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

Calendar No. 559 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 862 

To designate the Federal building located at 210 Walnut Street in Des 

Moines, Iowa, as the ‘‘Neal Smith Federal Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2007 

Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

JANUARY 22 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2008 

Reported by Mrs. BOXER, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building located at 210 Walnut 

Street in Des Moines, Iowa, as the ‘‘Neal Smith Federal 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building located at 210 Walnut Street 

5 in Des Moines, Iowa, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘Neal Smith Federal Building’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 862 RS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

5 a reference to the ‘‘Neal Smith Federal Building’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Calendar No. 559 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 862 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building located at 210 

Smith Federal Building’’. Walnut Street in Des Moines, Iowa, as the ‘‘Neal 

JANUARY 22 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2008 

Reported without amendment 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40139

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CESAR AUGUSTO MUNGIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-778-ALL

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

Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Cesar Augusto

Mungia raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate

criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
§ 15.200 What is a claim under the MPCECA and who may file such a claim? ( a ) A claim under the MPCECA for damage or loss is allowable only if the property involved was being used incident to service with the Department.
( b ) A claim may be made under this subpart by an employee of the Department or by a spouse or authorized agent, or legal representative on behalf of the employee. If the employee is deceased, the claim may be filed by a survivor in the following order of preference: Spouse, children, parent, brother or sister or the authorized agent or legal representative of such person or persons.
( c ) An MPCECA claim may not be made by or for the benefit of an insurance company, subrogee, assignee, conditional vendor or other third party.
#### John S. Behr, Appellant, *v.*Chase National Bank of New York City, Respondent.

Argued May 19, 1937;

decided June 1, 1937.

*584
      *Edward E. Hoenig*and *William M. Sullivan*for appellant.

*585
      *Robert H. O’Brien*and *Charles B. Collins*for respondent.

*William L. Hanaway*for *Evelyn S. Bardie et al., amici curise.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Loughran and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
§ 18.43 Consolidation; separate hearings. ( a ) *Consolidation.* If separate proceedings before the Office of the Administrative Law Judges involve a common question of law or fact, a judge may: ( 1 ) Join for hearing any or all matters at issue in the proceedings;
( 2 ) Consolidate the proceedings; or
( 3 ) Issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
( b ) *Separate hearings.* For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the judge may order a separate hearing of one or more issues.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 14

- 0534 Filed August 19, 2015 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs. ALLEN MICHAEL VERBEEK, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Marsha M. Beckelman , Judge.

A defendant appeals his sentence following his Alford plea to domestic abuse assault. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Vidhya K. Reddy, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik and Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant Attorney s General, and Brent D. Heeren, County Attorney, for appelle e.

Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.2

MULLINS, J. Allen V erbeek entered a written Alford 1 guilty plea to domestic abuse assault , an aggravated misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.2A(1) and (3)(b) (2013) . In exchange, the State dismissed multiple counts and separate pending cases. The written plea provided the court could rely on the minutes of evidence attached to the trial information to establish a factual basis for the plea. The plea expressly admi tted his prior conviction of domestic abuse on July 9, 2009, which the trial information stated was a third

- offense domestic abuse assault. Hi s written guilty plea requested immediate sentencing, waived personal presence, waived filing a motion in arrest of judgment , and acknowledged and waived his right of allocution. The court accepted the written plea and waiver of rights , and sentenced Verbeek consistent with the plea agreement, reciting that the reasons for the sentence were “the Defendant’s prior

re cord, the plea agreement, and the nature of the offense.” Ver b eek has appealed the sentence, claiming the court did not articulate enough factors to demonstrate that exercised its sentencing discretion. Verbeek waived any delay in sentencing , reque sted i mmediate sentencing , and specifically waived his right to address the court before sentencing or to argue in mitigation of the sentence

. The written plea accurately recited the plea agreement he made with the State, offered no objection to the State’s rec ommendation, and made no independent recommendation or request

