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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2210 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2210

 To ensure that a fair percentage of Federal cancer research funds are 
                dedicated to pediatric cancer research.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2021

Mr. Fitzpatrick (for himself, Mr. Gottheimer, Ms. Stefanik, Mrs. Murphy 
   of Florida, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Kim of New Jersey, Ms. 
 Herrera Beutler, and Mr. Evans) introduced the following bill; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure that a fair percentage of Federal cancer research funds are 
                dedicated to pediatric cancer research.

    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 ``Fairness to Kids with Cancer Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. PERCENTAGE OF FEDERAL CANCER RESEARCH FUNDS REQUIRED TO BE USED 
              FOR PEDIATRIC CANCER RESEARCH.

    (a) In General.--For fiscal year 2022 and each subsequent fiscal 
year, the President shall ensure that, of the total amount of Federal 
funds obligated for cancer research, the percentage obligated for 
pediatric cancer research is equal to the percentage described in 
subsection (b).
    (b) Percentage.--The percentage described in this subsection is the 
percentage constituted by the ratio of the number of individuals who 
are under the age of 18 residing in the United States at the end of the 
fiscal year preceding the fiscal year to which subsection (a) is being 
applied, to the total number of individuals residing in the United 
States at such time, as determined by the Bureau of the Census.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,366
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,103
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (944)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,145
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,242
<PP&E>                                         484,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                  88,786
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 455,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,541
<BONDS>                                        171,846
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,048
<COMMON>                                         8,863
<OTHER-SE>                                      99,022
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   455,120
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,149
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   459
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,072
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,552
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,520
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,887)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,633
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
        

</TABLE>
#### Wayne H. BROOKS v. STATE of Florida and L. L. Wainwright.

No. 39411.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 1970.

Habeas Corpus denied without opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32123]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-103-000]


KN Interstate Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request under 
Blanket Authorization

December 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 26, 1997, KN Interstate Gas 
Transmission Company, (KNI) P.O. Box 281304, Lakewood, Colorado 80228, 
filed in the above docket a request pursuant to Sections 157.205(b) of 
the Commission's Regulations, under the Natural Gas Act [18 CFR 
157.205(b)] for authorization to install and operate one new delivery 
tap located in Scott County, Kansas. This tap will be added as a 
delivery point to provide transportation service to Allied Energy 
Services, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file 
with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Specifically, KNI states that Allied, as a provider of energy 
services, has requested the addition of a delivery point under a 
transportation service agreement with KNI. KNI states that the proposed 
delivery point would be located on KNI's main transmission system in 
Kansas and would facilitate the delivery of natural gas to Allied for 
sale to a direct retail customer. KNI states further that the cost of 
the valve and tap is estimated at $20,000.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32123 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 2 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN H. MARRS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SHON P. BOLES; CURTIS L. ODLE,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 98-3211

(D.C. No. 96-CV-1079-MLB)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , EBEL , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

John H. Marrs appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to

defendants on his civil rights claim of arrest without probable cause, filed

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 Our jurisdiction over this appeal arises under

28 U.S.C. § 1291.
-2-

The district court concluded that defendants were entitled to summary

judgment because, on the record before it, probable cause for the arrest existed

as a matter of law and because defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. 

On appeal, Mr. Marrs contends that his ultimate acquittal of the charges

demonstrates a lack of probable cause and that defendants acted unreasonably

under the circumstances. We review the district court’s grant of summary

judgment de novo. See Kaul v. Stephan , 83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996).

