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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1083 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1083

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen

                                 An Act

 
  To amend section 1214 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for 
 stays during a period that the Merit Systems Protection Board lacks a 
                                 quorum.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. STAYS BY MSPB DURING PERIODS WITH NO QUORUM.
    Section 1214(b)(1)(B) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
        (1) by inserting ``(i)'' before ``The Board may''; and
        (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(ii) If the Board lacks the number of members appointed under 
section 1201 required to constitute a quorum, any remaining member of 
the Board who was appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, may, upon request by the Special Counsel, extend the period of 
any stay granted under subparagraph (A).''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Document

EXHIBIT 10.5

FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT


    THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into by and between SOUTHSIDE BANK (the “Company”) and JULIE SHAMBURGER (the “Executive”), effective as of the date of execution.


    WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into a deferred compensation agreement effective as of January 15, 2009 (the “Deferred Compensation Agreement”); and


    WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Deferred Compensation Agreement to increase the amount payable to Executive thereunder; 


    NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive agree as follows:


1.The first sentence of Section III of the Deferred Compensation Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the words “THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($300,000.00)” and replacing them with “FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($500,000.00).”


2.The last sentence of Section III of the Deferred Compensation Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the words “TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2,500.00)” and replacing them with “FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SIX DOLLARS AND SIXTY SEVEN CENTS ($4,166.67).”


3.Except as modified by this Amendment, the Deferred Compensation Agreement remains in full force and effect.


4.This Amendment and the Deferred Compensation Agreement, when construed together, constitute the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the matters addressed herein.




(Signature on following page)


LEGAL02/40120253v1






												
	EXECUTED on the 25th day of February, 2021.
	
				
	EXECUTIVE:    
		SOUTHSIDE BANK
	
				
				
	/s/ Julie N. Shamburger		/s/ Lee R. Gibson	
	Julie N. Shamburger 		By: Lee R. Gibson
	
			Its: President and Chief Executive Officer

				
				


- 2 -
LEGAL02/40120253v1
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 Duke Capital LLC (Duke Capital) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Keith G. Butler, Chief Financial Officer and Controller of Duke Capital, 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 Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Duke Capital.



|                   |  |  |  |                                                       
|------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 17, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    KEITH G. BUTLER                                
|                   |  |  |  |                                                       
|                   |  |  |  | Keith G. Butler Chief Financial Officer and Controller
Exhibit 32.1
                               CERTIFICATION
                                PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Powder River
Basin Gas Corporation, (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), Brian Fox, as President, CEO, CFO, hereby certifies,
pursuant to an solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. ss, 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbannes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his
knowledge and belief that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
          or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m. or
          780 (d)); and

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





                                   By:/S/ Brian Fox
                                   --------------------------------------
                                   Brian Fox, President, CEO, CFO

Date: March 30, 2005
No. 50353.

#### Protest 989613-G, etc., of H. H. Elder & Co. et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in Abstract 49600, which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as claimed.
854098.13.01 10/16/02 1:55 PM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CLINT TRACY AND KARYN TRACY :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4115

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04115-BWK Document 11 Filed 10/21/2002 Page 1 of 1
Before the First Division,

December 27, 1943

No. 49062.

#### Protest 104462-K of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the clothes and hat brushes are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Heinrich Herrmann & Weiss*(26 C. C. P. A. 292, C. A. D. 30), which record was incorporated herein, the claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1506 was sustained.
No. 52899.

#### Sam Forwand Co. *v.*United States,

protests 141163-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. O. *Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
No. 61754.

#### E. Leitz, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 251711-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of photo enlargers; that said enlargers were held dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 1551, as modified, as photographic cameras in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Oust. Ct. 271, C. D. 1874); and that, in accordance with said decision, parts for enlargers are properly dutiable as parts of photographic cameras under paragraph 1551, the claim of the plaintiffs at 20 percent was sustained.
# C_2015363EN.01004001.xml

| 3.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/40

---

Action brought on 20 August 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg e.a. v ECHA

(Case T-477/15)

(2015/C 363/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendants: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s award decision regarding Phase 2 of the restricted procurement procedure ECHA/2014/86 communicated to the applicants in its letter of 25 June 2014, by which they were informed that their bid had not been successful and that the contract was awarded to another consortium; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s award decision regarding Phase 2 of the restricted procurement procedure ECHA/2014/86 communicated to the applicants in its letter of 25 June 2014, by which they were informed that their bid had not been successful and that the contract was awarded to another consortium;

| — | order the defendant to provide the applicants with the compensation of damages for the loss of opportunity to be awarded a contract, for the amount of 5 20  000 euros; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to provide the applicants with the compensation of damages for the loss of opportunity to be awarded a contract, for the amount of 5 20  000 euros; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that ECHA infringed the obligation to state reasons within the evaluation of their tender by not providing the relative advantages of the winning tender. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that ECHA infringed the obligation to state reasons within the evaluation of their tender by not providing the relative advantages of the winning tender.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that ECHA committed several manifest errors of assessment within the evaluation of their offer and subsidiarily that it introduced new and unknown criteria at the stage of the evaluation of the offers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that ECHA committed several manifest errors of assessment within the evaluation of their offer and subsidiarily that it introduced new and unknown criteria at the stage of the evaluation of the offers.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2315

In re: SHAPAT AHDAWAN NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Extraordinary Writ to the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. (3:17-cr-00003-MHL-1)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: February 29, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2315 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya petitions this court for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), contesting the validity of his 2018 conviction and seeking an order 

vacating his criminal judgment. A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy 

available only when the movant demonstrates a fundamental error for which a more usual 

remedy is not available and that he had valid reasons for not attacking the conviction 

earlier. United States v. Lesane, 40 F.4th 191, 197 (2022).

