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

[House Document 112-48]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

112th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - -House Document 112-48

 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 3101A(a)(1)(A) OF TITLE 31, UNITED 
                              STATES CODE

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                     THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

     A MESSAGE CERTIFYING THAT THE DEBT SUBJECT TO LIMIT IS WITHIN 
  $100,000,000,000 OF THE LIMIT IN 31 U.S.C. 3101(b) AND THAT FURTHER 
           BORROWING IS REQUIRED TO MEET EXISTING COMMITMENTS

   August 5, 2011.--Message and accompanying papers referred to the 
         Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed
To the Congress of the United States:
    Pursuant to section 3101A(a)(1)(A) of title 31, United 
States Code, I hereby certify that the debt subject to limit is 
within $100,000,000,000 of the limit in 31 U.S.C. 3101(b) and 
that further borrowing is required to meet existing 
commitments.

                                                      Barack Obama.
    The White House, August 2, 2011.

                                  

```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 13, 2019

No. 04-19-00501-CV

IN THE MATTER OF M.M.C.D.-E.,

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-01118

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for substitution of counsel is granted.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20397

Conference Calendar

 

THOMAS C. SAWYER, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ALLAN B. POLUNSKY; EDWARD MCELEA; 

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department

of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division;

SYLVIA NANCE,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CV-0562

- - - - - - - - - -

August 24, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas C. Sawyer, Jr., Texas prisoner 

# 579557, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP),

following the district court’s certification that his appeal from

the dismissal of his civil-rights complaint for failure to comply
No. 98-20397

- 2 -

with court orders was taken in bad faith. Notwithstanding

Sawyer’s assertions to the contrary, the record indicates that he

failed to comply with court orders out of contumaciousness and

that the district court employed lesser sanctions before

dismissing the action. See Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 880

(5th Cir. 1996).

Sawyer’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Accordingly, Sawyer’s IFP motion is DENIED and the appeal is

DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as

frivolous counts as a third strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). Therefore, Sawyer may no longer proceed IFP in any

civil action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless he is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; APPELLANT BARRED. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).
No. 96-7766.

#### Prou *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
33848.

#### GEORGIA OSTEOPATHIC HOSPITAL, INC. v. HOLLINGSWORTH et al.

Argued September 12, 1978

Decided November 7, 1978.

*Zachary & Seagraves,*W. *E. Zachary, Sr.,*for appellant.

*McCurdy & Candler, George H. Carley, John P. Cripe,*for appellees.

Marshall, Justice.

We granted certiorari in this case because of an apparent conflict with another decision of the Court of Appeals in *Hodges v. Doctors Hospital,*141 Ga. App. 649 (234 SE2d 116) (1977). The question for decision in both cases is whether a hospital is liable to a patient for negligent performance of professional services by a physician on its staff. The rule is that for the hospital to be held liable it must be shown that the doctor was an employee of the hospital and not an independent contractor. In this case, the Court of Appeals held that there was a material issue of fact on that question, and the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the hospital was reversed. For the purposes of certiorari, we therefore find no conflict between this case and *Hodges v. Doctors Hospital,*supra. Accordingly, we affirm.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Jordan andBowles, JJ., who concur in the judgment only.*
SUNWISE TEACHER INTERVIEW GUIDE

One-on-one interviews with SunWise teachers will follow a semi-structured framework, based 

on open-ended discussion topics and themes. Each interview will take a slightly different 

direction, depending on the answers given by participants and their own experiences, as well as 

evolving questions and informational needs from year to year.

- Registration and promotion methods, e.g.:

o What do you think is the best or easiest way to sign up for SunWise? Are there 

improvements that SunWise could be making in registering teachers and getting 

materials to them?

o How can SunWise promote itself more effectively?

o Have you spread the word about SunWise to other teachers? If yes, how were your 

efforts received? If not, why?

- Use of SunWise activities, e.g.:

o Do you use the same activities each year? If you have taught some activities one year 

and not the next, why? 

o Do you use the SunWise activities as-is or adapt them to your students’ needs? If so, 

how? 

o How could the SunWise activities be improved? 

o Do you combine SunWise resources with other sun safety activities or resources? If 

so, which ones? When you receive sun safety materials from other programs, do you 

often like to modify them?

o Which activities have you and your students found most effective or enjoyable? What 

is it about these activities that your students seem to enjoy so much?

- Making school policy changes and promoting school-wide activities, e.g.:

