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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 862 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       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''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 210 Walnut Street in Des Moines, 
Iowa, shall be known and designated as the ``Neal Smith Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Neal Smith Federal 
Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 559

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 862

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the Federal building located at 210 Walnut Street in Des 
         Moines, Iowa, as the ``Neal Smith Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

             January 22 (legislative day, January 3), 2008

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### JOSEPH CHEZICK v. MINNEAPOLIS & NORTHERN ELEVATOR COMPANY. 1

November 24, 1896.

Nos. 10,393 — (111).

Trial — Submission to Court — Stipulation.

At the close of the evidence offered by plaintiff, each party moved that the jury be instructed to return a verdict in his favor. ■ Without waiting for a decision of the motions, the following proceedings and agreement took place: “The jury are excused from the case, and it is agreed that it be submitted to the court for determination.” *Held,*this was not a submission of the motions, but of the case, to the court, instead of the jury,- for trial on the merits.

Findings Sustained.

Evidence *held*to sustain the findings and order for judgment.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Wilkin county, C. L. Brown, J., denying a motion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

*Lyman J3. Luerdell,*for appellant.

*Mason do*Hilton, for respondent.'

1

 Reported in 68 N. W. 1093.

CANTY, J.

This action is brought for the conversion of wheat. At the close of the trial before a jury, each party moved that a verdict be directed in his favor. Neither motion was decided, but the settled case states that the following proceedings then took place: “The jury are excused from the case, and it is agreed that it be submitted to the court for determination.” Thereupon the judge made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and ordered judgment for defendant. From an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.

*3011. We cannot bold, as contended by appellant, that tbe case was, by tbe stipulation, merely submitted to tbe court to decide tbe motions to dismiss; but, on tbe record, we are of tbe opinion that tbe case was submitted to tbe court, instead of the jury, for trial on tbe merits.

2. It is further contended by appellant that tbe evidence required a binding and judgment for plaintiff. We cannot so bold.

Tbe plaintiff claims under a chattel mortgage made by one Schultz on all tbe crop of wheat to be grown on tbe northeast quarter of a certain section of land during tbe year 1891. Defendant offered no -evidence on *the*trial, but all tbe evidence offered by plaintiff to prove that Schultz ever owned or ever was in possession of tbe land in question, or ever cultivated it, or ever was in possession of any wheat grown on this land, was so slight, indefinite, and meager, that in our opinion tbe court was justified in finding, as it did, that the allegations ■of plaintiff’s complaint are not true. We will not attempt to recite this evidence, which was devoted almost wholly to proving what became of tbe wheat grown on this land, and scarcely an iota of it to ■proving who raised or owned tbe wheat.

Order affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.50

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 3
                                       TO
                          CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT


         This Amendment No. 3 to Consultant Services Agreement is entered into
as of January 1, 1998, by and between MAJOR REALTY CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Major"), and DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS,
INC., OF ORLANDO, a Florida corporation (hereinafter referred to as
"Consultant").

         WHEREAS, Major and Consultant are parties to that certain Consultant
Services Agreement dated as of April 1, 1994, as amended by Amendment No. 1
dated as of April 1, 1995, and Amendment No 2 dated as of March 20, 1997 (the
"Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the parties desire to modify Section 1.5 of the Agreement
regarding the term;

         NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants
hereinafter set forth, and as provided by Section 5.6 of the Agreement, Major
and Consultant hereby mutually agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

         1. Section 1.5, "Term," is hereby amended to reflect a termination date
of December 31, 1998.

         2. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect. Upon execution of this Amendment No. 3 by all of the
parties hereto, and thereafter, any reference to the Agreement shall be deemed
to be a reference to the Agreement as amended hereby.

         IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No.
3 to Consultant Services Agreement as of the date first set forth above.

                            MAJOR REALTY CORPORATION


                            By: /s/ David L. Treadwell
                               ---------------------------------------
                                    David L. Treadwell,
                                    Chairman of the Board

                            DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC.,
                            OF ORLANDO


                            By: /s/ Gary E. Jahraus
                               ----------------------------------------
                                    Gary E. Jahraus, President
#### § 38.75 If the complainant is dissatisfied after receiving a Notice of Final Action.

If the recipient issues its Notice of Final Action before the 90-day period ends, but the complainant is dissatisfied with the recipient's decision on the complaint, the complainant or the complainant's representative may file a complaint with the Director within 30 days after the date on which the complainant receives the Notice.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

907 

CA 13-02238 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

RACHEL HECKL, PERSONAL NEEDS GUARDIAN OF AIDA 

COREY, AN INCAPACITATED INDIVIDUAL, THOMAS J. 

