alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
www.gpo.gov

### §11. Disposition of certificates

The electors shall dispose of the certificates so made by them and the lists attached thereto in the following manner:

First. They shall forthwith forward by registered mail one of the same to the President of the Senate at the seat of government.

Second. Two of the same shall be delivered to the secretary of state of the State, one of which shall be held subject to the order of the President of the Senate, the other to be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection.

Third. On the day thereafter they shall forward by registered mail two of such certificates and lists to the Archivist of the United States at the seat of government, one of which shall be held subject to the order of the President of the Senate. The other shall be preserved by the Archivist of the United States for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection.

Fourth. They shall forthwith cause the other of the certificates and lists to be delivered to the judge of the district in which the electors shall have assembled.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 674; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, §7, 65 Stat. 712; Pub. L. 98–497, title I, §107(e)(1), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2291.)

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–497 substituted “Archivist of the United States” for “Administrator of General Services” two places in par. “Third”.

1951—Act Oct. 31, 1951, substituted “Administrator of General Services” for “Secretary of State” two places in par. “Third”.

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–497 effective Apr. 1, 1985, see section 301 of Pub. L. 98–497, set out as a note under section 2102 of Title 44, Public Printing and Documents.

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in section 12 of this title.
40702.

#### PARRISH v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was tried and convicted under an indictment charging him with driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquors. Thereafter, his motion for new trial based on the usual general grounds only was overruled, and error is assigned on such adverse judgment. *Held:*

The evidence adduced on the trial of the case authorized the finding that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicants to the extent that it was less safe for him to operate the automobile than if he had not been under such influence, and, while the State did not present direct evidence that the defendant operated the motor vehicle, there was circumstantial evidence adduced to authorize the finding that he had driven the motor vehicle minutes before he was arrested. Unlike the case of *Spence v. State,*96 Ga. App. 851 (102 SE2d 51), here the defendant was found under the steering wheel and *809the testimony as to whether there was anyone else in the automobile was conflicting. In *Ray v. State,*91 Ga. App. 16 (84 SE2d 591), *Gunder v. State,*95 Ga. App. 176 (97 SE2d 381), and *Painter v. State,*101 Ga. App. 21 (112 SE2d 704), the defendants were not seen operating the automobile, and the period of time between the operation of the vehicle and the arrival of the arresting officers was not shown. In the present case the officer who testified that he saw the motor vehicle in operation (with apparently only one person occupying the same), and that he found the defendant under the steering wheel in an intoxicated condition, did testify as to the events which transpired during such period (he drove approximately a quarter of a mile beyond such vehicle, turned around, drove back by the parked vehicle and after driving approximately five hundred feet beyond the vehicle again, he turned around and returned to the vehicle where the arrest was made). The evidence authorized the verdict and the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial.

Decided May 18, 1964

Rehearing denied June 9, 1964.

*Joseph J. Gaines,*for plaintiff in error.

*Preston M. Almand, Solicitor,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Russell, JJ., concur.*
#### In the Matter of the Assignment of Riley A. Brick to Robert Campbell for the Benefit of Creditors.

[Special Term].

(Decided November, 1885).

The provision of section 2268 of the Code of Civil Procedure that, for a . neglect or refusal to obey an order of the court requiring the payment of a specified sum of money, where the court is satisfied by proof by affidavit that a personal demand thereof has been made, and that payment *313thereof has been refused or neglected, a warrant may issue to commit the offender to prison, applies to an order made by the court, which, after finding that an assignee under a general assignment for benefit of creditors has in his hands a certain amount of money, directs him to pay out of it a certain sum to a preferred creditor; although his refusal is upon the ground that if he complies with the order he may not in the end have money enough to pay all the expenses incident to the trust; the conclusion of the court, after hearing him fully upon the facts, being otherwise.

Application to compel payment, by an assignee under a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, of a claim preferred in the assignment.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Charles P. Daly, Chief Justice.

