alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 25.507 Reversed braking. ( a ) The airplane must be in a three point static ground attitude. Horizontal reactions parallel to the ground and directed forward must be applied at the ground contact point of each wheel with brakes. The limit loads must be equal to 0.55 times the vertical load at each wheel or to the load developed by 1.2 times the nominal maximum static brake torque, whichever is less.
( b ) For airplanes with nose wheels, the pitching moment must be balanced by rotational inertia.
( c ) For airplanes with tail wheels, the resultant of the ground reactions must pass through the center of gravity of the airplane.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4079 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4079

To authorize the Seminole Tribe of Florida to lease or transfer certain 
                     land, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 25, 2020

    Mr. Rubio (for himself and Mr. Scott of Florida) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Seminole Tribe of Florida to lease or transfer certain 
                     land, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED TO VALIDATE CERTAIN LAND TRANSACTIONS 
              OF THE SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA.

    (a) In General.--Not withstanding any other provision of law, 
without further approval, ratification, or authorization by the United 
States, the Seminole Tribe of Florida may lease, sell, convey, warrant, 
or otherwise transfer all or any part of the interest of the Seminole 
Tribe of Florida in any real property that is not held in trust by the 
United States for the benefit of the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
    (b) Trust Land Not Affected.--Nothing in this section--
            (1) authorizes the Seminole Tribe of Florida to lease, 
        sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer all or any part of 
        an interest in any real property that is held in trust by the 
        United States for the benefit of the Seminole Tribe of Florida; 
        or
            (2) affects the operation of any law governing leasing, 
        selling, conveying, warranting, or otherwise transferring any 
        interest in any real property that is held in trust by the 
        United States for the benefit of the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
                                 <all>
```
#### JONES v. THE STATE.

(Decided February 1, 1916.)

Appeal from Houston Circuit Court. '

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney-General, for the State._

Thomas, J.

No bill of exceptions, no-error of record. Affirmed.
Third Amendment of the Southern Graphic Systems, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 THIRD AMENDMENT OF THE 
 SOUTHERN GRAPHIC SYSTEMS, INC.
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 Adopted November 9, 2009 
 1. The definition of “Key Employee” in Section 1.15 of the Plan is hereby deleted, and the remaining definitions of Article I
are renumbered accordingly. 
 2. Section 1.21 is amended by adding the words “, excluding commissions”
immediately following the word “Plan”. 
 3. The third sentence of Section 5.4 is deleted in its entirety.

 4. The first paragraph of Section 6.1 is amended to read as follows: 
 “Except as otherwise specified in this Article VI, Credits and Earnings on a Participant’s behalf shall be distributed to the
Participant upon his or her Separation from Service. Any transfer of employment to a subsidiary or affiliate of an Employer will not be considered a Separation from Service for purposes of this Article VI.” 
 5. Section 6.2 is amended to read as follows: 
 “If a Participant has not elected the optional form of payment as provided in Section 6.3, the Participant’s Credits and Earnings shall be paid to the Participant upon the
Participant’s Separation from Service in a lump sum.” 
 6. The first sentence of Section 6.5 is amended to read
as follows: 
 “Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Plan, if any amounts credited hereunder are found, in a final
decision by a court of competent jurisdiction or under an audit closing agreement or other final disposition of the Internal Revenue Service, to be includable in the gross income of a Participant or Beneficiary prior to distribution pursuant to the
provisions of this Article VI because of the Plan’s failure to meet the requirements of Section 409A of the Code and regulations thereunder, such Participant or Beneficiary shall receive payment of an amount equal to the amount found to be
includable in gross income upon the date of such final decision, audit closing agreement or other final disposition, whichever is applicable.” 
  

 1 








 7. The following Section is added immediately following Section 6.5: 
 “6.6 Distribution Upon Certain Designated Payment Dates 
 For purposes of Sections 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5, a payment will be considered made upon the event giving rise to payment provided it is paid no
later than the later of (a) the last day of the calendar year in which such event occurs or (b) the 15th day of the third calendar month following the month in which such event occurs. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, it is the
Employer’s intention to make such payment no later than 30 days following the occurrence of the event giving rise to payment, absent unusual circumstances.” 
