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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1544

To prohibit the formation of private paramilitary organizations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 2, 1995

Mr. NADLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To prohibit the formation of private paramilitary

organizations.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Domestic Insurgency

5 Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. PARAMILITARY ORGANIZATIONS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 115 of title 18, United

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the

9 following:
2

•HR 1544 IH

1 ‘‘§ 2392. Paramilitary organizations

2 ‘‘(a) Whoever knowingly participates in a para3 military organization shall be fined under this title or im4 prisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

5 ‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘paramilitary

6 organization’ means two or more individuals acting to7 gether, organized in a military or paramilitary structure,

8 who knowingly—

9 ‘‘(1) possess firearms, explosives, incendiary de10 vices, or other weapons or techniques capable of

11 causing injury or death to individuals; or

12 ‘‘(2) provide or participate in training in the

13 use of any such weapons or techniques;

14 with the intention that such weapons or techniques be

15 used unlawfully to oppose the authority of the United

16 States or of any State or for any other unlawful purpose.’’.

17 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

18 at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 18, United States

19 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new

20 item:

‘‘2392. Paramilitary organizations.’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1935 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1935

      To suspend until January 1, 1998, the duty on certain twine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 27, 1995

 Mr. Lipinski introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend until January 1, 1998, the duty on certain twine.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TWINE.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new heading:
    

``  9902.56.07  3-ply twine, not braided                                                                        
                 or plaited, of nylon                                                                           
                 having a final `S'                                                                             
                 twist; measuring less                                                                          
                 than 4.8mm in diameter;                                                                        
                 containing at least 10                                                                         
                 percent cotton; made of                                                                        
                 100 percent recycled                                                                           
                 materials (provided for                                                                        
                 in subheading                                                                                  
                 5607.50.20)............  Free             No change        No change        On or before       
                                                                                              [12/31/97]        
                                                                                                              ''

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 shall apply with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Biovest International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge and belief, that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Form 10-QSB) of the Company 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all materials
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                                                        
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 22, 2006 |  | /s/ James A. McNulty                                   
|                     |  | James A. McNulty, Secretary and Chief Financial
Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and
will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or
otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, May 2, 1995 (60), Para 60.27 Leave of Absence]
[Page 629]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.60.27  leave of absence