If the statutory enactments had remained the same as they were when the Special Term case of Radtke (10 Daly 119), was decided, I should, as a matter of course, follow that case, it being a rule of this court for the judge at Special Term session, unless it has been questioned or reversed by the General Term. After the decision in that case was made, however, the 2268th section of the Code was enacted, which provides that where an order of the court is made requiring the payment of a specified sum of money, and the court is satisfied by proof by affidavits that a personal demand has been made of it, and payment has been refused or neglected, a warrant may issue to commit the offender to prison until the money is paid, or he is discharged according to law.

Tins provision applies to the present case, and is in no way affected by a decision made before it was enacted. Taking this comparatively recent provision of the Code, in connection with what has been held in *Seaman*v. *Duryea*(11 N. Y. 324), *Baucus*v. *Stover*(89 N. Y. 1) and in the *Matter of Snyder*(34 Hun 302), I am satisfied that the creditor is in this case entitled to the remedy applied for.

The court, after a full hearing, upon due notice to the assignee, has found that he has a certain amount of money in his hands, out of Avhich it has directed him to pay a certain sum to a preferred creditor, and his refusal is based *314upon his own conclusions, that if he complies with the order he may not in the end have money enough in his hands to pay all the expenses incident to the trust. The conclusion of the court, after hearing him fully upon the facts, is otherwise, and he must, therefore, either comply with, the order made or appeal from it, giving security, it being a direct order requiring him to pay a certain sum of money which he has in his hands belonging to the trust.

Order accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2828 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2828

   To provide for the comparable treatment of Federal employees and 
Members of Congress and the President during a period in which there is 
                     a Federal Government shutdown.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 21, 1995

 Mr. Stearns introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the 
     Committee on House Oversight, 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 provide for the comparable treatment of Federal employees and 
Members of Congress and the President during a period in which there is 
                     a Federal Government shutdown.

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

SECTION 1. PAY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT DURING 
              GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS.

