alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Gift cards offered by retailers (such as stores and restaurants) fall under the

Federal Trade Commission’s jurisdiction, while those offered by depository institutions do not. 

The Office of Comptroller of the Currency has issued a guidance on disclosures and marketing

issues for gift cards issued by national banks. See OCC Bulletin 2006-34 (Aug. 14, 2006). 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

August 14, 2007

Steve Piermarini

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Re: In the Matter of Kmart Corporation, Kmart Services Corporation, and

Kmart Promotions, LLC, corporations

FTC File No. 062 3088 

Dear Mr. Piermarini:

Thank you for the comments you submitted regarding the above-referenced matter. Your

comments were placed on the public record pursuant to Section 2.34 of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 2.34, and were given serious consideration by the Commission.

The Commission anticipates that this proposed consent order will send a strong message

that retailers1

 must adequately disclose these material conditions when selling gift cards. Indeed,

over the last few years, the Commission staff has observed that many retailers have already

changed their marketing practices. While many retailers eliminated expiration dates or fees

altogether, staff has found generally that disclosures by retailers still imposing fees have

improved. After considering all of the factors that must be weighed in evaluating any settlement,

including the specific facts, consumer injury, and the need to ensure that the remedies deter

similar behavior by other retailers, the Commission concluded that the strong injunctive

provisions and mandatory refund provision provide a positive result for consumers and an

appropriate resolution of this case.

After considering your comments, the Commission has determined that the public

interest would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without

modification. Respondents will be required to comply with the Order’s injunctive and

reimbursement provisions, and will be subject to potentially large civil penalties if they violate

the Order.
Page 2

Please remember that you may access the Commission’s Consumer Hotline at (202)

326-3569 for updated information about how to receive a refund if your Kmart gift card was

charged dormancy fees. 

Thank you again for your comments. The Commission is aided in its analysis by hearing

from a variety of sources in its work, and it appreciates your interest in this matter.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioners Harbour and Leibowitz concurring in

part and dissenting in part.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
No. 00-295.

No. 00-297.

No. 00-510.

No. 00-585.

No. 00-715.

No. 00-762.

No. 00-5313.

No. 00-5938.

No. 00-6175.

No. 00-6241.

#### Siddiqui *v.*Northern Telecom, Inc., Livingston Downs Racing Assn., Inc. *v.*Louisiana State Racing Commission, Smith *v.*Oregon State Department of Revenue et al., Dinh Ton That *v.*3D Systems, Inc., et al., Robertson *v.*Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland, Metcalf *v.*United States, Simpson *v.*Florida Department of Corrections, Liu *v.*Naomi et al., Cornelius v. Mitchum et al., Archer v. Valley Healthcare Corp. et al., *1134Wenger *v.*Canastota Central School District et al., Holman *v.*Kemna, Superintendent, Crossroads Correctional Center, Valois *v.*United States,

*1133
      *ante,*p. 929;

*ante,*p. 1011;

*ante,*p. 1013;

*ante,*p. 1014;

*ante,*p. 1037;

*ante,*p. 1053;

*ante,*p. 994;

*ante,*p. 966;

*ante,*p. 1016;

*ante,*p. 1017;

*1134No. 00-6315.

No. 00-6442.

No. 00-6698.

*ante,*p. 1019;

*ante,*p. 1021; and

*ante,*p. 1025. Petitions for rehearing denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10205

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WAYNE ANTHONY TURNER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-195-1

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wayne Anthony Turner appeals his conviction and sentence for 

possession of forged securities and aiding and abetting the possession of forged 

securities. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 513(a). The district court sentenced Turner to 

120 months of imprisonment, above the guidelines range of 46 to 57 months. 

Turner argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the 

district court based the upward variance on prior convictions involving only 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 27, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10205 Document: 00512642223 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2014
No. 13-10205

minor offenses and because the district court relied primarily on what it

considered the inadequate sentences imposed in those cases. He further

contends that, because the district court relied on those prior convictions in 

imposing a sentence outside the guidelines range, it subjected Turner to double 

jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

In setting a sentence above the guidelines range, the district court

considered, as it may, Turner’s prior convictions and numerous reoffenses 

following light sentences. See United States v. Herrera-Garduno, 519 F.3d 526, 

531 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 328-29 (5th Cir. 2004). 

The district court’s consideration of such prior criminal conduct does not 

implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Sekou v. Blackburn, 796 F.2d 108, 112 

(5th Cir. 1986). Furthermore, as to the extent of the variance, we have upheld 

similar upward variances in prior cases. United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 

347, 348-50 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 433, 441-42 

(5th Cir. 2006). Turner has failed to show that the district court abused its 

discretion in setting his sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007).

