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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2937 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2937

 For the reimbursement of legal expenses and related fees incurred by 
 former employees of the White House Travel Office with respect to the 
    termination of their employment in that Office on May 19, 1993.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 1996

Mr. Clinger (for himself, Mr. Armey, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Walker, Mr. Burton 
   of Indiana, Mr. Davis, Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania, Mr. Hastert, Mr. 
  Schiff, Mr. Blute, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mrs. 
 Morella, Mrs. Vucanovich, Mr. Ballenger, and Mr. Ehrlich) introduced 
    the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 For the reimbursement of legal expenses and related fees incurred by 
 former employees of the White House Travel Office with respect to the 
    termination of their employment in that Office on May 19, 1993.

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

SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN LEGAL EXPENSES AND RELATED FEES.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, from 
amounts in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as are 
necessary to reimburse former employees of the White House Travel 
Office whose employment in that Office was terminated on May 19, 1993, 
for any legal expenses and related fees they incurred with respect to 
that termination.
    (b) Verification Required.--The Secretary shall pay an individual 
in full under subsection (a) upon submission by the individual of 
documentation verifying the legal expenses and related fees.
    (c) No Inference of Liability.--Liability of the United States 
shall not be inferred from enactment of or payment under this section.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                 15,685
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                  5,605
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                       16,984
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            85,709
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                  3,790
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                    3,792
<LOANS>                               286,297
<ALLOWANCE>                             3,804
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        433,549
<DEPOSITS>                            367,359
<SHORT-TERM>                              370
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                     3,916
<LONG-TERM>                            21,029
<COMMON>                                1,264
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                             39,611
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>        433,549
<INTEREST-LOAN>                        26,334
<INTEREST-INVEST>                       5,772
<INTEREST-OTHER>                          485
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                       32,591
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                     14,716
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     16,010
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                  16,581
<LOAN-LOSSES>                             633
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                        131
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                        12,530
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         7,269
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>              4,819
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            4,819
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .59
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                           4.39
<LOANS-NON>                               527
<LOANS-PAST>                              265
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                            0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                             0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                        3,427
<CHARGE-OFFS>                             301
<RECOVERIES>                               45
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                       3,804
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                    3,804
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                         0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                     0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                 Exhibit 10(KKK)


                       [Cerprobe Corporation Letterhead]




     September 15, 2000


     Mr. Isam Qubain
     BEST I.Q., Inc.
     1248 Reamwood Avenue
     Sunnyvale, CA


     Re:     Tenancy Agreement between BEST I.Q., Inc. and Cerprobe Corporation
             for the premises including the piece of land and hereditaments
             known as Lot No. P.T. No. 2878, Mukim 12, Daerah Barat Daya Penang
             held under Suratan Hakmilik Sementara No. H.S. (D) 8658 together
             with a single story building bearing Premises No. Plot 47 Phase IV,
             Jalan Bund, 11900 Bayan Lepas, Penang.



     Dear Mr. Qubain:


     Cerprobe Corporation has hired architects and contractors to complete
     improvement to the premises per the terms of the Tenancy Agreement. The
     estimated cost of the improvements undertaken by Cerprobe exceeds $400,000.
     Per our construction schedule, the planned completion of all improvements
     is during January 2001.

     Per the eighth (8th) paragraph of Section 2 in the Tenancy Agreement,
     Cerprobe is to complete $300,000 in improvements before November 1, 2000,
     or pay a lump sum of cash to you, the landlord. Cerprobe will be unable to
     complete all improvements by the November 1, 2000 date. We are requesting
     an amendment to the completion requirements are in the Tenancy Agreement;
     changing the date from November 1, 2000 to February 1, 2001.

     Please sign the attached Amendment and return a fully executed copy to my
     attention. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to
     contact me at (510) 782-2654.


     Kind Regards,

     /s/ Daniel J. Hill
     Daniel J. Hill
     Executive Vice President & COO


     DJH/jb

     encl.

     cc:  Nasser Barabi
          Paul Tullis


<PAGE>   2

                        AMENDMENT 1 TO TENANCY AGREEMENT

Reference: Tenancy Agreement between BEST I.Q., Inc. and Cerprobe Corporation
for the premises including the piece of land and hereditaments known as Lot No.
P.T. No. 2878, Mukim 12 Daerah Barat Daya Penang held under Suratan Hakmilik
Sementara No. H.S. (D) 8658 together with a single story building bearing
Premises No. Plot 47 Phase IV, Jalan Bund, 11900 Bayan Lepas, Penang.

In the eighth (8th) paragraph of Section 2 of the Tenancy Agreement, sentence
two, change the wording from: "on or before November 1, 2000", to "on or before
February 1, 2001".



Signed By:                              Signed By:

/s/ Daniel J. Hill                      /s/ Isam Qubain
--------------------------              --------------------------
Daniel J. Hill                          Isam Qubain
For Cerprobe Corporation                For BEST I.Q., Inc.


Sept. 15, 2000                          Sept. 18, 2000
--------------------------              --------------------------
Date                                    Date
40807, 40808.