 The provisions hereof shall be effective January 1, 2009, except that the provisions of item 2 hereof shall be effective January 1, 2007. 
  

 2
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 391 

To clarify that funding for the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board 

is not subject to the sequester. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2019 

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

the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To clarify that funding for the Public Company Accounting 

Oversight Board is not subject to the sequester. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION. 

4 Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emer5 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a) does 

6 not apply with respect to the funding of the Public Com7 pany Accounting Oversight Board. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Docket Number FAA-2012-1075
[S. F. No. 1490.

In Bank.

September 6, 1898.]

#### In the Matter of the Estate of JAMES WILLIAMS, Deceased.

Estates of Deceased Persons—Distribution—Appeal by Executor.—An executor is not an “aggrieved” party, and consequently cannot appeal from an order distributing the estate to the persons found entitled thereto, if jurisdiction of the proceedings for distribution had been properly acquired by the superior court before making the order.

MOTION to dismiss an appeal from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco distributing the estate of a deceased person. J. Y. Coffey, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

A. Boyer, for Appellant.

Evans *&*Meredith, for Respondents.

HARRISON, J.

Motion to dismiss the appeal. The final account of the executor of the last will and testament of the above-named decedent was settled February 23, 1898, and after its settlement the superior court, upon the petition of the respondents herein, made an order distributing to them the estate remaining in the hands of the executor. From this order the executor has taken the present appeal. The respondents have moved to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that the executor has not the right to appeal from the order, for the reason that he is not an “aggrieved” party. At the hearing upon, the motion it was conceded upon behalf of the executor and it also appears from the bill of exceptions which was taken by him to the granting of the order, that jurisdiction to hear the petition for distribution had been acquired by the superior court before making the *77order appealed from. The ground upon which he claims the right to present the appeal is the insufficiency of the evidence before the court to authorize it to find that the petitioners are entitled to the estate.

The executor has no interest in the distribution of the estate further than to be protected, if he shall dispose of the property in accordance with its terms; and, if the court had jurisdiction to hear the petition, the order of distribution will be a complete protection against any claim that may be made against him by reason of his compliance therewith. The statute declares that the order is “conclusive as to the rights of heirs, legatees, or devisees, subject only to be reversed, set aside or modified on appeal.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1666.) The persons here enumerated are the only ones who could claim any portion of the estate, and, consequently, are the only ones who can be “aggrieved” by an order of the court made in a matter in which it had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties entitled thereto.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.

Henshaw, J., Garoutte, J., Van Fleet, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4148 

To extend the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program of the 

Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 1, 2020 

Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. PETERS, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. 

INHOFE, and Mr. CARPER) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To extend the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards 

Program of the Department of Homeland Security, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TER4 RORISM STANDARDS PROGRAM OF THE DE5 PARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5 of the Protecting and 

7 Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act 

8 of 2014 (Public Law 113–254; 6 U.S.C. 621 note) is 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4148 CPS

1 amended by striking ‘‘July 23, 2020’’ and inserting ‘‘July 

2 27, 2023’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 1 day 

5 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER**

I,Stephen V. Clark, certify that:

1.             Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Bertucci’sCorporation;

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.             TheRegistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [omitted] for theRegistrant and have:

a.               designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.              [omitted]

c.               evaluated theeffectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

d.              disclosed in thisreport any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theRegistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.            The Registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors:

a.                allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b.               anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date: April 3, 2007 |   | By:    | /s/ Stephen V. Clark                 |   |   |
|---------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                |   |   | Stephen V. Clark                     |   |   |
|                |   |   | Chief Executive Officer and Director |   |   |

 

----
181004 LUZ PIZARRO-CORREA LIFT STAY SCH ORD.DOCX VERSION OCTOBER 4, 2018 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

----------------------------------------------------------x

In re: PROMESA

Title III

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, (Jointly Administered)

et al.,

Debtors.1

----------------------------------------------------------x

ORDER SCHEDULING BRIEFING OF URGENT MOTION OF LUZ PIZARRO-CORREA FOR 

RELIEF FROM STAY TO CONTINUE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE

The Court has received and reviewed the Urgent Motion for Relief from Stay to 

Continue Employment Discrimination Case (the “Motion”) filed by Luz Pizarro-Correa (the 

“Movant”). (Docket Entry No. 4012 in Case No. 17-3283.) Opposition papers to the Motion 

must be filed by October 18, 2018. Movant’s reply papers must be filed by October 25, 2018. 