Turner additionally argues that he was denied his right to counsel when 

an attorney who was the law partner and son of his appointed counsel 

represented him in the sentencing phase without his consent or the district 

court’s authorization. While such unauthorized substitution may be 

inadvisable and not compensable, we find no authority for reversing on that 

ground. To the extent that the circumstances in this matter may give rise to a 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 

U.S. 668 (1984), Turner has made no such argument to this court.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-10205 Document: 00512642223 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2014
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 23(a)

                        Consent of Independent Auditors
                        -------------------------------

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Insilco Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
the Insilco Corporation Employee Thrift Plan, the 1993 Nonemployee Director
Stock Incentive Plan and the 1993 Long-term Incentive Plan on Form S-8 of
Insilco Corporation of our report dated January 31, 1997, except as to the
second paragraph in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements, which is as
of March 5, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Insilco
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders, equity (deficit) and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996,
and the related schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1996, annual
report on Form 10-K of Insilco Corporation.

                                                  KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Columbus, Ohio
March 28, 1997
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7180 

To reduce the annual rate of pay during a succeeding Congress of Members 

of the House of Representatives who cast a vote or record their presence 

in the House by proxy during a Congress, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2020 

Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. BUDD, Mr. POSEY, and Mr. 

BISHOP of North Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To reduce the annual rate of pay during a succeeding Congress of Members of the House of Representatives who 

cast a vote or record their presence in the House by 

proxy during a Congress, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Honor Your Oath 

5 Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7180 IH

1 SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN PAY OF MEMBERS WHO VOTE BY 

2 PROXY. 

3 (a) REDUCTION DURING NEXT CONGRESS.—If on 

4 any day during a Congress an individual who serves as 

5 a Member of the House of Representatives uses a des6 ignated proxy to cast a vote in the House or to record 

7 the Member’s presence in the House in response to a 

8 quorum call, the annual rate of pay applicable under sec9 tion 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 

10 (2 U.S.C. 4501) with respect to such individual for each 

11 pay period occurring during the next Congress during 

12 which the individual serves as a Member of the House of 

13 Representatives shall be equal to $1. 

14 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING DONATION OF

15 SALARY TO CHARITY OR USE FOR DEFICIT REDUC16 TION.—It is the sense of Congress that any individual 

17 whose annual rate of pay is equal to $1 pursuant to sub18 section (a) should donate that pay to a charitable organi19 zation or return it to the Treasury for purposes of deficit 

20 reduction. 

21 (c) TREATMENT OF DELEGATES AS MEMBERS.—In 

22 this section, the term ‘‘Member of the House of Represent23 atives’’ includes a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to 

24 the Congress. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Helen W. PENTON, Appellant, v. Rex A. PENTON, Appellee.

No. 70-1167.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 23, 1971.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1971.

*624Schlissel & Scher, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Rollins, Peoples & Rosen, Jeanne Hey-ward, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PEARSON, Chief Judge.

This interlocutory appeal is from two orders correcting a final judgment of divorce. The substantial question presented is whether a final judgment of divorce may be amended pursuant to RCP 1.540(b), 31 F. S.A., to make what the trial judge considers a general equitable readjustment to change the title to property which was held as an estate by the entirety prior to the divorce.

Although the trial court did not have the benefit of the opinion later published in Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 53, we think that the law as set forth therein clearly establishes that in the absence of a finding of a special equity in the property the court may not change the title of property which was held as an estate by the entirety and by the divorce passed into an estate in common. See also Bergh v. Bergh, Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 481; Latta v. Latta, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 42. Therefore, the orders amending the final judgment of divorce are reversed and the cause remanded with directions to deny the motions to amend.

Reversed and remanded with directions.
#### In the Matter of Sharef McD., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[735 NYS2d 758]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen Alpert, J.), entered on or about March 11, 1998, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees, and placed him in the custody of the New York State Division for Youth for 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s untimely request for a suppression hearing since the requisite showing of good cause was not made *(see,*Family Ct Act §§ 330.2, 332.2 [3]).

Any deficiencies in the chain of custody of the narcotics went to the weight, not the admissibility of the evidence, since the detective’s testimony combined with that of the chemist provided adequate assurances of the identity and the substantially unchanged condition of the narcotics *(see, People v Julian,*41 NY2d 340).

We see no reason to disturb the court’s decision with regard to appellant’s placement. Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ
EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Daxor Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Feldschuh,
Vice President of Operations and Chief Financial 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:

      (1)   The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.