COREY AND OLIVIA J. COREY, INTERIM CO-PROPERTY 

GUARDIANS OF AIDA COREY, AN INCAPACITATED 

INDIVIDUAL, AND PERMCLIP PRODUCTS CORPORATION, 

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DANIEL M. WALSH, FRANK PANARO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, 

HSBC NORTH AMERICA, INC. AND HSBC BANK USA N.A., 

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

JAECKLE FLEISCHMANN & MUGEL, LLP, BUFFALO (BRADLEY A. HOPPE OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN LLP, BUFFALO (BRENDAN H. LITTLE OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A.

Michalek, J.), entered April 10, 2013. The order, among other things,

denied in part the motions of defendants Frank Panaro, HSBC North

America, Inc. and HSBC Bank USA N.A., to dismiss the amended

complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Heckl v Walsh ([appeal No. 2] ___ AD3d ___

[Nov. 14, 2014]).

Entered: November 14, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
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 Quarterly Report of Wizzard Software Corporation (the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), we, Christopher J. Spencer, President, CEO and Treasurer and John Busshaus, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.   Date:8/14/07By:/s/ Christopher J. SpencerChristopher J. SpencerChief Executive Officer and President   Date:8/14/07By:/s/ John BusshausJohn BusshausChief Financial Officer
#### Leslie Elie et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiffs, v Herman T. Kraus, as General Partner of Hyde Park Associates, Respondent.

Submitted March 18, 1996;

decided April 30, 1996

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order that denied appellants’ motion for reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that that order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order that dismissed appellants’ complaint, denied, with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements.
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 Quarterly Report of Wizzard Software Corporation (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), we, Christopher J. Spencer, President, CEO and Treasurer and John Busshaus, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.   Date:11/16/09By:/s/ Christopher J. SpencerChristopher J. SpencerChief Executive Officer and President   Date:11/16/09By:/s/ John BusshausJohn BusshausChief Financial Officer
(75 South. 1006)

#### ROBERTS v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.

(6 Div. 136.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 17, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; E. C. Crow, Judge.

Tillman, Bradley & Morrow and L. C. Leadbeater, arl of Birmingham, for appellant. M. M. UU-, man and W. A. Jenkins, both of Birmingham, for appellee. ■

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by agreement.
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

Form Final 

Brasa (Parent) Inc. 

2012 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan 

NOTICE OF RESTRICTED STOCK ISSUANCE 
  

			
	Participant:	  	
		
	Issuance Date:	  	
		
	Number of Shares:	  	 Shares of Common Stock of Brasa (Parent) Inc. (the “Company”), par value $0.01 (“Restricted Stock”).

		
	Vesting Schedule:	  	Subject to the Participant’s continued Service through each such date, the Restricted Stock shall vest in the following percentages on the following dates (each, a “Vesting Date”):

  

			
	 Vesting Date
	 	 Vesting Percentage

		 	
		 	

  

			
		  	 Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a vesting date occurs during the pendency of a Market Standoff Period, the vesting date shall be delayed
until the end of the Market Standoff Period.
  
 For purposes of this Notice,
“Market Standoff Period” means 180 days after the date of the Public Offering or such other period as may be specified in the market standoff agreement.
  

For purposes of this Notice, “Public Offering” means, the completion of a sale of Common Stock pursuant to a registration statement which has
become effective under the Securities Act of 1933 (excluding registration statements on Form S-4, S-8 or similar limited purpose forms), in which the Common Stock shall be listed and traded on a national exchange or on the NASDAQ National Market
System.

		
	Forfeiture:	  	 If the Participant’s Service is terminated for any reason, all unvested Restricted Stock will be forfeited as of the date that the
Participant’s Service is terminated; provided, however, that if the Participant’s Service is terminated by the Company or any of its Affiliates without Cause, then all unvested Restricted Stock shall immediately vest.

 
 For purposes of this Notice, “Cause” means, the Participant’s (i)
misappropriation or theft of the Company’s or any of its Affiliates’ funds or property, (ii) conviction or entering of a plea of nolo contendere of any fraud, misappropriation, embezzlement or similar act, felony or crime involving
dishonesty or moral turpitude, (iii) failure to perform any of his or her material duties owed to the Company or any of its Affiliates, or (iv) commission of any act involving willful malfeasance or gross negligence or the Participant’s failure
to act involving material nonfeasance.

		
		  	Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Brasa (Parent) Inc. 2012 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

**FAA -**  **2012 -**  **0503** Docket Number
**2011 -**  **SW -**  **032 -** **AD** Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket Eurocopter Al ert Service Bulletin No. BO105 - 10 - 125, Revision 1, dated April 4, 20 1 1


### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DURING THE HO URS OF:**  9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Argued and submitted April 5,

reversed and remanded May 19, 1993

#### WILLIAM F. HALL, *Appellant, v.*Manfred (Fred) MAASS, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, *Respondent.*

(90C11608; CA A72971)

852 P2d 966

James F. Evans, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Stephanie Andrus, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Diane S. Lefkow, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Durham, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*529PER CURIAM

In this *habeas corpus*proceeding, plaintiff appeals an order allowing defendant’s motion to strike his replication. ORS 34.680(2). We reverse.

