following: ( 1 ) Excepted benefits as described in § 54.9831-1(c).
( 2 ) Short-term, limited-duration insurance as defined in § 54.9801-2.
( 3 ) Health reimbursement arrangements or other account-based group health plans as described in § 54.9815-2711(d).
[T.D. 9958, 86 FR 66696, Nov. 23, 2021]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Marcello Runco, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 770]

Mercure, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 3, 2004, which, inter alia, suspended claimant’s right to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to an industrial controversy.

The underlying facts of this matter are set forth in our decision in *Matter of Juncaj [Commissioner of Labor],*23 AD3d 777*777[2005] [decided herewith]). As in that case, claimant appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that (1) suspended his right to receive benefits on the ground that his separation from employment was the result of an industrial controversy, (2) charged him with a recoverable overpayment and (3) reduced his right to receive future benefits by eight days because he made a willful misrepresentation to obtain benefits. Upon claimant’s appeal, we affirm for the reasons stated in *Matter of Juncaj (Commissioner of Labor) (supra) (see Matter of Reardon [Commissioner of Labor],*16 AD3d 859, 860-861 [2005]; *Matter of Spangler [Commissioner of Labor],*7 AD3d 848, 849 [2004]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          21,462
<SECURITIES>                                    81,445
<RECEIVABLES>                                  170,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    264,782
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               791,390
<PP&E>                                         435,142
<DEPRECIATION>                               (226,336)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,188,702
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,738,082<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,188
<OTHER-SE>                                   (599,429)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,188,702
<SALES>                                        187,848
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               187,848
<CGS>                                           98,936
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  569,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (48,448)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (430,028)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (431,628)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
<FN>
<F1>Notes payable to stockholders of $1,484,209 are convertible to units of 
common stock at the option of the noteholders over various dates through 
September 30, 1997.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 82 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 82

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 relating to the terms of office of Senators, Representatives, and the 
                     President and Vice President.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 1995

   Mr. Mascara introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 relating to the terms of office of Senators, Representatives, and the 
                     President and Vice President.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The term of office of a Representative in Congress 
shall be four years.
    ``Section 2. No person who has been elected to the Senate two times 
shall thereafter be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate. 
No person who has been elected to the House of Representatives a total 
of three four-year terms, shall thereafter be eligible for election to 
the House of Representatives.
    ``Section 3. For the purposes of determining eligibility for 
election under section 2, service of more than three years of a Senate 
term to which some other person was elected, or service of more than 
two years of a House term, shall count as an election.
    ``Section 4. No election or service occurring before this article 
becomes operative shall be taken into account when determining 
eligibility for election under this article.
    ``Section 5. The term of office of President and Vice President 
shall be six years. No person who has been elected President or Vice 
President for a six-year term shall thereafter be eligible for election 
to the office of President or Vice President.
    ``Section 6. This article shall apply with respect to terms of 
office beginning more than one year after the date of the ratification 
of this article.''.
                                 <all>
```