#### ALLEN v. THE STATE (two cases).

Russell, Judge.

In each of these cases the single special ground is but an amplification of the general grounds of the motion for a new trial. The defendant admitted breaking a window in the place of business of the prosecutor, but as against the charge of malicious mischief contended that he slipped on some loose gravel and the glass was broken accidentally as he fell. The defendant also admitted on another occasion delaying to leave the place of business of the prosecutor immediately on being asked to leave, but as against the charge of trespass contended that he was in fear of his life because an assailant was waiting for him outside with a gun. There is substantial eyewitness testimony in each case negating these *294explanations. Conflicts in evidence being for the decision of the triors of fact, where issues of fact are in conflict, this court passes only on the sufficiency and not on the weight of the evidence. *Pryor v. State,*102 Ga. App. 744 (117 SE2d 880).

Decided September 22, 1964.

*Robert E. Williams,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wilson P. Darden, Solicitor,*contra.

The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial in each case.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000439

26-OCT-2017

10:53 AM
#### Doctor Ricardo E. del REAL, M.D., and Employers Fire Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Thomas W. DAWSON et al., Respondents.

No. 74-1479.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 3, 1975.

*21Edna L. Caruso of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D’Aiuto & Dean, West Palm Beach, for petitioners.

William R. Hussey, Fort Lauderdale, for respondents-Dawson.

DOWNEY, Judge.

Doctor Ricardo E. del Real and his insurance carrier, defendants in a medical malpractice suit voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff-respondents after several days of trial, seek review by petition for writ of certiorari the trial court’s refusal to tax as costs: the court reporter’s per diem for attendance at trial; expert witness fees for three physicians whose depositions were taken by petitioners prior to trial; copies of depositions of expert witness and nurses taken by respondents; and the expense of a trip to Chicago, Illinois, for petitioners’ counsel to attend a deposition taken by respondents.

Respondents contend that review of the order on a motion to tax costs is not reviewable by petition for writ of certiora-ri. We disagree. *Chatlos v. City of Hallandale,*Fla. 1969, 220 So.2d 353.

We have seriously considered petitioners’ argument that it was error for the trial court not to grant the various items of costs, particularly in view of the posture of the case when it was terminated and the fact that many of the items are ordinarily taxable. However, on the record presented to us petitioners have simply failed to demonstrate error. The taxation of costs is a matter traditionally within the discretion of the trial court, *Cohn v. Florida National Bank at Orlando,*Fla.App.1969, 223 So.2d 767, and for aught we know the trial judge may have had good grounds for exercising his discretion as he did.

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is denied.

WALDEN, C. J., and OWEN, J., concur.
§ 800.256 Voting interest for purposes of critical technology mandatory declarations. ( a ) The term *voting interest for purposes of critical technology mandatory declarations* means, for the purposes of § 800.401(c)(1)(v), a voting interest, direct or indirect, of 25 percent or more, subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) In the case of an entity whose activities are primarily directed, controlled, or coordinated by or on behalf of a general partner, managing member, or equivalent, a person will be considered to have a *voting interest for purposes of critical technology mandatory declarations* in such entity only if it holds 25 percent or more of the interest in the general partner, managing member, or equivalent of the entity.
( c ) For purposes of determining the percentage of *voting interest for purposes of critical technology mandatory declarations* held indirectly by one person in another, any interest of a parent will be deemed to be a 100 percent interest in any entity of which it is a parent.
( d ) For purposes of § 800.401(c)(1)(v), foreign persons who are related, have formal or informal arrangements to act in concert, or are agencies or instrumentalities of, or controlled by, the national or subnational governments of a single foreign state are considered part of a group of foreign persons and their individual holdings are aggregated.
[85 FR 57128, Sept. 15, 2020]
§ 405.211 Coverage of items and services in FDA-approved IDE studies. ( a ) *Coverage of routine care items and services for Category A (Experimental) devices.* Medicare covers routine care items and services furnished in an FDA-approved Category A (Experimental) IDE study if CMS (or its designated entity) determines that the Medicare coverage IDE study criteria in § 405.212 are met.
( b ) *Coverage of Category B (Nonexperimental/investigational) IDE devices and routine care items and services.* Medicare may make payment for a Category B (Nonexperimental/investigational) IDE device and routine care items and services furnished in an FDA-approved Category B (Nonexperimental/investigational) IDE study if CMS (or its designated entity) determines prior to the submission of the first related claim that the Medicare coverage IDE study criteria in § 405.212 are met.
( c ) CMS (or its designated entity) must review the following to determine if the Medicare coverage IDE study criteria in § 405.212 are met for purposes of coverage of items and services described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section: ( 1 ) FDA approval letter of the IDE.
( 2 ) IDE study protocol.
( 3 ) IRB approval letter.
( 4 ) NCT number.
( 5 ) Supporting materials, as needed.
( d ) *Notification.* A listing of all CMS-approved Category A (Experimental) IDE studies and Category B (Nonexperimental/investigational) IDE studies shall be posted on the CMS Web site and published in the Federal Register.
[78 FR 74809, Dec. 10, 2013]
The Honorable Nannette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1370

___________

Robert B. Depugh, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United

States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of

Missouri.

