alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. J. Res. 29

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

Joint Resolution

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to design and construct a permanent addition

to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial in Washington, D.C., and for other

purposes.

Whereas President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, after contracting

poliomyelitis, required the use of a wheelchair for mobility and

lived with this condition while leading the United States through

some of its most difficult times; and

Whereas President Roosevelt’s courage, leadership, and success

should serve as an example and inspiration for all Americans:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ADDITION TO FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT MEMORIAL.

(a) PLAN.—The Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this

Act as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall plan for the design and construction

of an addition of a permanent statue, bas-relief, or other similar

structure to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial in Washington, D.C. (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘Memorial’’), to provide

recognition of the fact that President Roosevelt’s leadership in the

struggle by the United States for peace, well-being, and human

dignity was provided while the President used a wheelchair.

(b) COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS.—The Secretary shall obtain

the approval of the Commission of Fine Arts for the design plan

created under subsection (a).

(c) REPORT.—As soon as practicable, the Secretary shall report

to Congress and the President on findings and recommendations

for the addition to the Memorial.

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Beginning on the date that is 120 days

after submission of the report to Congress under subsection (c),

using only private contributions, the Secretary shall construct the

addition according to the plan created under subsection (a).

SEC. 2. POWERS OF THE SECRETARY.

To carry out this Act, the Secretary may—

(1) hold hearings and organize contests; and

(2) request the assistance and advice of members of the

disability community, the Commission of Fine Arts, and the

National Capital Planning Commission, and the Commissions

shall render the assistance and advice requested.
S. J. Res. 29—2

SEC. 3. COMMEMORATIVE WORKS ACT.

Compliance by the Secretary with this joint resolution shall

satisfy all requirements for establishing a commemorative work

under the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this joint

resolution such sums as may be necessary.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

COMPLETE DISCOVERY

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

SIDNEY CHARLES RANDALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. LARSON, 

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0798-JCC-MAT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO COMPLETE

DISCOVERY

 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this civil rights action, has filed a second motion for an

extension of time to complete discovery in this case. (Dkt. #35). The current deadline for

discovery expires on January 16, 2007. (Dkt. #28). Having reviewed plaintiff’s motion and the

balance of the record, the Court does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) As reasons for the extension, plaintiff’s cites difficulties in obtaining evidence and

in communicating with other inmates who he alleges are witnesses to the events underlying this

lawsuit. (Dkt. #35). Although the Court has already granted plaintiff one extension of time, due

to his status as an incarcerated pro se litigant, the Court will accommodate his request for a further

90-day extension of time. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to complete

Case 2:06-cv-00798-JCC Document 36 Filed 01/08/07 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

COMPLETE DISCOVERY

PAGE -2

discovery in this case (Dkt. #35) is GRANTED. No further extensions will be granted absent

extraordinary circumstances.

(2) The following new deadlines shall apply: Discovery shall be completed by April

16, 2007. Dispositive motions shall be filed by May 17, 2007. The parties shall file a Joint Pretrial

Statement by July 17, 2007.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for

defendants, and to the Honorable John C. Coughenour.

DATED this 8th day of January, 2007.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00798-JCC Document 36 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.01


                            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 Crown Energy Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the 2nd Quarter 2004 ending June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jay Mealey, President 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(b) 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/ Jay Mealey
----------------------------
Jay Mealey
Chief Executive Officer
August 23, 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.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Washington, DC 20551

August 9, 2018

Mr. Thomas DeRobertis

Senior Vice President & Controller

CNB Bank Shares, Inc.

450 West Side Square

Carlinville, Illinois 62626

Dear Mr. DeRobertis:

This letter responds to the request from CNB Bank Shares, Inc. (“CNB”),

Carlinville, Illinois, for an extension oftime to file the FR Y-9C and FR Y-9LP financial reports

until December 31, 2018. CNB recently crossed the threshold of $1 billion in total consolidated

assets and, without an extension, would be required to file the FR Y-9C and FR Y-9LP financial

reports on August 9 and August 14, respectively.