    (a) Comparable Pay Treatment for Members of Congress.--The basic 
pay of Members of Congress shall be treated in the same manner as the 
basic pay of the most adversely affected Federal employees who are not 
compensated for any period in which--
            (1) there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations 
        for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure 
        to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing 
        resolution; or
            (2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or 
        meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 
        3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.
    (b) Authority To Promulgate Regulations.--The Secretary of the 
Senate and the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 
Representatives shall promulgate any regulations needed to implement 
this section in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United 
States.
    (c) Comparable Pay Treatment for the President of the United 
States.--The basic pay of the President of the United States shall be 
treated in the same manner as the pay of Members of Congress described 
in subsection (a).
    (d) Severability.--If any provision of this section is held invalid 
by any Federal court, the remaining provisions shall remain valid.
                                 <all>
```
Ex107AmendmenttoESOP


Exhibit 10.7
ACTION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE FARMER BROS. CO.
QUALIFIED EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLANS


Farmer Bros. Co. Amended and Restated Employee Stock Ownership Plan


The undersigned members of the Administrative Committee, having the authority to act on the matter set forth below, hereby approve the following:


WHEREAS, Section 12.01 of the Farmer Bros. Co. Amended and Restated Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the “Plan”) permits amendments to the Plan from time to time. 


WHEREAS, this Committee deems it appropriate to amend the Plan in certain respects as set forth below. 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended effective as of January 1, 2012, as follows:


1. Section 1.11 is amended by changing the portion of the first sentence that precedes the comma to read as follows: “Compensation” means wages as defined under Section 3401(a) of the Code (for purposes of income tax withholding at the source) paid to a Member while he or she is an Eligible Employee, ....”


2. Section 2.03 is amended in its entirety to read as follows: “Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan to the contrary, a Member who transfers employment from the Employer to an Affiliate that is not participating in the Plan shall continue to be a Member for the Plan Year in which such transfer occurs but shall only be eligible to receive allocations of Employer Contributions with respect to Compensation.”


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appropriate officers of the Company, and the individuals who have been properly delegated authority for the administration of the Plan, are hereby authorized to do such other things as may be necessary or advisable to give effect to the foregoing resolution.


Dated: August 8, 2012
	
		
	



 /s/                         Pat Quiggle                                  
Title:   Vice President of Human Resources
	



/s/                   Hortensia Gomez
Title:   Vice President, Controller

	



/s/                     Jeffrey A. Wahba
Title:                         CFO
	



_____________________________________
Title: ________________________________







-#PageNum#-
#### § 536.303 Entity.

The term *entity* means a partnership, association, corporation, or other organization, group or subgroup.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 1, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00720-CV

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant

V.

DELORES DUNN, ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2021-50209

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from an order signed November 25, 2021. On August 23, 

2022, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The 

motion is granted. 

We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
##### 



FORM OF COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT
  No.2006-1
    Issue Date: March 28, 2006




---



##### 



Exercise of Warrant
 Number of Shares Issuable upon Exercise
 Fair Market Value
     Company Acknowledgment
 2




---



##### 



Trustee for Warrant Holders
 2.
    
    Procedure for Exercise.
 Delivery of Stock Certificates, Etc., on Exercise
 Exercise
   3




---



##### 



Effect of Reorganization, Etc.; Adjustment of Exercise Price
 Reorganization, Consolidation, Merger, Etc
 Dissolution
 Continuation of Terms
 Extraordinary Events Regarding Common Stock
 4




---



##### 



Certificate as to Adjustments
 Reservation of Stock, Etc., Issuable on Exercise of Warrant
 Assignment; Exchange of Warrant
 Replacement of Warrant
 5




---



##### 



Registration Rights
 Maximum Exercise
 6




---



##### 



Warrant Agent
 Transfer on the Companys Books
 Notices, Etc
 Miscellaneous
 7




---



##### 



[BALANCE OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK;
SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
 8




---



##### 



JMAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.WITNESS:By:
    
    /s/ Dennis E. ValentineName:
    
    Dennis E. Valentine/s/ Gary Klement
    
    Title:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
 9




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 FORM OF SUBSCRIPTION
  
 
   
  
 
   Dated:(Signature must conform to name of holder as
specified on the face of the Warrant)
Address:
 10




---



##### 



EXHIBIT B
 FORM OF TRANSFEROR ENDORSEMENT
  Percentage
    
    
    NumberTransferees
    
    Address
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Transferred
    
    
    Transferred
 Dated:(Signature must conform to name of holder asspecified on the face of the Warrant)Address:SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:(Name)ACCEPTED AND AGREED:[TRANSFEREE](Name)
 11
www.gpo.gov

### §360. Authority to manage certain mineral leases

Each department, agency and instrumentality of the United States which administers lands acquired by the United States with one or more existing mineral lease shall transfer to the Secretary of the Interior the authority to administer such lease and to collect all receipts due and payable to the United States under the lease. In the case of lands acquired on or before October 24, 1992, the authority to administer the leases and collect receipts shall be transferred to the Secretary of the Interior as expeditiously as practicable after October 24, 1992. In the case of lands acquired after October 24, 1992, such authority shall be vested with the Secretary at the time of acquisition. The provisions of section 355 of this title shall apply to all receipts derived from such leases where such receipts are due and payable to the United States under the lease in the same manner as such provisions apply to receipts derived from leases issued under the authority of this chapter. For purposes of this section, the term “existing mineral lease” means any lease in existence at the time land is acquired by the United States. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing surface management authority of any Federal agency.