David Clemens, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 7,

1997

 Filed: November

10, 1997

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert B. DePugh appeals the District Court&s order

1

sanctioning him $1,515.07 pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 11. Upon review of the record and the

parties& submissions on appeal, we find no abuse of

discretion. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

David Clemens&s motion for damages and double costs under

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 is granted. 
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### DANIEL A. DOOLEY , PROSECUTOR, v. HORACE K. ROBERSON, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FINANCE OF THE CITY OF BAYONNE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT.

Submitted May 2, 1939

Decided August 8, 1939.

Before Justices Parker, Bodine and Perskie.

For the prosecutor, Frazer, *Stoffer & Jacobs (Spaulding Frazer).*

For the defendant, *William Rubin.*

Bodine, J.

The present writ reviews the validity of prosecutor’s removal as water purveyor in the water department of the city of Bayonne. The city of Bayonne for a number of years has been governed by the commission form of government. The director of finance has been in charge of the water department. The prosecutor was continuously employed as water purveyor or in the water department from June 2d, 1931, until January 6th, 1939, when he was summarily removed by the director of the department of revenue and finance.

The prosecutor is an exempt fireman and at the time of his removal held an exempt fireman’s certificate. Such removal without written charges was unlawful.

The latest enactment for the benefit of exempt firemen is chapter 385 of *Pamph. L.*1938 *(R. 8.*40:47-60), approved June 16th, 1938. It reads as follows: “Every exempt fire*52man holding an exempt fireman’s certificate issued to him in accordance with the laws of this state now employed or holding any office or position except one created by the Constitution under the government of this state of any county, municipality or board of education of this state, shall continue in said employment, office or position during good behavior and shall not be removed from said employment, office or position except for good cause shown after a fair and impartial hearing upon written charges preferred against him.”

The prosecutor was at the time of the adoption of the statute quoted above “employed * * * under the government of * * * [the] municipality.” He was removed without charges being made. His precise status under the statute in question need not be determined. It is unnecessary, under the law, to consider whether the prosecutor held an office or a position, or whether the term was fixed or indefinite. Suffice it to say that prosecutor held an exempt fireman’s certificate and was employed by the city of Bayonne at the time of his removal without the preference of written charges.

The validity of the legislative enactment was not questioned in this case.

Such removal was manifestly illegal and will be set aside, with costs.
#### Jack M. FRASIER v. Dorothy FRASIER.

No. 52071.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 13, 1980.

Adams & Odom, Joe R. Odom, Meridian, for appellant.

Williams, Glover & Walton, H. Wingfield Glover, Jr., Meridian, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lauderdale County; Howard R. Pigford, Chancellor.

Before SMITH, P. J., and SUGG and COFER, JJ.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

PATTERSON, C. J., ROBERTSON, P. J., and WALKER; BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21490]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-68-000]


PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Filing

August 31, 2009.
    Take notice that on August 26, 2009, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. 
(PJM) filed proposed pro forma revised tariff provisions to strengthen 
demand response and facilitate the transition to price responsive 
demand at the retail level ultimately leading to the elimination of 
wholesale demand response programs as unnecessary.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PJM originally submitted this filing in Docket No. EL08-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d0b081f0e0223212423281e383d3d223f390d2b283f2e632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="04424156474b6a686d6a61577174746b767044626176672a636b72">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 16, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21490 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3153 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3153

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt from regulation the 
transportation of certain hazardous materials by vehicles with a gross 
            vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 1996

Mr. DeLay (for himself, Mr. Condit, Mr. Dooley of California, Mr. Barr 
 of Georgia, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Bryant of Tennessee, Mr. Christensen, Mr. 
   Clement, Mr. Coble, Mr. Combest, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. 
Dornan, Mr. Emerson, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Foley, 
   Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Kim, Mr. Largent, Mr. 
  LaTourette, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Linder, Mr. Livingston, Mr. 
    McIntosh, Mr. Ney, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Towns, Mr. 
   Traficant, and Mr. Wamp) introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt from regulation the 
transportation of certain hazardous materials by vehicles with a gross 
            vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSPORTATION FROM 
              REGULATION.

    Section 5117 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e), 
respectively, and by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
    ``(c) Statutory Exemption.--This chapter and regulations prescribed 
under this chapter shall not apply to--
            ``(1) any vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 
        10,000 pounds or less transporting a substance or material--
                    ``(A) designated as a hazardous material under this 
                chapter (or the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act) 
                on or before January 1, 1996; and
                    ``(B) for which placarding of a motor vehicle was 
                not required as of January 1, 1996, under regulations 
                prescribed under this chapter (or the Hazardous 
                Materials Transportation Act); and
            ``(2) any vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 
        10,000 pounds or less transporting a substance or material 
        designated as a hazardous material under this chapter after 
        January 1, 1996, unless the Secretary determines that the 
        hazardous material poses a significant risk to health and 
        safety or property.''.
                                 <all>
```