1 An Alford plea allows a defendant to consent to the imposition of a prison sentence without admitting participation in the acts constituting the crime. See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970).3

of his own. The court granted his request for immediate sentenc ing without his
presence . On this record, the court exercised its discretion based on the information it had before it.
AFFIRME D.
Extension to Consulting Agreement



 Exhibit 10.4 
 AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT 
 Dated as of May 17, 2009 
 WHEREAS, Casual Male Retail Group, Inc. (formerly Designs, Inc., the “Corporation”) and Jewelcor Management, Inc. (the “Independent
Contractor”) entered into a certain Consulting Agreement dated April 29, 2000, as amended by Letter Agreement dated April 28, 2001, by Letter Agreement dated April 28, 2002, by Amendment to Consulting Agreement dated
April 29, 2003, by Amendment to Consulting Agreement dated April 26, 2004, by Amendment to Consulting Agreement dated August 26, 2004, by Amendment to Consulting Agreement dated June 15, 2005, as amended by Letter Agreement dated
May 26, 2006, by Letter Agreement dated April 29, 2007 and by Amendment to Consulting Agreement dated September 8, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the Agreement”), and 
 WHEREAS, Corporation and Independent Contractor wish to amend, modify and/or restate certain terms, provisions, conditions and covenants of the Agreement.

 NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual promises and covenants set forth in this Agreement, and for other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby expressly acknowledged, the Corporation and Independent Contractor hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 
 1. Term of Agreement.  
 The term of the Agreement shall expire on April 29, 2011. The term can be further extended only by agreement of both the Corporation and Independent Contractor. For the sake of clarity and the
avoidance of doubt, the parties hereby agree and acknowledge that the term of the Agreement as set forth in SECTION FIVE, headed “Duration”, of the original agreement dated April 29, 2000, and as amended through September 8, 2008
as set forth above, is deemed replaced in its entirety by this Amendment to Consulting Agreement. 
 2. Compensation.
The first paragraph under “Compensation” in the Amendment to Consulting Agreement dated April 29, 2007 shall be amended by adding the following sentence: 
 For fiscal year 2009, the compensation to be paid under the Agreement shall consist of a 10.0% decrease in each payment made on or after the
effective date of this Agreement. 
 THE REMAINING terms of the Agreement as amended shall remain in full force and effect
without change. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Consulting Agreement as a sealed
instrument, in any number of counterpart copies, each of which shall be deemed an original for all purposes, as of the day and year first written above. 
  

			
	JEWELCOR MANAGEMENT, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/    Seymour Holtzman

		 	Seymour Holtzman
		 	August 27, 2009
	
	CASUAL MALE RETAIL GROUP, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/    David A. Levin

		 	David A. Levin
		 	August 4, 2009
		
	By:	 	 /s/    Dennis R. Hernreich

		 	Dennis R. Hernreich
		 	August 4, 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Blaylock, Appellant.

[697 NYS2d 522]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered May 22, 1997, convicting him of rape in the first degree, rape in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not err in relieving the defendant’s first assigned counsel and assigning a new attorney to represent him, as the defendant’s first assigned counsel also represented a witness for the prosecution *(see,*NY State Bar Association, Ethics Opn 290 [1973]; Code of Professional Responsibility 5-105 [B] [22 NYCRR 1200.24 (b)]; EC 5-14, 5-15; *People v Scotti,*142 AD2d 616).

The defendant claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel with respect to the second assigned counsel. To the extent that the argument is premised upon that attorney’s failure to present certain evidence, the defendant’s claim involves matters which are dehors the record and is not properly presented on direct appeal *(see, People v Davis,*261 AD2d 411; *People v Hewitt,*258 AD2d 668; *People v Clark,*254 AD2d 299; *People v Boyd,*244 AD2d 497; *People v Lebrun,*234 AD2d 392). Insofar as we are able to review the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we find that the performance of the defendant’s second assigned counsel amply met the standard of meaningful representation *(see, People v Ellis,*81 NY2d 854; *People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not require reversal. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.
#### EDMONDS ELEVATOR CO. v. DI ANDREO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co.

No. 9779.

Decided June 10, 1929

Turney & Sipe, Cleveland, for Elevator Co.