After careful review of the record on appeal together with the applicable

law and the parties’ briefs on appeal, we conclude that the district court correctly

decided this case. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons contained in the

district court’s Memorandum and Order dated July 15, 1998, the judgment of the

United States District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31560]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33525]


Sierra Railroad Company--Acquisition and Operation Exemption--
Sierra Pacific Industries

    Sierra Railroad Company, a Class III rail common carrier, has filed 
a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire and operate 
approximately 12 miles of rail line in Amador County, CA, known as the 
Amador Branch, from Sierra Pacific Industries (Sierra Pacific). The 
Amador Branch extends from milepost 0.0, in Ione, to milepost 12.0, at 
Martell.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Amador Branch includes a yard and repair shops at 
Martell as well as additional spur trackage at the Sierra Pacific 
mill and particle board plant located at milepost 11.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction is scheduled to be consummated on December 1, 1997.
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke does not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33525, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on James F. Flint, Esq., Grove, Jaskiewicz and Cobert, 1730 M 
Street, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036.

    Decided: November 24, 1997.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31560 Filed 12-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10** 

**- 2307** 

THOMAS OJONG

,

Petitioner

,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted : July 26, 2011 Decided: August 11, 2011

Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Danielle Beach

- Oswald, BEACH

- OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES, PC, Washi ngton, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Anh

- Thu P. Mai

- Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, James A. Hurley, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in t his circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Thomas Ojong, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen as untimely and

numerically barred. We have reviewed the administrative record

and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief on

Ojong’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2011). We

accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated

by the Board. See In re: Ojong , (B.I.A. Oct. 26, 2010). We

dispe nse with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

FORM OF AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS FORM OF AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), dated as of ______, 2018 (the “Amendment
Date”), is entered into by and between Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) and _________ (“Executive”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties to that certain Executive Employment Agreement, made effective as of ______ (the
“Agreement”), pursuant to which Executive is currently employed by Company; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive each
desire to amend the terms of the Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants and promises in
this Amendment, the parties hereto hereby amend the Agreement as follows, effective as of the date hereof, in the following particulars: 
 1.
    A new Section 6.4 is hereby added to the Agreement and the remaining sections are renumbered accordingly: 
 “6.4 The
Company hereby agrees that, if the Executive is deemed a Disqualified Individual, as such term is defined in Section 280G of the Code, with respect to a Change in Control of the Company, the Company will pay a tax preparer of the
Executive’s choosing for three (3) tax years of tax preparation services following the Change in Control.” 
 2.     In
all other respects, the provisions of the Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed, and they shall continue in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the day first above written. 

 

									
	CASCADIAN THERAPEUTICS, INC.	  		  	EXECUTIVE
					
	By: 	 	 	  		  		  	 
	Its:
#### TREESHORE, INC., Appellant, v. BASIC ASPHALT AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, etc., Ward Ridge Construction Company, Inc. and Parliament Life Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. GG-378.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 13, 1978.

Aldo Icardi, Winter Park, for appellant.

R. L. Russell of Van Den Berg, Gay & Burke, Orlando, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *Palatka Housing Authority v. Betts,*349 So.2d 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

BOYER, Acting C. J., concurs specially.

BOYER, Acting Chief Judge,

concurring specially.

In affirming, my brethren rest their decision on a recent opinion of this court, *Palat*
      *977
      *ka Housing Authority v. Betts,*349 So.2d 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). I must reluctantly concur that such case is controlling. However, as I stated in a dissent in that case, in my view that decision is incorrect and certainly unfair and unjust. I find the same to be applicable sub judice. However, in the interest of stare decisis and in deference to a prior opinion rendered by a majority of a panel of this court, I have no alternative but to concur in affirmance.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7029

KENNETH TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
CRAVEN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE, Sheriff, Jail Medical Personnel; DURHAM COUNTY JAIL, medical personnel, Sheriff; GUILFORD COUNTY JAIL, medical personnel, Sheriff; LARRY UNKNOWN, Craven County Jail, medical personnel; BARBARA UNKNOWN, Craven County Jail, medical personnel; TRISH CALLISON, RN, Defendants - Appellees,