CNB requested additional time to file the FR Y-9C and FR Y-9LP reports due to

the burden associated with filing these reports. CNB has represented that, if an extension is

granted, it will continue to file the FR Y-9SP financial report during the extension period.

Acting pursuant to authority delegated by the Board and having considered all

relevant facts, I have approved CNB’s request for an extension oftime. Accordingly, CNB is

granted an extension oftime, until December 31, 2018, to file the FR Y-9C and FR Y-9LP

financial reports. This action is based on all the facts ofrecord, including the information

discussed above, and the representations in your submissions. Any material change in those

facts or representations could affect this approval and should be communicated promptly to

Board staff.
Please contact Kevin Tran, Division of Supervision and Regulation, at (202) 452-

2309, if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,

Ann Misback

Secretary ofthe Board

cc: Alexander Behlman, Senior Statistical Analyst

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-2455WA

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western v. * District of Arkansas. * Joseph Bartlett Smith, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: November 18, 1997

Filed: November 26, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Joseph Bartlett Smith appeals his conviction for possessing mari juana with intent to distribute. Smith contends the district court improperly denied his motion t o suppress the marijuana state troopers found in Smith's pickup truck after a traffic stop. A thumbnail sketch of the facts shows that Smith's claims are witho ut merit. Smith was stopped by a state trooper for a speeding violation. While the trooper and Smith were waiting for a routine computer check of Smith's driver's license and criminal history , a backup trooper detected a strong m arijuana odor coming from Smith's pickup. After a dru g dog alerted to the presence of drugs, the troopers found a large quantity o f ma rijuana inside some barrels in the pickup's bed. Smith's contentions that the initial-2-

traffic stop was pretextual and that the troopers lacked reasonable suspicion of th e pr esence of drugs when they summoned the drug dog are clearly foreclosed by th e holdings of the Supreme Court a nd this court. See Whren v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 176 9, 1774, 1776-77 (1996); United States v. Bloomfield , 40 F.3d 910, 918 (1994) , cert. denied , 514 U.S. 1113 (1995). Thus, we affirm the district court without an extended opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Lakeisha Demerson, MD v. Kiesta Smith, Individually and as next 

friend of XXXXXX XXXXXX, a minor

Appellate case number: 01-22-00579-CV

Trial court case number: 2022-01500

Trial court: 270th District Court of Harris County

On August 17, 2022, the trial court reporter filed a recorder’s record of electronically

recorded proceedings in this case. The filed record does not comply with Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure 34.6 and 13.2. On August 30, 2022, this Court issued an order requiring the 

court reporter to file certified copies of the logs required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 

34.6(a)(2) and 13.2 within 30 days. We advised in that order that Appellant’s brief will be due 

thirty days after the court reporter files a compliant reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(a).

On August 26, 2022, Appellant filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file 

her brief. As set forth above, the briefing deadlines have yet to begin to run because the 

appellate record is not complete. Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file her brief is, 

therefore, denied as premature.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy

Acting individually 

Date: September 1, 2022
infraction, he failed to demonstrate that a deduction of 180 credits was 

improper. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the petition. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

J. 

Hardesty 

Douglas 

tak J. 

0-\szt. J. 

Cherry 

cc: Hon. Gary Fairman, District Judge 

Bruce Birch 

Attorney General/Carson City 

White Pine County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 0t199),
Before the First Division,

April 27, 1964

No. 68486.

protests 60/2171 and 60/2201 (Galveston).

#### Leslie B. Canion *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of frozen fish in blocks similar in all material respects-to that the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), and *Amende-Schultz et al.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 142, C.D. 2327), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as-to all of the merchandise covered by protest 60/2171 and as to such merchandise-in protest 60/2201, invoiced as cod fillet blocks.
# Official Journal C 298/2023

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 298 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6623 August 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 298

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6623 August 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2023/C 298/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11215 – PAI PARTNERS / HG / AZETS) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2023/C 298/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11170 – VERITAS / EIM / PATIENT SQUARE / SYNEOS HEALTH) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2023/C 298/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11154 – LUBEA / GEL / ESTEVE HEALTHCARE) (
  1
  ) | 3 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2023/C 298/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11215 – PAI PARTNERS / HG / AZETS) (
  1
  )