                                        /s/ Stephen Feldschuh
                                        ----------------------
                                        Stephen Feldschuh
                                        Vice President of Operations and
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        September 6 2005


                                      -12-
**MEMORANDUM**

**DATE:** 06/26 /2014 **FROM:** Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR– 2013 - 0602 **SUBJECT:** ARPA - E FOCUS Kickoff Meeting held on 06/25 /2014 **SUMMARY :**  EPA Region 8 ’s Climate Change Coordinator, Laura Farris, presented information on the proposed Clean Power Plan for E xisting Power Plants at the ARPA - E FOCUS kickoff meeting held on 06/25 /2014 . The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES: EPA**  **Region 8** Laura Farris , EPA Region 8 Climate Change Coordinator **External Stakeholders** See attached list. **ATTACHMENTS** Attendees List. Clean Power Plan Overview PowerPoint Slides .
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Daxor Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Feldschuh, M.D., President and 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:




(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 Daxor Corporation.




/s/ Joseph Feldschuh, M.D.Joseph FeldshcuhPresident

Chief Executive Officer

Chairman of the Board of Directors

Principal Executive OfficerAugust 12, 2010








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Daxor Corporation and will be retained by Daxor Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.59

SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

It is hereby agreed by Lisa Salamone ("Employee") and Restoration Hardware, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), as follows:



1

---





2

---

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. THIS AGREEMENT INCLUDES A RELEASEOF ALL KNOWN AND UNKNOWN CLAIMS.

| |  | /s/LISA SALAMONE |  | 3/6/03
| |  | ---------------- |  | ------
| |  |                 
| |  | Lisa Salamone    |  | Date  

Executed at Corte Madera, California, this fourth day of March 2003.

| |  |                                 |  |       
| |  | ------------------------------- |  | ------
| |  | Restoration Hardware           
| |  |                                 |  |       
| |  | /s/GARY FRIEDMAN                |  | 3/4/03
| |  |                                
| |  | Gary Friedman CEO and President |  | Date  

3

---

QuickLinks
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2464 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand eligibility for 

low-income subsidies under part D of the Medicare program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2021 

Ms. CRAIG (for herself, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MORELLE, and Mr. 

VEASEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand 

eligibility for low-income subsidies under part D of the 

Medicare program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘More Help for Seniors 

5 Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2464 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDING ELIGIBILITY FOR LOW-INCOME SUB2 SIDIES UNDER PART D OF THE MEDICARE 

3 PROGRAM. 

4 Section 1860D–14(a) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 1395w–114(a)) is amended— 

6 (1) in the header, by striking ‘‘INDIVIDUALS’’ 

7 and all that follows through ‘‘LINE’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS’’; 

9 (2) in paragraph (1)— 

10 (A) by striking the header and inserting 

11 ‘‘INDIVIDUALS WITH CERTAIN LOW INCOMES’’; 

12 and 

13 (B) in the matter preceding subparagraph 

14 (A), by inserting ‘‘(or, with respect to a plan 

15 year beginning on or after January 1, 2023, 

16 150 percent)’’ after ‘‘135 percent’’; 

17 (3) in paragraph (2)— 

18 (A) by striking the header and inserting 

19 ‘‘OTHER LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS’’; and 

20 (B) in subparagraph (A)— 

21 (i) by inserting ‘‘(or, with respect to a 

22 plan year beginning on or after January 1, 

23 2023, 150 percent)’’ after ‘‘below 135 per24 cent’’; and 

25 (ii) by inserting ‘‘(or, with respect to 

26 a plan year beginning on or after January 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2464 IH

1 1, 2023, 200 percent)’’ after ‘‘at 150 per2 cent’’; and 

3 (4) in paragraph (3)(A)(ii), by inserting ‘‘(or, 

4 with respect to a plan year beginning on or after 

5 January 1, 2023, 200 percent)’’ after ‘‘150 per6 cent’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-87,600-01

EX PARTE JUAN FRANCISCO PEREZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 16CR1088-83-1 IN THE 56TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM GALVESTON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of tampering with

a government record and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. 

This application was previously remanded to the trial court to resolve a factual issue that was

not addressed in counsel’s first affidavit. Counsel, it appears, filed a second affidavit, but it is not

signed or notarized. The trial court’s findings rely on the second affidavit in resolving the disputed

factual issues. However, because of the deficiency in the affidavit, the disputed issues remain

unresolved. 
2

The application is remanded a second time for the trial court to resolve whether counsel

discussed with Applicant that his plea agreement was for him to go to prison for two years, not

deportation or removal from the United States after which he would be required to stay out of the

country for two years. The trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.

11.07, § 3(d). In the appropriate case, the trial court may rely on its personal recollection. Id.

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law in regard to Applicant’s

claim that his plea was involuntary. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: March 28, 2018

Do not publish