In March, 1990, plaintiff suffered a heart attack while incarcerated and was not taken to the hospital for 16 hours. He alleges that he still suffers from serious heart and circulatory problems that are not being treated promptly and that, as a consequence of those delays, he receives constitutionally inadequate medical care. Plaintiff states sufficient facts in support of his claim. ORS 34.362(2). The seriousness of the medical condition and the alleged lack of treatment requires immediate judicial scrutiny, and there is no other timely remedy. ORS 34.362(2). The replication stated a claim for *habeas corpus*relief.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Dolgoff Holophase, Inc., Appellant, v E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 26, 1995;

decided September 21, 1995

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that affirmed that portion of Supreme Court’s September 22, 1993 order denying appellant’s motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint *830and dismissed plaintiffs appeal from so much of Supreme Court’s September 22, 1993 order as denied reargument, dismissed upon the ground that that part of the Appellate Division order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied, with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 18, 2014

NO. 03-12-00335-CV

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Waste Control Specialists, LLC, 

Appellants

v.

Sierra Club, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND ROSE

REVERSED AND RENDERED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on May 12, 2012. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in 

the district court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court reverses the district court’s judgment and 

renders judgment affirming TCEQ’s decision to deny the hearing request. The appellee shall pay 

all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### § 783.30 The 1961 Amendments.

One of the steps Congress took in the 1961 Amendments to extend the monetary provisions of the Act to more workers was to limit the scope of the exemption which excluded all employees employed as seamen from application of the minimum wage and overtime provisions. This it did by extending the minimum wage provisions of the Act to one employed as a seaman on an American vessel (section 6(b)(2)), by adding to the language of section 13(a)(14) to make the exemption applicable only to a seaman employed on a vessel other than an American vessel, and finally by the addition of a new exemption, section 13(b)(6), relieving employers of overtime pay requirements with respect to those employees employed as seamen who do not come within the scope of the amended section 13(a)(14). (H. Rep. No. 75, 87th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 33, 36; Sen. Rep. No. 145, 87th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 32, 50; Statement of the Managers on the part of the House, H. (Cong.) Rep. No. 327, 87th Cong., 1st sess., p. 16.) In view of the retention in the 1961 amendments of the basic language of the original exemption, “employee employed as a seaman”, the legislative history and prior judicial construction (see § 783.29) of the scope and meaning of this phrase would seem controlling for purposes of the amended Act.
An official website of the United States government
          Here’s how you know
        Here’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A
              **.gov** website belongs to an official government
              organization in the United States.
        **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A
              **lock** (
              Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Skip navigation
  ADA HomeADA HistoryPart One: Origins of the ADAPart Two: Crafting the LawPart Three: The ADA Becomes LawAchieving the PromiseTools and TechHealth CareLearn, Work and PlayReal People
 Home
          ADA
          Alarms for people who are deaf or hard of hearing Alarms for people who are deaf or hard of hearing
 Whether warning of danger or signaling the start of the day—alarms are a constant in many of our lives. A variety of assistive technology devices allow people who are deaf or hard of hearing to receive important alerts that were once inaccessible. A bed shaker uses vibration to wake people up in the morning. The small device can be placed under a pillow or mattress and paired with an alarm clock or smartphone. Users can adjust the intensity of the vibrations for light or heavy sleepers. Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors have saved countless lives.Increasingly, alarms alert people of danger using both sound and flashing “strobe” lights ensuring that people who are deaf and hard of hearing can safely exit the building. Similarly, visual alert devices can use flashing lights to let people who are deaf or hard of hearing know when someone is at the door. The devices can connect to a doorbell or use a vibration sensor to determine when someone is knocking on the door.

                    *Last modified on 07/23/2020*
 Back to Top    More on the ADA
  

        
      ACL's 31st Anniversary of the ADA page
                      ADA.gov
                      ADA National Network
                      #ThanksToTheADA campaignSITE SUPPORT
  

        
      Home
                      Accessibility
                      Contact Us
                      Disclaimers
                      Freedom of Information Act
                      Privacy policy
                      Site Map
                      Viewers and PlayersRELATED SITES
  

        
      Administration for Community Living
                      HHS Office for Civil Rights
                      Department of Health and Human Services
                      CMS: Access to Care
                      No Fear Act (on HHS.gov)
                      Plain Writing (on HHS.gov)
                      USA.gov
                      White House
#### § 4050.207 PBGC discretion.

PBGC may in appropriate circumstances extend deadlines, excuse noncompliance, and grant waivers with regard to any provision of this subpart to promote the purposes of the missing participants program and title IV of ERISA. Like circumstances will be treated in like manner under this section.