A. R. Studor, Cleveland, for Di Andreo.

MAUCK, J.

The Edmonds Elevator Company filed a petition to secure the appointment of a receiver for the defendant’s property. The petition recited the recovery of a judgment against the defendant and made a case for the appointment under the third paragraph of 11894 GC. The defendant made no answer. From the petition in error it may be .assumed that the plaintiff demanded a judgment by default and that such default was refused. There was no error in this. This is not the sort of case in which a default judgment can be had. It is not within 11383 GC or any of the special statutes permitting default judgments. The appointment of a receiver is within the sound discretion of the trial court after a presentation of all the facts. All this is beside the question raised by the record herein, however, for we are called upon to reverse the judgment that the record shows was actually entered. That entry in its entirety reads as follows:

> “This cause is dismissed without prejudice at the cost of the plaintiff, for which judgment is rendered. Record waived.”

There is nothing, therefore, to indicate that the trial court refused to hear testimony or even refused a default judgment. There is nothing to indicate that the dismissal was not made on plaintiff’s own motion and, however it was done no exception was saved by the plaintiff so that no question at all is presented for review.

Judgment affirmed.

Justice and Hughes, JJ, concur.
NO. 07-06-0092-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	JULY 6, 2006

	______________________________

	THE SCHOOL OF THE OZARKS, INC.,

	D/B/A COLLEGE OF THE OZARKS, APPELLANT

	V.

	WILL W. SNEAD AND RAY A. SNEAD, APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 69TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARTLEY COUNTY;

	NO. 4289H; HONORABLE RON ENNS, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	The School of the Ozarks, Inc., d/b/a College of the Ozarks perfected this accelerated appeal from the trial court’s order denying its special appearance.  Pending before this Court is an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.  Attached to the motion as exhibits are a joint motion and an order signed by the trial court to vacate the appealed order and dismiss with prejudice the claims of appellees Will W. Snead and Ray A. Snead.  We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal as moot.  See Tex. R. App. P. 1 42.1(a).  Having dismissed the appeal at the request of all parties, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice
#### CARMICHAEL v BD OF EDUCATION et

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No. 1733.

Decided October 3, 1929

Messrs. Rockwell & Grant and Smoyer & Smoyer, Akron, for Carmichael. -

Messrs. Roetzel, Hunsicker & Olds, and A. B. Underwood, Akron, for Bd of Education et.

Syllabus by

WASHBURN, J.

In the absence of fraud, the certificate of á fiscal officer required by 5625-33 GC, attached to a contract, certifying that the *661amount required to meet the same is in the treasury or in process of collection, is, as to the facts set forth therein, binding upon the political subdivision and upon the taxpayers of said subdivision, though the statements set forth in said certificate are not true.

Full opinion will be published later.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–012 2014

113th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 113–144 

A REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 2014 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

AN EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR 

FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2014 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2014.—Referred to the Committee on Appropriations and 

ordered to be printed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, August 4, 2014. 

Hon. JOHN BOEHNER, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I hereby designate as an emergency requirement all funding so designated by the Congress in the Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Resolution, 2014, pursuant to section 

251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the following account: ‘‘Department of Defense—Procurement—Procurement, Defense-Wide.’’ 

The details of this action are set forth in the enclosed memorandum from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 

Sincerely, 

BARACK OBAMA. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(3) 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, 

Washington, DC, August 4, 2014. 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT

From: Shaun Donovan, Director. 

Subject: Designation of Funding as an Emergency Requirement. 

Congress designated as an emergency requirement all funding in 

the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Resolution, 2014 

(Act). The Act provides $225 million in emergency supplemental 

funding for the Secretary of Defense to provide to the Government 

of Israel for the procurement of the Iron Dome defense system to 

counter short-range rocket threats in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. 

I recommend that you designate as an emergency requirement 

all funding so designated by the Congress in the Act pursuant to 

section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended (BBEDCA), for the following 

account: ‘‘Department of Defense—Procurement—Procurement, Defense-Wide.’’ Upon making this designation, these funds will be immediately available for obligation and expenditure as emergency 

funds. No further congressional action will be required. 