o Have you tried to make any changes in your school’s sun safety policies (successfully 

or unsuccessfully)? If so, what changes? 

o Did you work with other teachers, parents, or school administrators to get those 

policy changes made? Please tell us about that experience and any lessons you have 

learned.

o What barriers have you faced to making these changes? If you were successful in 

instituting policies, how did you overcome the barriers?

o Have the materials provided in the SunWise Tool Kit been useful in making policy

changes? How could these materials be improved? 

o Have you organized any school-wide sun safety activities? If so, what types?

o Do you involve parents or guardians in sun safety activities? If yes, how? If no, how 

could their involvement be solicited? 

o If parents or guardians are involved, have their interest in sun protection remained the 

same, increased, or decreased over the past year?
- SunWise recognition program, e.g.:

o If SunWise developed a program to recognize levels of SunWise achievement among 

educators, how would you want to be recognized? 

 Probe: for example, plaques, discounts on resources, letters to your principal.

o What incentives would encourage you and other teachers to participate?

o Do you think that a recognition program would encourage deeper SunWise 

participation among educators?

o What SunWise achievements would you like to see recognized?

 Probe: for example, teaching SunWise, working to implement school policies, 

organizing schoolwide sun safety activities, participating in the Don’t Fry Day 

pledge, etc.
No. 96-7809.

#### Renfroe *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 55522.

#### McKesson & Robbins, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 140836-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *Roche-Organon*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.
No. 74-914.

#### Thompson et al. *v.*Sheppard et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Motion for leave to amend petition granted. Certiorari denied.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1366 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to broaden the special rules 

for certain governmental plans under section 105(j) to include plans 

established by political subdivisions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 13, 2011 

Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. CRAPO, and Mrs. MURRAY) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to broaden 

the special rules for certain governmental plans under 

section 105(j) to include plans established by political 

subdivisions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF APPLICATION OF SPECIAL 

4 RULES FOR CERTAIN GOVERNMENTAL PLANS 

5 TO INCLUDE PLANS ESTABLISHED BY POLIT6 ICAL SUBDIVISIONS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 105(j)(2) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1366 IS

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘or established by or on behalf 

2 of a State or political subdivision thereof’’ after 

3 ‘‘public retirement system’’, and 

4 (2) by inserting ‘‘or 501(c)(9)’’ after ‘‘section 

5 115’’ in subparagraph (B) thereof. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply to payments after the date of the 

8 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### Water-resources reconnaissance of the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas

By: Donald R. Albin

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1809J

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
No. 48784.

#### Protests 51333-K, etc., of Bel Paese Sales Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and cited cases the following allowances were made by the court to compensate for foreign substances on the outside of certain cheese: (1) 21⁄2 percent for cheese similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 48269, and (2) 1 percent for other cheese similar to Reggiano cheese the subject of said C. D. 706. Protests sustained to this extent.
Exhibit
13.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


RULE
13a-14(b)/RULE 15d-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT


AND
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 of Fundtech Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form
20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Reuven Ben Menachem,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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 the
Company.




Date:
September 16, 2009




/s/
      Reuven Ben MenachemReuven
      Ben MenachemChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to Fundtech Ltd. and will be retained by Fundtech
Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# C_2016260EN.01004001.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/40

---

Order of the General Court of 10 May 2016 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — Andrã (BAG PAX)

(Case T-324/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark BAG PAX - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 260/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. Kunz, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, formerly BAGPAX Cargo Systems e.K.: Marvin Dominic Andrã (Saarlouis, Germany) (represented by: T. Dohmen, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, formerly BAGPAX Cargo Systems e.K.:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2015 (Case R 1971/2014-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Volkswagen and BAGPAX Cargo Systems.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Volkswagen AG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Volkswagen AG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.

1

---