(Aug. 7, 1947, ch. 513, §11, as added Pub. L. 102–486, title XXV, §2506(b), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3106.)
<PAGE>
 
                                                                Exhibit 11


                            TRANSCEND SERVICES, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                  (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED           SIX MONTHS ENDED 
                                              JUNE 30                    JUNE 30
                                          1996        1997          1996          1997
                                       ---------   ---------    -----------    ---------
<S>                                    <C>         <C>         <C>            <C>
LOSS BEFORE DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS    $(698,000)  $(490,000)   $(1,227,000)   $(528,000)
 
LOSS FROM DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS       (271,000)    (75,000)      (400,000)    (109,000)
                                       ---------   ---------    -----------    ---------
 
NET LOSS                               $(969,000)  $(565,000)   $(1,627,000)   $(637,000)
                                       =========   =========    ===========    =========
 
WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES
   OUTSTANDING                        19,248,000  20,130,000     19,125,000   20,115,000
                                      ==========  ==========     ==========   ==========
 
LOSS PER COMMON SHARE AND
     COMMON SHARE EQUIVALENT
     Continuing Operations                $(0.04)     $(0.02)        $(0.07)      $(0.02)   
     Discontinued Operations               (0.01)      (0.01)         (0.02)       (0.01)   
                                          ------      ------         ------       ------    
                                                                                             
NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE AND                                                                
     COMMON SHARE EQUIVALENT              $(0.05)     $(0.03)        $(0.09)      $(0.03)   
                                          ======      ======         ======       ======     
</TABLE>
§ 584.502 Effect of license or other authorization. ( a ) No license or other authorization contained in this part, or otherwise issued by OFAC, authorizes or validates any transaction effected prior to the issuance of such license or other authorization, unless specifically provided in such license or authorization.
( b ) No regulation, ruling, instruction, or license authorizes any transaction prohibited under this part unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, or license is issued by OFAC and specifically refers to this part. No regulation, ruling, instruction, or license referring to this part shall be deemed to authorize any transaction prohibited by any other part of this chapter unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, or license specifically refers to such part.
( c ) Any regulation, ruling, instruction, or license authorizing any transaction otherwise prohibited under this part has the effect of removing a prohibition contained in this part from the transaction, but only to the extent specifically stated by its terms. Unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, or license otherwise specifies, such an authorization does not create any right, duty, obligation, claim, or interest in, or with respect to, any property that would not otherwise exist under ordinary principles of law.
( d ) Nothing contained in this part shall be construed to supersede the requirements established under any other provision of law or to relieve a person from any requirement to obtain a license or other authorization from another department or agency of the U.S. Government in compliance with applicable laws and regulations subject to the jurisdiction of that department or agency. For example, exports of goods, services, or technical data that are not prohibited by this part or that do not require a license by OFAC nevertheless may require authorization by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of State, or other agencies of the U.S. Government.
( e ) No license or other authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part authorizes transfers of or payments from blocked property or debits to blocked accounts unless the license or other authorization explicitly authorizes the transfer of or payment from blocked property or the debit to a blocked account.
( f ) Any payment relating to a transaction authorized in or pursuant to this part that is routed through the U.S. financial system should reference the relevant OFAC general or specific license authorizing the payment to avoid the blocking or rejection of the transfer.
§ 576.505 Entries in certain accounts for normal service charges authorized. ( a ) A U.S. financial institution is authorized to debit any blocked account held at that financial institution in payment or reimbursement for normal service charges owed it by the owner of that blocked account.
( b ) As used in this section, the term *normal service charge* shall include charges in payment or reimbursement for interest due; cable, telegraph, internet, or telephone charges; postage costs; custody fees; small adjustment charges to correct bookkeeping errors; and, but not by way of limitation, minimum balance charges, notary and protest fees, and charges for reference books, photocopies, credit reports, transcripts of statements, registered mail, insurance, stationery and supplies, and other similar items.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1994** 

STEPHEN C. YOWELL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE SOLUTION, LLC , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Charlottesville
. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. ( 3:10

- cv - 00063

- NKM

- BWC )

Submitted : June 29, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Henry W. McLaughlin, III, LAW OFFICE OF HENRY MCLAUGHLIN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Mark D. Meyer, ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this c ircuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stephen C. Yowell appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his civil action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”)
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. While our recent decision in Gilbert v. Residential Funding, LLC , 678 F.3d 271, 275

- 77 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that borrowers’ letter to their lender within three years of the transaction, rather than the filing of any suit, is all that is required for notice of rescission under TILA) , reje cts the district court’s alternative basis for dismissal , we affirm on the district court’s principal reasoning for dismissing the case. Yowell v. Residential Mortg. Solution,
LLC , No. 3:10

- cv - 00063

- NKM

- BWC (W.D. Va. Aug. 17, 2011)
. We dispense with ora l 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