The designation of these funds as an emergency requirement allows for adjustments to the discretionary spending limits in FY 

2014, as specified in section 251(b)(2)(A) of BBEDCA. These adjustments will be reflected when the Office of Management and Budget 

submits its sequestration update report for FY 2015 under section 

254(e) of BBEDCA. 

I have reviewed this proposed action and am satisfied it is necessary at this time. Therefore, I recommend that you sign the attached draft letters to the Speaker of the House of Representatives 

and the President of the Senate. 

Attachment 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
**Exhibit 10.46**

 

**Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers**

 

In December 2004, the Compensation Group of LG&E Energy LLCapproved base salary increases for executive officers for 2005. The 2005salaries for LG&E’s and KU’s named executive officers are as follows:

 
| **Officer Name**      | ** ** | **2005  Base  Salary** | ** ** |
|-----------------------|------------|------------------------|------------|
| Hermann,  Chris       |       | $                      | 273,000    |   |
| McCall, John  R.      |       | $                      | 425,400    |   |
| Rives, S.  Bradford   |       | $                      | 345,280    |   |
| Thompson ,  Paul W.   |       | $                      | 322,300    |   |
| Staffieri,  Victor A. |       | $                      | 700,163    |   |

 

The salary increases wereeffective December 20, 2004.

 

----
§ 91.1007 Flights conducted under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter. ( a ) Except as provided in § 91.501(b), when a nonprogram aircraft is used to substitute for a program flight, the flight must be operated in compliance with part 121 or part 135 of this chapter, as applicable.
( b ) A program manager who holds a certificate under part 119 of this chapter may conduct a flight for the use of a fractional owner under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter if the aircraft is listed on that certificate holder's operations specifications for part 121 or part 135, as applicable.
( c ) The fractional owner must be informed when a flight is being conducted as a program flight or is being conducted under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Kerby Peak quadrangle, Oregon :7.5-minute series (topographic)**
 
2012 | 2014 | 2015 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28/6:42123-B 4/
Item Number0080-G-04(online):
CGP systemNumber:000932064
 
January 24, 2018
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: May 2, 2015 

TO: File / Rulemaking Docket 

EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0489 (80 FR 51147, August 24, 2015) 

FROM: Idalia Perez, EPA Region 9, Rules Office 

RE: Call with ARB regarding questions on Prop 1B documentation 

ARB Participant: Austin Hicks 

EPA Region 9 Participant: Idalia Perez. 

Idalia Perez at EPA Region 9 called Austin Hick at ARB on 5/2/16 to clarify why the Prop 1B 

documentation received on 4/19/16 had a different identification than the Equipment Project ID. 

Mr. Hicks briefly discussed the differences and said he would further clarify via email.
<TABLE>
                                                       Exhibit-12




                    LACLEDE GAS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

           SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
           -------------------------------------------------------------

<CAPTION>
                                        Fiscal Year Ended September 30,
                                  ----------------------------------------
                                  1999     1998     1997     1996     1995
                                  ----     ----     ----     ----     ----
                                            (Thousands of Dollars)
<S>                            <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Income before interest
 charges and income taxes      $61,016  $64,603  $69,908  $69,168  $49,557

Add: One third of applicable
       rentals charged to
       operating expense
      (which approximates the
       interest factor)            301      297      294      291      288
                               -------------------------------------------
        Total Earnings         $61,317  $64,900  $70,202  $69,459  $49,845
                               ===========================================

Interest on long-term debt     $13,966  $14,797  $14,169  $13,939  $12,544
Other interest                   6,627    6,473    4,919    4,008    5,983

One-third of applicable rentals
  charged to operating expense
  (which approximates the
  interest factor)                 301      297      294      291      288
                               -------------------------------------------
   Total Fixed Charges         $20,894  $21,567  $19,382  $18,238  $18,815
                               ===========================================

Ratio of Earnings to
  Fixed Charges                   2.93     3.01     3.62     3.81     2.65

</TABLE>








                                 100