alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 467 

AN ACT 

To modify the age requirement for the Student Incentive 

Payment Program of the State maritime academies. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 467 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Changing Age-Deter3 mined Eligibility To Student Incentive Payments Act’’ or 

4 the ‘‘CADETS Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. AGE REQUIREMENT FOR THE STUDENT INCENTIVE 

6 PAYMENT PROGRAM OF THE STATE MARI7 TIME ACADEMIES. 

8 Section 51509 of title 46, United States Code, is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(i) AGE REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may make 

11 an agreement under this section only with a qualified stu12 dent who will meet the age requirement for enlistment or 

13 commission in the Navy Reserve at the time of graduation 

14 from the academy.’’. 

Passed the Senate May 16, 2023. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 467 

AN ACT 

To modify the age requirement for the Student Inacademies. centive Payment Program of the State maritime
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4557 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4557

 To authorize the use of off-highway vehicles in certain areas of the 
                   Capitol Reef National Park, Utah.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 17, 2024

    Mr. Lee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the use of off-highway vehicles in certain areas of the 
                   Capitol Reef National Park, Utah.

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

SECTION 1. USE OF OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CAPITOL 
              REEF NATIONAL PARK, UTAH.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Covered road.--The term ``covered road'' means the 
        portions of each of Burr Trail Road, Cathedral Road, Hartnet 
        Road, Highway 24, Notom Bullfrog Road, Polk Creek Road, Oil 
        Ranch Road, and Baker Ranch Road that are located within the 
        boundaries of the Capitol Reef National Park in the State.
            (2) Off-highway vehicle.--The term ``off-highway vehicle'' 
        has the meaning given the term in State law.
            (3) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Utah.
    (b) Applicable Law.--State law shall apply to the use of motor 
vehicles (including off-highway vehicles) on a covered road.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


         In connection with the Annual Report of Hotels.com (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
S. Litman, Chief Executive Officer 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:

         (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 the
Company.






                                                     /s/ David S. Litman
                                                     David S. Litman
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     April 30, 2003
Before the Third Division,

May 28, 1953

No. 57361.

protest 182728-K (San Francisco).

#### Wing Duck & Co. *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

Plaintiff in this case is protesting the action of the collector of customs at the port of San Francisco, Calif., in liquidating an item on the entry of merchandise entered at that port upon what it alleges is an erroneous extension of the appraised unit value. The merchandise consists of spoons invoiced at a unit price “p/piece” of Hong Kong $0.83, which amount is extended on said invoice as Hong Kong $332. In liquidation, the collector apparently used the figures of Hong Kong $3,320, which he converted into United States dollars, arriving at a figure of $740.

From evidence adduced at the trial, it is apparent that the spoons were appraised at a value of Hong Kong $0.83 per bundle of 10 pieces and were entered upon that basis, rather than upon the basis of Hong Kong $0.83 per spoon. It *465further appears from the record that it was the custom to enter such merchandise at a price per bundle of 10 pieces and that the term “p/piece” indicates a bundle ■of 10 pieces. The appraiser .testified on behalf of the plaintiff that it was the intention and was the practice in shipments of this kind to appraise at this price per bundle of 10 pieces.

That the appraised value of merchandise is the unit value and not the total value is well settled in customs adjudication. *United States*v. *Kuttroff,*9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 239, T. D. 38204. It is clear in this case that the entered and appraised unit value was Hong Kong $0.83 per bundle of 10 pieces and that the collector should have liquidated upon that basis, i. e., he should have obtained the gross entered value by multiplying the entered unit value by the true number of units.

Plaintiff’s claim is therefore sustained.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 46202.

#### Protests 760321-G, etc., of Abbe Engineering Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
NUMBER 13-14-00059-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MONICA GALVAN, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 347th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Appellant’s appointed counsel, Lisa Harris, has filed a motion requesting to 

withdraw as counsel. According to her motion to withdraw, good cause exists for her to 

withdraw because of a conflict of interest. Counsel states that during time she was 

employed with the Nueces County District Attorney’s Office, she signed the affidavit for a 

search warrant in this cause. 
2

Adequate reason for the discharge of counsel and appointment of new counsel 

rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Carroll v. State, 176 S.W.3d 249, 255 

(Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd). In those circumstances where the 

appointment of substitute counsel may be necessary, an appellate court, when faced with 

a motion to withdraw, should abate the proceeding to the trial court for determination of 

this issue. Accordingly, we ABATE the appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court 

for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Upon remand, the trial court shall determine whether appellant’s court-appointed 

attorney should remain as appellant's counsel; and, if not, whether appellant is entitled to 

new appointed counsel. If the trial court determines that there is no reason to discharge 

appellant’s current appointed attorney and appoint substitute counsel, the court shall 

enter an order to that effect. If the trial court determines that new counsel should be 

appointed, the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of newly 

appointed counsel shall be included in the order appointing counsel. The trial court shall 

further cause its order to be included in a supplemental clerk's record to be filed with the 

Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of this order. 

