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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3811 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3811

 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify the authority 
     of immigration judges to sanction any contempt of the judge's 
                               authority.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 27, 2024

Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mr. Cruz, and Mrs. Blackburn) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify the authority 
     of immigration judges to sanction any contempt of the judge's 
                               authority.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Empowering Immigration Courts Act''.

SEC. 2. CONTEMPT AUTHORITY OF IMMIGRATION JUDGES.

    Section 240(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1229a(b)(1)) is amended by striking the last sentence and inserting the 
following: ``The immigration judge is authorized to sanction, by fine, 
any conduct constituting contempt of the judge's authority under this 
Act, in accordance with section 401 of title 18, United States Code.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.14



                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                          MORRISON KNUDSEN CORPORATION
                     AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK OPTION PLAN


          WHEREAS, Morrison Knudsen Corporation (the "Company") is the successor
to Kasler Holding Company, which heretofore established The 1994 Stock Option
and Incentive Plan for Officers, Directors and Key Employees of Kasler Holding
Company (the "Plan"), effective January 19, 1994, for the benefit of Key
Employees and Directors;

          WHEREAS, the Plan was renamed and most recently amended and restated
effective January 10, 1997, as the Morrison Knudsen Corporation Amended and
Restated Stock Option Plan; and

          WHEREAS, The Company desires to amend the Plan to modify the
procedures for non-employee directors of the Company to forego cash payment of
director fees in exchange for Options under the Plan;

          NOW, THEREFORE, The Plan is hereby amended as follows effective
October 15, 1998:
                                       1.

          Section 3.5, Awards to Non-Employee Director, is hereby amended to add
                       -------------------------------                          
the following language at the end of said section:

          Notwithstanding the foregoing, an election pursuant to this Section
          3.5 automatically shall carry over from year to year until the non-
          employee director who made such election either is no longer eligible
          to participate in the Plan or elects in writing to change or cease his
          or her election. Any change in, or cessation of, election will be
          prospective only and will be effective beginning on the December 1/st/
          immediately following receipt of the written notice of change.

                                       2.

          Except as amended herein, the Plan shall continue in full force and
          effect.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed these presents this 30th
                                                                           ----
day of October, 1998.
 
                                    MORRISON KNUDSEN CORPORATION

                                         /s/ Robert A. Tinstman
                                    By: ________________________________________
                                         Robert A. Tinstman
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          42,171
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      340
<ALLOWANCES>                                        12
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,852
<PP&E>                                           2,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,380
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,350
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,840
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           256
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,350
<SALES>                                            479
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   479
<CGS>                                              238
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,343)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,343)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,343)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)


</TABLE>
Dismiss and Opinion Filed January 22, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 20
- 00673
- CV HUNTER
- KELSEY OF TEX AS, LLC AND STRONGHI LL TEXAS, LLC , Appellant s V. BAPA BROOKLYN 2004, LLC , Appellee On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 20
- 03081
- E MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Nowell This is an appeal from the trial court’s June 25, 2020 Order Granting Temporary Injunction. By notice filed on January 8, 2021, appellants informed the Court that the trial court entered an Order Granting Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Reconsider Temporary Injunction and Disso lving Temporary Injunction on January 4, 2021. A copy of the trial court’s January 4, 2021 order has been provided
to this Court. The order states in part: “ the Order Granting Temporary Injunction dated June 25, 2020 in this case is dissolved in full, wi thout any exception or– 2

–

reservation, and is void ab initio.” Appellants pray the case be dismissed for
mootness. An appeal from a temporary injunction order is rendered moot and must be dismissed if the injunction is dissolved. See Star Med. Ctr., LLC v. Tritin Med. Distribution, LLC , No. 05

- 20

- 00345

- CV, 2020 WL 3071709, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas June 10, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing State v. Ruiz Wholesale Co ., 901 S.W.2d 772, 775, 778 (Tex. App.

— Austin 1995, no writ)). The trial court’s January 4, 20 21 order dissolved the temporary injunction that is the subject of this appeal and moots the appeal. Accordingly , we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal.