Although Nabaya was released from prison in January 2022, he is still serving his 

supervised-release term. A defendant serving a supervised-release term is considered “in 

custody” for the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Swaby, 855 F.3d 233, 239 

(4th Cir. 2017). Because the more usual remedy is available, Nabaya cannot seek relief 

through a coram nobis petition. See Lesane, 40 F.4th at 197. Accordingly, we deny the 

petition for a writ of error coram nobis and deny Nabaya’s pending motions.

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 

(4th Cir. 2003), we construe Nabaya’s petition for writ of error coram nobis and related 

motions as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we 

conclude that Nabaya’s claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). 

We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2315 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

ROCHELLE : 02-3867

MONTGOMERY : 02-3889

HINES : 02-3901

KARI, et al. : 02-3926

HABERMAN : 02-3936

MILEY : 02-3951

FRANCO, et al. : 02-3975

DAVIS : 02-4113

RUSSELL, et al. : 02-4116

HERNANDEZ, et al. : 02-4126

QUILLEN, et al. : 02-4167

SIMMONS, et al. : 02-4174

BIEDERMAN : 02-4194

DRY, et al. : 02-4225

COOK : 02-4237

STEFAN, et al. : 02-4277

WALKER, et al. : 02-4283

DUNCAN, et al. : 02-4301

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04194-SD Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota.

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Stewart Dalzell, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04194-SD Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
# C_2018022EN.01001201.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundefinanzhof — Germany) — Rochus Geissel, in his capacity as liquidator of RGEX GmbH i.L v Finanzamt Neuss (C-374/16), and Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin (C-375/16)

(Joined Cases C-374/16 and C-375/16) (1)

1

((References for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168(a), Article 178(a) and Article 226(5) - Deduction of input tax - Compulsory content of invoices - Legitimate expectation on the part of the taxable person regarding the existence of the conditions giving rise to the right to deduct))

(2018/C 022/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundefinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rochus Geissel, in his capacity as liquidator of RGEX GmbH i.L. (C-374/16), Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach (C-375/16)

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Neuss (C-374/16), Igor Butin (C-375/16)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) and Article 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 226(5) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the exercise of the right to deduct input VAT subject to the condition that the address where the issuer of an invoice carries out its economic activity must be indicated on the invoice.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH BRUNO :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4232

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04232-LDD Document 7 Filed 09/16/2002 Page 1 of 1
J - S82002 - 17

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. * * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JAVON HART , Appellant : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1173 WDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 23, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Divi sion at No(s): CP- 02 - CR - 0013855 - 2015 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JAVON HART, Appellant : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1601 WDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 22, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP- 02 - CR - 0013855 - 2015 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STEVENS, P.J.E. , * and STRASSBURGER, J .* * DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JUNE 04, 2018 Because Appellant is entitled to a new trial, I respectfully dissent and offer the following analysis. As to Appellant’s first issue, regarding whether the trial court erred in sustaining the Commonwealth’s objections to testimony offered by Appellant’s mother, I would first conclude that counsel for AppellantJ - S82002 - 17

- 2 - responded as best he could to the Commonwealth’s objections and the trial court’s quick sustaining of those objections. See N.T., 3/23/2016, at 122 - 24. Counsel had to walk a fine line during trial, and this Court does not require counsel to offer a treatise on the rules of hearsay in order to preserve an issue for appeal. Furthermore, we have held that evidence concerning the relationship between an appellant and a victim is both relevant and admissible under similar circumstances. See Commonwealth v. Sneeringer , 668 A.2d 1167 (Pa. Super. 1995). Finally, because credibility was the crucial issue in the case, this could not be harmless error. Thus, Appellant is entitled to a new trial. 1

1 I join the Majority with respect to the other two issues raised by Appellant on appeal.
as ee
bo7T

ae
3 Community_National pany’ ‘eh

August 17, 1999

Cynthia L. Johnson, Director

Cash Management Policy & Planning Division
Financial Management Service

Room 420

401 14th Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20227

Dear Ms. Johnson,

Concerning the proposed amendment to the TT&L loan rate of interest, as a borrower I of
course do not want to see the rate increase. We have only a $1 million line, but it is useful
to us at those times when we are borrowing funds from our correspondent banks. Raising
the rate would provide us with no benefit over our other sources of funds. At those times
when we are selling fed funds there would be no benefit to be in the program. All we would
be doing would be decreasing our ROA even more.

We would have to seriously reconsider participation in the program if this rate increase
were enacted. I would hope that the Treasury's intent is not to eliminate small bank participation
such as ours.

Respectfully,

x
Daniel Behrend
Vice President

733 NORTH MAIN STREET * OREGON, WISCONSIN 53575 * 608-835-3168
Before the Second Division,

May 1, 1962

No. 66730.

#### John L. Westland & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/25703 (Los Angeles).

*444Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of 600 dozen stainless steel cocktail forks, which have stainless steel handles, are not specially designed for other than household, kitchen, or butchers’ use, and are under 4 inches long, exclusive of handle, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDERSECTION 906 OF SARBANES- OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

 

I,Thomas A. Dolan, certify that:

 

1.   The Annual Report as amended for the yearended June 30, 2005 on Form 10-KSB of QRS Music Technologies, Inc.(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of1934.

 

2.   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the issuer in the Report.

 
| Date: October 12,  2005 |                    |
|------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                         |                    |
|                         | /s/  Thomas A. Dolan    |   |
|                         | Thomas A. Dolan         |
|                         | Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
Case No. 14,979a.

#### UNITED STATES v. The DOLPHIN.

[See Case No. 3,975.]