#### In the Matter of Josh Ray O., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Sandra O. R., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1. )

[700 NYS2d 914]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Family Court erred in revoking the orders of suspended judgment *(see,*Family Ct Act § 633) without conducting a hearing pursuant to 22 NYCRR 205.50 (d) (4). Unless there is language to the contrary contained in an order. of suspended judgment *(see, e.g., Matter of Jennifer D.,*172 AD2d 1023; *Matter of Townsend,*104 Mise 2d 927, 928), the expiration of the period of suspension does not result in an automatic termination of parental rights *(see, Commissioner of Social Servs. [T./C. Children] v Rufelle C.,*156 Mise 2d 410, 414; Carrieri, Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 52A, Social Services Law § 384-b, 1999-2000 Interim Pocket Part, at 235-236). We remit the matters to Erie County Family Court for a hearing before another Judge on the petition filed by the Erie County Department of Social Services pursuant to 22 NYCRR 205.50 (d) (1). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Mix, J. — Terminate Parental Rights.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.
#### W. X. Huber Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6052.

Invoices dated Antwerp, Belgium, August 5, 1938, etc.

Certified August 5, 1938, etc.

Entered at Los Angeles, Calif., August 13, 1938, etc.

Entry No. 1147, etc.

*373(Decided September 7, 1944)

*Harper & Harper (Charles J. Evans*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Walkeh, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for •decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, subject to the approval of the •court:

> (1) That the merchandise covered by- the reappraisement appeals listed on the attached schedule A consists of cut diamonds exported from Belgium; that the unit values stated in the invoices, without the addition of buying commission, represent the prices at the various dates of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to All purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, and that there were no higher foreign market values at the •dates of exportation thereof.

> (2) It is further stipulated that the merchandise and the issue covered by the appeals listed on the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issue, the subject of the decision in Reappraisement Appeal 134305-A, etc., of *J. Seiler, Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 5699.

> (3) It is further stipulated that the record in said case of *J. Seiler, Inc.,*Reap. Dec. 5699, may be incorporated in the record in these cases, and that they be deemed submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the unit values stated in the invoices.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
### Preliminary report on uranium deposits in the Pumpkin Buttes area, Powder River Basin, Wyoming

By: J. D. Love

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir176

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **3**                            (793 pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Exhibit
10.1




AMENDMENT


TO


RESTRICTED
STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT UNDER


WALGREEN
CO. LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN





WHEREAS,
Walgreen Co. previously issued restricted stock unit awards under the Walgreen
Co. Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan (the “RSU Agreements”);
and




WHEREAS,
to comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended, and the regulations thereunder, it is now deemed desirable to
amend the RSU Agreements applicable to employees who have attained or will
attain age 55 with at least 10 years of service before the calendar year in
which the vesting date specified in the RSU Agreement occurs.




NOW,
THEREFORE, the outstanding RSU Agreements of employees who have or will attain
age 55 with at least 10 years of service before the calendar year in which the
vesting date specified in the introduction to the RSU Agreement occurs are
hereby amended, effective January 1, 2009, as follows:




1. 
By adding the following new sentence to the end of Section 5 of the RSU
Agreement:




“Any
Restricted Stock Units becoming vested by reason of the Employee’s death or
Disability shall be settled on the date of the Employee’s separation from
service (within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code Section 409A), or as soon
as practicable thereafter, but in no event later than 90 days after such date;
provided, however, to the extent required under Code Section 409A, if the
Employee is a specified employee (within the meaning of Code Section 409A) at
the time payment is to be made, payment shall not be made until the date which
is six months after the Employee’s separation from service.”




2. 
By adding the following new sentence to the end of Section 6 of the RSU
Agreement:




“Any
Restricted Stock Units becoming vested by reason of the Employee’s Retirement
shall be settled on the date of the Employee’s separation from service (within
the meaning of Internal Revenue Code Section 409A), or as soon as practicable
thereafter, but in no event later than 90 days after such date; provided,
however, to the extent required under Code Section 409A, if the Employee is a
specified employee (within the meaning of Code Section 409A at the time payment
is to be made), payment shall not be made until the date which is six months
after the Employee’s separation from service.”




3. 
By deleting the last sentence of Section 8 of the RSU Agreement and substituting
the following new sentence therefor:




“If the
Change in Control is not also considered a change in control within the meaning
of Internal Revenue Code Section 409A, then the Restricted Stock Units shall
become vested on the date of the Change in Control, but settlement shall not
occur until the earlier of the Participant’s separation from service (within the
meaning of Code Section 409A), or the vesting date indicated in the introduction
to the Agreement.”