  By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted--
  To Mr. SAXTON, for today;
  To Mr. ROGERS, for today;
  To Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, for today;
  To Mr. MENENDEZ, for today;
  To Mr. BAESLER, for today; and
  To Mr. MORAN, for today after 2:30 p.m. and May 3.
  And then,
```
EX-10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 
 TO THE 

MATTEL, INC. 2005 EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Mattel, Inc. (“Mattel”) maintains the Mattel, Inc. 2005 Equity Compensation Plan, as amended (the “Plan”); 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 22 of the Plan, Mattel reserved the right to amend the Plan in whole or in part from time to
time by action of the Board of Directors of Mattel (the “Board”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Board desires to
amend certain provisions of the Plan to reflect Mattel’s change in the listing of its common stock from the New York Stock Exchange to the Nasdaq Stock Market. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 22 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of November 12, 2009, as follows: 

1. Amendment. All references to the “New York Stock Exchange” in the Plan shall be replaced with references
to the “Nasdaq Stock Market.” 
 2. Ratification and Confirmation. Except as specifically
amended hereby, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects and remains in full force and effect. 

3. Governing Law. This Amendment No. 3 shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the
State of Delaware. 
 4. Headings. Section headings are for convenience only and shall not be
considered a part of this Amendment No. 3. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Mattel has caused this Amendment No. 3 to
be executed, effective as of November 12, 2009. 
  

			
	MATTEL, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Alan Kaye
	Name:	 	Alan Kaye
	Title:	 	 Senior Vice President,
 Human
Resources

		
	Dated:	 	December 1, 2009
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7312** 

MICHAEL E. SANDERS , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. JOSEPH BATTLES, administrator for the Abbeville County Detention Center in his official and individual capacity; CHARLES GOODWIN, Sheriff in his official and individual capacity; LEIGH ANN MCMAHAN , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 6:11

- cv - 0273 4

- GRA )

Submitted : October 11, 2012 Decided: October 16, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Michael E. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; Elliott T. Halio, HALIO & HALIO, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee s . Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael E. Sa nders appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. A. § 636(b)(1)(B) ( West 200 6 & Supp. 2012 ). The magistrate judge recommende d that relief be denied and advised Sanders that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Sanders has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequa tely presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.11

LabOne 2002 Incentive Plan

The Annual Incentive Plan is designed to motivate and reward the accomplishment of targeted operating results.  The Compensation Committee and management establish operating goals under the Plan based upon the judgment of reasonable productivity improvements and targeted earnings per share.  The size of the incentive pool increases pursuant to a formula established by the Committee based on increased earnings per share thresholds.  The incentive pool based on productivity improvements is paid in cash during the year as certain targeted objectives are obtained by non-management personnel.  The incentive pool for designated managers and officers is distributed in cash and options ratably at year end according to a pre-established weighting.  The weighting is based upon senior management's potential contribution to the Company's financial and strategic goals for the year, and is reviewed and approved by the Committee.
*Friday, December 11, 1998*

MOTION DOCKET

98-206.

#### Sasaki v. McKinnon.

Cuyahoga App. No. 71941. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. Upon consideration of appellants’ motion to remand appeal to the trial court,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion to remand appeal to the trial court be, and hereby is, denied.

Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from Moto Photo
Inc.'s 1998 First Quarter 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,734,754
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,549,886
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,646,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,950,066
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,887,830
<PP&E>                                      10,935,174
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,905,355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,960,908
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,888,320
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,000
<COMMON>                                        78,060
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,340,355
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,960,908
<SALES>                                      5,829,264
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,091,441
<CGS>                                        3,204,789
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,442,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               468,444
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               142,145
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              97,740
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (267,242)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (67,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (200,242)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (200,242)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
§ 1570.305 False statements regarding security background checks by public transportation agency or railroad carrier. ( a ) *Scope.* This section implements sections 1414(e) (6 U.S.C. 1143) and 1522(e) (6 U.S.C. 1170) of the “Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007,” Public Law 110-53 (121 Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007).
( b ) *Definitions.* In addition to the terms in §§ 1500.3, 1500.5, and 1503.202 of subchapter A and § 1570.3 of subchapter D of this chapter, the following term applies to this part: *Security background check* means reviewing the following for the purpose of identifying individuals who may pose a threat to transportation security, national security, or of terrorism: ( i ) Relevant criminal history databases.