1

1

2023/C 298/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11170 – VERITAS / EIM / PATIENT SQUARE / SYNEOS HEALTH) (
  1
  )

1

2

2023/C 298/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11154 – LUBEA / GEL / ESTEVE HEALTHCARE) (
  1
  )

1

3

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2023/C 298/04 | Euro exchange rates – 22 August 2023 | 4 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2023/C 298/05 | Update of the list of national services responsible for border control as referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) | 5 |
| 2023/C 298/06 | Update of the list of border crossing points as referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) | 6 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2023/C 298/04

Euro exchange rates – 22 August 2023

4

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2023/C 298/05

Update of the list of national services responsible for border control as referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)

5

2023/C 298/06

Update of the list of border crossing points as referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 10.6
 CARIBOU COFFEE COMPANY, INC.
 2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AND AGREEMENT
 GRANT
  CARIBOU COFFEE COMPANY, INC.By:Name:Title:
 TERMS AND CONDITIONS
 Section 1. Plan and Award Agreement .
 Section 2. Stockholder Status .




---



##### 



Section 3. Forfeiture and Vesting .
 (a)
    
    General Rule. Employee shall vest in the Restricted Stock only if the
requirements of Section 3(b) are met.(b)
    
    Service Requirement. Employee shall vest in the Restricted Stock as follows:
 (1)
    
    25% of the shares of Restricted Stock (rounding down to the
nearest whole number) shall vest on ____________, provided Employee remains an
employee of the Company or a Subsidiary or Affiliate of the Company from the
Grant Date through such date;(2)
    
    25% of the shares of Restricted Stock (rounding down to the
nearest whole number) shall vest on _______________, provided Employee remains
an employee of the Company or a Subsidiary or Affiliate of the Company from the
Grant Date through such date;(3)
    
    25% of the shares of Restricted Stock (rounding down to the
nearest whole number) shall vest on _____________, provided Employee remains an
employee of the Company or a Subsidiary or Affiliate of the Company from the
Grant Date through such date;(4)
    
    the balance of the shares of Restricted Stock shall vest on
______________, provided Employee remains an employee of the Company or a
Subsidiary or Affiliate of the Company from the Grant Date through such date;
 Each of the dates specified in Section 3(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) shall be treated as
a service vesting date under this Restricted Stock Award Agreement (Service Vesting
Date). If Employees employment terminates for any reason, before shares of
Restricted Stock vest, Employee shall forfeit the unvested shares unless otherwise
provided in a separate agreement between Employee and the Company. A transfer of
employment between the Company and a Subsidiary or Affiliate of the Company or
between Subsidiaries or Affiliates of the Company shall not be treated as a
termination of employment under this Section 3.
 Section 4. Change in Control .
 Section 5. Stock Issuance . Exhibit A
 2




---



##### 



Section 6. Nontransferable .
 Section 7. Withholding .
 Section 8. Other Laws .
 Section 9. No Right to Continue Service .
 Section 10. Governing Law .
 Section 11. Binding Effect .
 Section 12. Headings and Sections .
 3




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 
  SignaturePrint NameDate
# Official Journal C 276/2017

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 276 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6019 August 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 276

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6019 August 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 276/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 276/01

Euro exchange rates

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 276/02 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8593 — CVC/PAI/Cortefiel) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2017/C 276/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8596 — Colindale/Goldman Sachs/JRE) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 276/04 | Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU — Request made by a contracting entity — extension of deadline | 4 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2017/C 276/02

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8593 — CVC/PAI/Cortefiel) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

2

2017/C 276/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8596 — Colindale/Goldman Sachs/JRE) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2017/C 276/04

Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU — Request made by a contracting entity — extension of deadline

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# C_2014246EN.01000102.xml

| 29.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7152 — AdP/Aelia/MZLZ Retail)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 246/02

On 23 July 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7152. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7152. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago RUIZ-MONTOYA, also known as Alfonso Rivera-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50261

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Santiago Ruiz-Montoya raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.