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

15th day of December, 2014.
No. 52357.

protests 846711-G, etc. (New York).

#### Syndicate Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States,

*326Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM MONKS, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Richard Heller*for the petitioner.

*Mr. John G. Thevos and Mr. Archibald Kreiger*for the respondent.

May 28, 1968.

Denied.
No. 46181.

#### Protests 13384-K, etc., of Robert E. Miller, Inc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In view of Abstract 45762 and the agreement of counsel that the ginger is not composed in chief value of manufactured sugar it was held not dutiable under the Sugar Act of 1937 as claimed.
Case No. 9,822.

#### MORRILL v. ARMSTRONG.

[4 Am Law Rev. 194.]

District Court, D. West Virginia.

1869.1

Grants — Lands Is cludbd — Ejectment — Forfeiture foe Failure to Register foe Taxation — Release of Forfeiture — Bar.

1

 [Affirmed in 14 Wall. (81 U. S.) 120.]

[This was an action by Lott M. Morrill against James Armstrong and others to recover a trust of fifteen hundred acres of land.]

The instructions given to the jury in this case, by Judge Jackson, embraced the following important points: A grant from the commonwealth of Virginia for land, made in 1796, upon a survey in 1795, including within its limits prior claims of others, not specified otherwise than by the mention of the estimated quantity, excludes, by the purport of the grant, lands previously granted, as well as those entered but not granted, within the exterior boundaries of the later grant. Where a person had adverse possession of the lands of another, which was forfeited for the failure of the owner to have the same entered on the books of the commissioner of the revenue, and pay the taxes thereon, and became vested in the commonwealth in 1S36, the adverse character of the possession ceased; and when the commonwealth afterwards, by a special act of the legislature, passed in 1844, upon a redemption which was made in 1845, released the title to individuals, neither the possession before the forfeiture, nor that continuing while the title was in the commonwealth, can be added to that after the release took effect, so as to bar an action for the lands.

[From the judgment in this case in favor of the plaintiff a writ of error was sued out by the defendants, from the supreme court, where the judgment of this court was affirmed. Mr. Justice Strong dissenting. 14 Wall. (81 U. S.) 120.]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5132]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center Web site at http://www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 16, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Douglas A. Banks, Vice 
President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
    1. Waterford Bancorp, Inc., Sylvania Township, Ohio; to become a 
bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Waterford Bank, N.A., Sylvania Township, Ohio.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Firstbank Corporation, Alma, Michigan; to merge with ICNB 
Financial Corporation, Ionia, Michigan, and thereby indirectly acquire 
voting shares of Ionia County National Bank of Ionia, Ionia, Michigan.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 16, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-5132 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
##### 



Exhibit 23.1 Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants Board of Directors and Shareholders
UTEK Corporation We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-91724) pertaining to the UTEK Stock Option Plan and 2000
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan of our report dated March 5, 2004 with respect
to the December 31, 2003 consolidated financial statements, including schedules
of investments of UTEK Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 2003. /s/ Pender Newkirk & Company Pender Newkirk & Company
Tampa, Florida
March 19, 2004
1

Sutton, Tia

From: Timothy.Mullins@dot.gov

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 12:12 PM

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov; Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov

Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov; Sutton, Tia; Hengst, Benjamin; Spears, Matthew

Subject: FW: HD FE GHG Phase 2 - RIA COMPARE to 060415 - FIRST HALF Ch 00-04

Attachments: Ch 00 Cover Page ONLY - Compare.docx; Ch 00 Upfront TOC, Acronyms - 

Compare.docx; Ch 01 Industry Characterization - Compare.docx; Ch 02 Technology and 

Cost - Compare.docx; Ch 03 Test Procedures - Compare.docx; Ch 04 Vehicle Simulation 

Model - Compare.docx

Importance: High

Hello, 

Attached please find the first half of the redlined RIA, which shows changes relative to the June 4, 2015 versions that 

were sent to OIRA on June 5, 2015. Because of the large file size, could you please confirm that you have received this?

Thanks, 

Tim
#### Eliza C. Lockwood, *Appellant v.*Washington H. Davis, *Respondent.*

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Bockes, J.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Armando Rodriguez, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 464]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered December 21,1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of *41⁄2*to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s supplemental instruction on the defense of *agency,*which differed from the original instruction only in that it did not apply the facts of the case to the various factors that the court suggested might be useful in deciding the agency issue, was a meaningful response to the jury’s request to be re-instructed on the defense *(People v Malloy,*55 NY2d 296, 302, *cert denied*459 US 847). How the suggested factors applied to defendant’s claim of agency was not so complicated as to require reiteration, it being obvious how the claim would be affected depending on whether or not, for example, defendant had initiated the transaction or received a benefit. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
#### ESSEX COUNTY WELFARE BOARD, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. OTIS WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Harris David*and *Mr. Harvey Pearlman*for tbe petitioner.