( ii ) In the case of an alien (as defined in sec. 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3)), the relevant databases to determine the status of the alien under the immigration laws of the United States.
( iii ) Other relevant information or databases, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
( c ) *Prohibitions.* ( 1 ) A public transportation agency or a contractor or subcontractor of a public transportation agency may not knowingly misrepresent to an employee or other relevant person, including an arbiter involved in a labor arbitration, the scope, application, or meaning of any rules, regulations, directives, or guidance issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security related to security background check requirements for employees when conducting a security background check.
( 2 ) A railroad carrier or a contractor or subcontractor of a railroad carrier may not knowingly misrepresent to an employee or other relevant person, including an arbiter involved in a labor arbitration, the scope, application, or meaning of any rules, regulations, directives, or guidance issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security related to security background check requirements for employees when conducting a security background check.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending October 26, 2013

|Filer                | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                          
|-------------------- | ----------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|COASTWAY BANCORP MHC | * 3A1       | Coastway  Bancorp, Inc., Cranston, Rhode Island to acquire 100% of the outstanding capital stock of Coastway Community Bank, Cranston, Rhode Island, pursuant to section 3(a)(1) of the BHC Act, in connection with the conversion of Coastway Bancorp, MHC from mutual to stock form. | Newspaper:10/14/2013Federal Register:10/15/2013
|Newspaper:           | 10/14/2013 
|Federal Register:    | 10/15/2013 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Sarah S. Vance, Chief District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARPINDER S. CHAHAL; GURMEET

K. CHAHAL,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71902

Agency Nos. A078-361-295

 A078-361-296

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 20, 2012** 

San Francisco, California

Before: PAEZ and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and VANCE, Chief District Judge.*** 

Harpinder S. Chahal and Gurmeet K. Chahal, natives and citizens of India,

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

FILED

AUG 13 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

their second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.

Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to

reopen as untimely and numerically barred, or in finding that Petitioners failed to

present sufficient evidence to qualify for the changed country conditions exception.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i), (ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3)(ii).

Petitioners cannot avoid the effect of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination by

reframing their claim of past persecution as a claim based on future persecution.

Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 995–97 (9th Cir. 2008) (underlying adverse

credibility determination regarding claim of past persecution rendered evidence of

changed country conditions immaterial). And even if they could, the BIA did not

abuse its discretion in determining that the new evidence submitted in the motion

to reopen is insufficient to establish a claim of changed circumstances reasonably

likely to succeed on the merits.

PETITION DENIED.
<PAGE>


                                 March 1, 1995


[SEE SCHEDULE A]
Rexene Corporation
5005 LBJ Freeway
Dallas, Texas  75244

     Re:  Executive Security Plan

Dear ___________:

     You have advised me that my eligibility to receive retirement benefits 
under the Rexene Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan ("SERP") adopted 
effective October 1, 1994 is conditioned upon the waiver of my rights and the 
rights of my beneficiaries to receive retirement and related post-retirement 
death benefits under the Executive Security Plan dated April 1, 1986 and the 
Key Officer Participation Agreement dated April 8, 1986 executed by me in 
connection with the Executive Security Plan.  I acknowledge receipt of a copy 
of the SERP, the Executive Security Plan and the Key Officer Participation 
Agreement; and having read them, and in order to be eligible for retirement 
benefits under the SERP:

     I hereby elect to participate in the SERP;

     I hereby waive all rights that I or any of my beneficiaries, including 
my estate, may ever have to receive a death benefit under Article 3 of the 
Executive Security Plan or Section 1 of my Key Officer Participation 
Agreement if prior to my death I or my surviving spouse shall have been 
entitled to receive, or shall in fact have been receiving, retirement 
benefits under Article VI of the SERP;

     I also hereby waive all my rights that I or any of my beneficiaries, 
including my estate, may now or hereafter have to receive any retirement 
benefits under Article 4 of the Executive Security Plan and Section 2 of my 
Key Officer Participation Agreement;

<PAGE>


________________________
March 1, 1995
Page 2


     I hereby release Rexene Corporation and its successors and assigns 
("Rexene") from any and all responsibility, liability and obligation to make 
or pay any death benefit to any of my beneficiaries, including my estate, 
under Article 3 of the Executive Security Plan and Section 1 of my Key 
Officer Participation Agreement if, prior to my death, I or my surviving 
spouse shall have been entitled to receive, or shall in fact have been 
receiving, retirement benefits under Article VI of the SERP and to make or 
pay any benefits to me or my beneficiaries under Article 4 of the Executive 
Security Plan and Section 2 of my Key Officer Participation Agreement.  I 
further agree, if any claim shall be made by me or my beneficiaries, 
including my estate, against Rexene for any such payment pursuant to Article 
3 or 4 of the Executive Security Plan or pursuant to my Key Officer 
Participation Agreement, I (or my estate, if applicable) will defend, 
indemnify and hold Rexene harmless from and against any such claim, including 
reasonable legal fees incurred in connection with defending or resolving such 
claim.

                                   Very truly yours,


                                   _______________________________




<PAGE>

                                SCHEDULE A

Lavon N. Anderson
Jack E. Knott