and

RUTH DAVIS; SUSAN AGUIRRE; D. PICKETT, RN, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-572-5-F)
Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 27, 2004
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.- 2 - Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart, SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, PA, New Bern, North Carolina; Steven Price Weaver, Richard David Yeoman, TUGGLE, DUGGINS & MESCHAN, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina; Curtis Oscar Massey, II, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Kenneth Turner appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various local entities and individuals for deliberate indifference to medical needs. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)(2000). The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“MRR”) in which he recommended dismissing the claims against all but three individual defendants so that service of process could be perfected. The district court adopted the MRR to the extent that it recommended dismissing Turner’s claims. The district court further ordered that Turner’s claims against the remaining three defendants be dismissed. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). We conclude Turner has waived appellate review of the MRR’s recommendation to dismiss because he did not file specific objections to this recommendation after receiving proper notice. With regard to the district court’s dismissal of the claims against the three remaining individual defendants, we have reviewed- 4 - the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Turner v. Craven County Comm’rs Office , No. CA-01-572-5-F (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 13, 2018

No. 04-18-00379-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellant

v.

ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED ELEVEN THOUSAND SIXTY-ONE DOLLARS 

AND SEVENTY-NINE CENTS ($1,711,061.79) In U.S. Currency, Elgin Watch, Rope 

Necklace, ID Bracelet, Two (2) Costume Jewelry Rings, and Five (5) Silver Bars,

Appellees

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10,242

The Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The State of Texas has filed a motion requesting that we “enter an express order 

confirming the statutory stay, enjoining the 49th District Court from making or enforcing any 

order concerning the enforcement of its order which was superseded by appeal pending the 

mandate of this Court.” “Texas courts are not empowered to give advisory opinions.” City of 

Helotes v. Miller, 243 S.W.3d 704, 708 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, no pet.). A court renders 

an advisory opinion by addressing issues that are not ripe or based on a judiciable controversy. 

See id. “A case is not ripe if its resolution depends on contingent or hypothetical facts, or upon 

events not yet come to pass.” Id. And there is no justiciable dispute without a “real and 

substantial controversy involving a genuine conflict of tangible interests and not merely a 

theoretical dispute.” Id. 

Although the State’s motion alleges the appellees “will likely try to enforce this clause to 

have the undersigned attorney held in contempt,” the State’s motion does not show the likelihood 

of such enforcement is anything more than hypothetical. The State’s motion also does not 

demonstrate there is an existing controversy between the State and appellees about whether the 
appealed order is stayed pending the mandate of this court. We therefore deny the State’s motion 

without prejudice.

_________________________________

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 June, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

MICHAEL CLOWARD, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 883 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Corn Exchange National Bank and Trust Company et al. *v.*Jones et al., Appellants.

Argued October 6, 1933.

Before Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker, and James, JJ.

*42
      *Thomas P. Mihell,*of *Saul, Ewing, Remich £ Saul,*for appellants.

*Lloyd J. Schumacher,*and with him *William W. Cohan,*of *Cohan £ Schumacher,*for appellee.

February 1, 1934:

Opinion by

Baldrige, J.,

The questions involved in these three appeals are the same as in No. 232, October Term, 1933, 112 Pa. Superior Ct. 32, and for the reasons therein set forth, judgments are affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In  connection  with the  Annual  Report  of  Shawcore  Development,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the year ended  August  31,  2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Gary
Burkinshaw,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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: November 17, 2010


/s/ Gary Burkinshaw
------------------------------
Gary Burkinshaw
Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Rev 0 (9/08)

Comments in Response to 

“Final rule; request for comments”

Docket: FAA-2011-1162 Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-186-AD

Comments have been received in response to: “Final rule; request for comments,”

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. 

(Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine if additional action is warranted.

Once you have made your determination, please fill in the commenter(s) name(s) and check the 

appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response, 

if necessary. Then include your name and the date in the spaces provided, and return it to the 

AD directorate focal.

The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we received from: 

The Boeing Company

(Please check one)

 These comments have not been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration 

or change of this AD.

 These comments have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of 

additional regulatory action. (SEE Airworthiness Directives Manual 

FAA-IR-M-8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.)

______Wayne Lockett_____ January 3, 2012__

Name: Date:

(This form is part of the official docket file for this AD action.)