200673 F

. P 05 /Erin A. Nowell/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

HUNTER

- KELSEY OF TEXAS, LLC AND STRONGHILL TEXAS, LLC, Appellants
No. 05

- 20

- 00673

- CV V. BAPA BROOKLYN 2004, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 20

- 03081

- E. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. Justices Molberg and Reichek participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.
Judgment entered this 22nd day of January , 2021.
DEP Home About DEP Programs Contact Site Map Search

Programs

Coastal & Aquatic Home Aquatic Preserves
National Estuarine Research Reserves Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Coral Reef Conservation Program

Information

About Us
Contacts
Public Notices

Related Programs

Florida Oceans Council
Gulf of Mexico Program
Gulf of Mexico Alliance
LIFE Program CAMA Office Closures Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Aquatic Preserve Field Offices manage Florida's 41 Aquatic Preserves (AP). As part of DEP's proposed 15 percent reduction, which was required for the 2011 legislative session, the following aquatic preserve offices were proposed for closure: Estero Bay, Tampa Bay, Biscayne Bay, Milton/Northwest Florida, Central Panhandle/St. Joseph Bay, Jacksonville/Northeast Florida. These six offices were chosen for the proposal as they would be the easiest offices to reopen should revenue streams improve. The chosen offices were not a reflection on the excellent work and accomplishments by those offices and staff. In the last week of the legislative session, funding was restored for the Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve office and the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserves office. The budget was signed by the governor on May 26, 2011. The aquatic preserves managed by these offices are:


### Northwest Florida Aquatic Preserves Fort Pickens Aquatic Preserve Rocky Bayou Aquatic Preserve St. Andrews Aquatic Preserve Yellow River Marsh Aquatic Preserve 

### Central Panhandle Aquatic Preserves Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve St. Joseph Bay Aquatic Preserve 

### Tampa Bay Aquatic Preserves Boca Ciega Bay Aquatic Preserve Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve 

### Northeast Florida Aquatic Preserves Fort Clinch Aquatic Preserve Nassau River - St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic Preserve

Although the aquatic preserves will remain designated, all coastal education and resource monitoring programs at these locations has been eliminated. These areas are no longer actively managed and the monitoring, outreach and education programs at these aquatic preserves has ended. Professional management has been discontinued in the preserves that are unstaffed. It is not possible for the remaining staff to absorb the additional programs into the organizational structure. However permit review by DEP regulatory offices will still be active through the local District office

.

Last updated: July 01, 2011

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard M.S. 235 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 850-245-2094 (phone) / 850-245-2110 (fax) Contact Us DEP Home | About DEP | Contact Us | Search | Site Map 

### CAMA Office Closures http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/office_closures.ht m

1 of 1 7/8/2011 2:08 P M
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Irving SCHRAGER, Appellant, v. Edward J. STACK, Sheriff of Broward County, Appellee.

No. 77-708.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 31, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1978.

Kenneth R. Mikos of Friedrich, Kersten, Blackwell & Mikos, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Paul H. Zacks and Harry Hipler, Asst. At-tys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See *State v. Gale,*312 So.2d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., and POUL-TON, TIMOTHY P., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Alfred R. KYLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anita Evans KYLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 6587.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

April 28, 1978.

Jumonville, Hartley, Plauché & Broad-hurst by Colleen McDaniel, Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.

Voorhies & Labbé by Mark Bienvenu, Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.

David L. Dawson, Jr., Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before DOMENGEAUX, FORET and CUTRER, JJ.

FORET, Judge.

MOTION TO DISMISS

The plaintiff-appellee, Alfred R. Kyle, moves to dismiss the appeal of the defendant-appellant, Anita Evans Kyle. The motion is opposed.

We grant the motion to dismiss.

On October 10, 1977, plaintiff filed suit seeking the permanent care, custody and control of the minor child, Tina Marie. The defendant responded by filing an Exception of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; on January 26, 1978, the trial judge signed a judgment overruling the exception. The defendant has taken an appeal from this judgment.

The plaintiff-appellee moves to dismiss the appeal arguing that the judgment complained of is a non-appealable interlocutory decree. We agree.

This court has long held that a judgment overruling an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a nonappealable interloctory decree. *Stahlman Lumber Company*—Division *of Staco Manufacturing Company v. Ferrill,*320 So.2d 331 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1975).

Defendant-appellant concedes that the judgment is interlocutory, but argues that it is appealable under C.C.P. Art. 2083 because irreparable injury may result. She asserts that if she is forced to defend this suit, she will not only have to fight a lawsuit, but will have to suffer the expense and indignity of having to come to another state to defend her rights for the custody of her daughter in a state which, she submits, is without jurisdiction or interest in the matter of her daughter’s custody.