The Court will thereafter take the Motion on submission, unless a party thereto requests a 

hearing.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2018

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

United States District Judge

 1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-

LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing 

Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority 

(“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4017 Filed:10/04/18 Entered:10/04/18 17:52:05 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             256
<SECURITIES>                                     4,152
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,408
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 157,812
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          140,391
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           525
<OTHER-SE>                                     114,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   157,812
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,021
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,021)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.014)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.014)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6308

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH REDDICK, a/k/a Black, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-92-238, CA-97-271-6) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Reddick, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Reddick , Nos. CR-92-238; CA-97-271-6 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Jack H. Lehman, Appellant, against Frederick L. Moorehead, as Warden of the City Prison, Brooklyn, Respondent.

(Argued September 29, 1936;

decided October 13, 1936.)

*532
      *Howard Hilton Spellman, Benjamin F. Spellman*and *S. Philip Cohen*for appellant.

*William F. X. Geoghan, District Attorney (Henry J. Walsh*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed; no opinion. (See 272 N. Y. 640.)

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4403 

AN ACT 

To amend the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 

to include California in the program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 4403 ES

1 SECTION 1. NUTRIA ERADICATION. 

2 The Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 

3 (Public Law 108–16) is amended— 

4 (1) in section 2— 

5 (A) in subsection (a)— 

6 (i) in paragraph (1), by striking 

7 ‘‘Wetlands and tidal marshes of the Chesa8 peake Bay and in Louisiana’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘Wetlands, tidal marshes, and agricultural 

10 lands’’; 

11 (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘in 

12 Maryland and Louisiana’’; and 

13 (iii) by amending paragraph (3) to 

14 read as follows: 

15 ‘‘(3) Traditional harvest methods to control or 

16 eradicate nutria have failed. Consequently, marsh 

17 loss, loss of public and private wetlands, and loss of 

18 agricultural lands are accelerating.’’; and 

19 (B) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘the 

20 State of Maryland and the State of Louisiana’’ 

21 and inserting ‘‘any State that has demonstrated 

22 the need’’; and 

23 (2) in section 3— 

24 (A) by amending subsection (a) to read as 

25 follows: 
3 

†S 4403 ES

1 ‘‘(a) GRANT AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the Inte2 rior (referred to in this Act as the ‘Secretary’), may pro3 vide financial assistance to a State, in an amount that is 

4 in proportion to the total impacted area of such State af5 fected by nutria, that has demonstrated to the Secretary 

6 sufficient need for a program to implement measures to 

7 eradicate or control nutria and restore marshland, public 

8 and private wetlands, and agricultural lands damaged by 

9 nutria.’’; 

10 (B) by striking subsection (b); 

11 (C) in subsection (d)— 

12 (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘the 

13 program may’’ and inserting ‘‘a State pro14 gram referred to in subsection (a) may’’; 

15 and 

16 (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘the 

17 program may’’ and inserting ‘‘a State pro18 gram referred to in subsection (a) may’’; 

19 (D) in subsection (e), by inserting ‘‘to a 

20 State’’ after ‘‘provided’’; 

21 (E) in subsection (f), by striking 

22 ‘‘$4,000,000’’ and all that follows and inserting 

23 ‘‘$12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 

24 through 2025.’’; and 
4 

†S 4403 ES

1 (F) by redesignating subsections (c) 

2 through (f) as subsections (b) through (e). 

Passed the Senate September 30 (legislative day, 

September 29), 2020. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4403 

AN ACT 

To amend the Nutria Eradication and Control Act 

for other purposes. of 2003 to include California in the program, and
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Consolidated Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David Guthrie, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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


/s/ David Guthrie
David Guthrie, Principal Executive Officer

Date: March 30, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.