*Mr. John A. Matthews, Jr.*and *Mr. William H. Sheil*for tbe respondent.

February 13, 1968.

Denied.
#### Louise J. Van Buskirk, *Appellant, v.*The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York, *Respondent.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J.
No. 38892.

#### Protest 936921-G of Chas. Lachman Co., Inc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of waste the same as that the subject of Abstract 36301. The claim for free entry as paper stock under paragraph 1750 was therefore sustained.
EX-10.17



 Exhibit 10.17 
  





 
 March 11, 2015 
 Joshua
DeFonzo 
 Re: Promotion 
 Dear Joshua: 

Due to your hard work and dedication, I am pleased to offer you a promotion to Chief Commercial Officer, a full time, exempt position
effective April 1, 2015. You will continue to report directly to me. You will receive an annualized salary of two hundred and seventy five thousand dollars ($275,000), paid on a semi-monthly basis on our regular paydays. Deductions required by
law or authorized by you will be taken from each paycheck. 
 You will be eligible to participate in our variable performance bonus plan,
which has a current annual target of one hundred sixty five thousand dollars ($165,000). The bonus will be heavily weighted on the achievement of 14,000 AlloMap tests and a revenue of >$30M amongst other objectives. If test volume exceeds 14,500,
an additional bonus payment of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) will be considered. You must be employed at the time of payout and the amount is subject to all state and federal taxes. 

Subject to the approval of the Board of Directors of the Company, you will be granted an option to purchase 25,000 shares of the
Company’s Common Stock. This option shall vest, subject to your continued employment with the Company, as to one fourth (1/4) of the shares on the one year anniversary of your start date, and as to an additional one forty-eighth
(1/48th) of the total number of shares subject to the option at the end of each calendar month thereafter. Details of the price of these options will be provided in your stock option grant and determined by the board of directors. 

You should be aware that your employment with the Company is for no specified period and constitutes at will employment. As a result, you are
free to resign at any time, for any reason or for no reason. Similarly, the Company is free to conclude its employment relationship with you at any time, with or without cause. 

We are happy to offer you this promotion. Thank you for your contributions so far and we look forward to celebrating our future successes.

  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	CareDx, Inc.
	
	 /s/ Peter Maag

	Peter Maag
	President & CEO


  

	
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO this
	
	12 day of March, 2015.
	
	 /s/ Joshua DeFonzo

	Joshua DeFonzo
#### John J. Townsend, *Respondent, v.*The New York Life Insurance and Trust Company, *Appellant.*

Judgment modified as directed in opinion. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
No. 38908.

#### Protests 270845-G, etc., of American Express Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Eilat Limousine Service for All, Inc., Appellant, v Eilat Car & Limousine Service, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 86]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered on July 3, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, denied portions of petitioner’s application for an injunction *273barring respondent from using the name "Eilat,” unanimously modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of granting the application to the further extent of prohibiting respondent from using the name "Eilat Car & Limousine Service” with respect to its business, and otherwise affirmed, with costs to petitioner.

Petitioner and respondent were incorporated in 1989 and 1993, respectively, and both are engaged in the car service business. Each entity advertised using a telephone number with the name "Eilat.” Respondent also advertised its services under the name "Eilat Car & Limousine Service.”

The record reveals that respondent’s violation of General Business Law § 133 was established "in a clear and convincing manner” *(Association of Contr. Plumbers v Contracting Plumbers Assn.,*302 NY 495, 498). Uncontradicted affidavits and supporting documents proved that respondent intentionally deceived two customers into believing that they were dealing with petitioner when they inadvertently telephoned respondent’s business. Under the circumstances, the IAS Court should have enjoined respondent from using the name "Eilat Car & Limousine Service” in connection with its business, and not merely with respect to its advertising *(see, First Natl. City Bank v First Natl. City Bank & Trust Co.,*52 AD2d 776). Respondent is permitted to use the full name under which it was incorporated—Eilat Transportation, Inc.—with respect to its business. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ. [As amended by unpublished order entered Feb. 6, 1996.]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 21, 2020

NO. 03-19-00834-CV

David Rush, Appellant

v.

The Estate of Rebecca Chaka Rush, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES BAKER AND TRIANA

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on August 20, 2019. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that David Rush has not prosecuted his appeal and did not 

comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for 

want of prosecution. Appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and 

in the court below.
#### AFCO SHEET METAL CONTRACTORS, INC., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. CITY COLLISION, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. CITY COLLISION, INC., DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF, v. ALEXANDER H. SILVERS, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.

*Messrs. Major & Major*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Max & Koenig*for the respondent.

March 12, 1968.

Denied.