It is well settled that the inconvenience and expense incurred in the defense of a lawsuit does not constitute irreparable injury within the meaning of C.C.P. Art. 2083. *Mauterer v. Tillery,*328 So.2d 755 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1976).

APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### Neil Clifford FLOWERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-171.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 21, 1971.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and Gerald Sohn, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32     CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of RedCell Power Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kelly Fielder, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Kelly Fielder _____________________________________ Kelly Fielder Chief Executive Officer, Acting Chief Financial Officer  March 15, 2007
#### R. H. COODY & ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Raymond T. SHELTON et al., Respondents.

No. 50806.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 29, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 28, 1977.

Heskin A. Whittaker, of Whittaker, Pyle & Stump, Orlando, for petitioners.

Roy L. Glass, of Meyers, Mooney & Adler, Orlando, for respondents.

BOYD, Justice.

On a workmen’s compensation claim by R. T. Shelton the Judge of Industrial Claims found Shelton permanently and totally disabled and ordered appropriate benefits. Shelton’s attorney had not kept a time record, but he estimated that he had spent forty hours on the claim. The Judge awarded an attorney fee of $13,000. The Industrial Relations Commission unanimously affirmed the award of benefits and, by a split vote, affirmed the attorney fee award, Commissioner Friday dissenting.

The employer and its insurance carrier now petition this Court for certiorari because, in their view, both the disability finding and the award of attorney fees depart from the essential requirements of law.

The record shows that the finding of permanent, total disability and award of benefits are supported by competent and substantial evidence. The Commission, therefore, correctly affirmed them. *Scholastic Systems, Inc. v. LeLoup,*307 So.2d 166 (Fla.1974). The award of attorney fees, however, is plainly excessive. If the attorney, as he estimated, spent forty hours on the claim, his rate of compensation is $325.00 per hour. Expert testimony before the Judge of Industrial Claims offered that cases of this kind often necessitate up to sixty hours of work by an attorney. Even if the award is predicated on this testimony it is excessive.

*853Certiorari is granted and the cause is remanded to the Industrial Relations Commission for a reduction of the award of attorney fees. In setting the award the Commission should consider the factors listed in The Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 2-106, Fees for Legal Services.*

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and KARL, JJ., concur.

ADKINS, J., dissents and would affirm the Order of the Industrial Relations Commission.

HATCHETT, J., dissents.

*

 See *Lee Engineering & Construction Co. v. Fellows,*209 So.2d 454 (Fla. 1968).
EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates, Inc.



|                                                                    |  |                           
|------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|Subsidiaries                                                        |  | Country of Organization   
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates Asia, Ltd.                |  | USA, DE                   
|Varian Japan Holdings Ltd.                                          |  | USA, DE                   
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates Pacific, Inc.             |  | USA, DE                   
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates China, Ltd.               |  | USA, DE                   
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates International, Inc.       |  | USA, DE                   
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates S.A.S.                    |  | France                    
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates GmbH                      |  | Germany                   
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates Italia S.r.l.             |  | Italy                     
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment K.K.                                 |  | Japan, and USA, DE        
|Varian Korea, Ltd.                                                  |  | Korea                     
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates Europe B.V.               |  | Netherlands               
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates UK Limited                |  | United Kingdom            
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates GesmbH                    |  | Austria                   
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates (Barbados) Holdings, Ltd. |  | Barbados                  
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates (HK) Limited              |  | Hong Kong                 
|Altin Ltd.                                                          |  | Hong Kong                 
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates (Shanghai), Ltd.          |  | Peoples Republic of China
|Varian Precision Instruments Maintenance (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.       |  | Peoples Republic of China
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates Overseas Holdings, Ltd.   |  | Cayman Islands            
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates PacRim Pte. Ltd.          |  | Republic of Singapore     
|4 Stanley Tucker Drive LLC                                          |  | USA, DE                   
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates GmbH                      |  | Switzerland               
|Varian Semiconductor Management GmbH                                |  | Switzerland               
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates Luxembourg S.a.r.l.       |  | Luxembourg                
|Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates (Gibraltar), Ltd.         |  | Gibraltar
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of International Fuel
Technology, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions
contained in SEC Release 34-47986];c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  By:
    /s/ Jonathan R. BurstJonathan R. BurstChief Executive Officer