alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 256 

AN ACT 

To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force 

Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 

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

•HR 256 EH

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILI2 TARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 

3 2002. 

4 The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against 

5 Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107–243; 50 U.S.C. 

6 1541 note) is hereby repealed. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2021. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 256 

AN ACT 

To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military 

Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 22-50022 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Rene Ramirez-Nery, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:18-CR-244-1 

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Rene Ramirez-Nery, federal prisoner # 04937-480, appeals the 

district court’s denial in part and dismissal in part of his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court 

determined that Ramirez-Nery’s claim of sentencing error was not an 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

September 8, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-50022 Document: 00516465173 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2022
No. 22-50022 

2 

extraordinary or compelling reason for a sentence reduction. It also found 

that Ramirez-Nery had failed to show he was not a danger to the safety of any 

other person or the community, and that he had failed to show that the 

sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) supported his release. Finally, the 

district court dismissed his claim of error in the calculation of his sentence; 

it reasoned that such a claim must be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, 

that the Western District of Texas was not the proper venue, and that he had 

not shown he had exhausted his administrative remedies. 

In his brief on appeal, Ramirez-Nery repeats the assertions in his 

original motion and does not specifically challenge any part of the district 

court’s analysis. His failure to challenge the district court’s determinations 

on appeal means he has waived these issues. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 

222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 

813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Because the appeal lacks arguable merit and it is therefore frivolous, it 

is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 22-50022 Document: 00516465173 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2022
#### Daniel Larry PIZZI and Sherian Plzzi, Appellants, v. CENTRAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a banking corporation, Central Bank and Trust Company, as Trustees for David L. Husman and wife, and David L. Husman, individually, and Stanley Matusow, individually, and Byron Holding Corporation, a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 70-300.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 1, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1970.

Wilson, Burns & Browd, for appellants.

Pallot, Poppell, Goodman & Shapo, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

*451PEARSON, Chief Judge

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent upon the basis of the rule stated in Kest v. Nathanson, Fla. App.1968, 216 So.2d 233.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2563 

To exclude from gross income $10,200 in wages or net earnings of certain 

taxpayers for taxable year 2020. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2021 

Mr. BERGMAN (for himself and Mrs. HINSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To exclude from gross income $10,200 in wages or net 

earnings of certain taxpayers for taxable year 2020. 

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 ‘‘Essential Worker Tax 

5 Parity Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CERTAIN INCOME NOT INCLUDIBLE IN GROSS IN7 COME. 

8 (a) SPECIAL EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR

9 2020.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 

10 purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in the 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2563 IH

1 case of any taxable year beginning in 2020, if the adjusted 

2 gross income of the taxpayer for such taxable year is less 

3 than $150,000 (determined without regard to this sub4 section), the gross income of such taxpayer shall not in5 clude so much of the wages (determined under section 

6 3401(a) of such Code) or net earnings from self-employ7 ment (as defined in section 1402(a) of such Code) of the 

8 taxpayer (or, in the case of a joint return, of each spouse) 

9 as does not exceed $10,200. 

10 (b) DENIAL OF DOUBLE BENEFIT.—The amount of 

11 the exclusion allowable under subsection (a) shall be re12 duced by the amount of the exclusion allowed under sec13 tion 85(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

14 to suspension of tax on portion of unemployment com15 pensation). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Eunice Cecelia DAVID, a/k/a Eunice Cecelia Kintz Gray, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-868.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 4, 1973.

Ader, Gissen & Nathan, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

AMENDED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Robertson v. State, 94 Fla. 770, 114 So. 534; Koran v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 213 So.2d 735.
#### Curtis W. KOON, Appellant, v. Doris KOON, Appellee.

No. P-121.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 9, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.1**     The following is the certification required 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 annual report of Cardiogenesis    Corporation (the “Company”) on    Form 10-KSB    for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the SEC    on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard    Lanigan, President 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. /s/  Richard    Lanigan    Richard Lanigan,*President*     March 25, 2008     The following is the certification required 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 annual report of Cardiogenesis    Corporation (the “Company”) on    Form 10-KSB    for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the SEC    on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William R.    Abbott, Chief Financial 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. /s/  William    R. Abbott    William R. Abbott*Chief Financial Officer*     March 25, 2008
ye

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

In the Matter of

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V.
a foreign corporation,

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY, DOCKET NO. 9300

a corporation, and

PITT-DES MOINES, INC.,
a corporation.

errr rH HY OE

ORDER ON MG INDUSTRIES’ MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT
OF TRIAL TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL PATTERSON AND TRIAL EXHIBIT

I

On December 2, 2002, the Office of Administrative Law Judges received a motion by MG
Industries (“MGT”) seeking in camera treatment for specific portions of trial testimony provided
by MGI employee, Michael Patterson and for trial exhibit CX 1579.

On November 13, 2002, Complaint Counsel called Patterson as a witness in this matter.
Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(g), on November 13, 2002, provisional in camera treatment was
granted for portions of Proulx’s trial testimony and for CX 1579. MGI now seeks in camera
treatment for a period of one year for the portions of Patterson’s testimony that have been
granted provisional in camera status and for CX 1579.

IL

The Order on Non-Parties’ Motions for Jn Camera Treatment of Documents Listed on
Parties’ Exhibit Lists, issued on November 1, 2002 sets forth the standards by which MGI’s
motion for in camera treatment is evaluated. MGI’s motion is supported by the affidavit of
Michael Patterson, Director of Engineering, Bulk Products, for MGI. According to this affidavit,
the disclosure of CX 1579 and the portions of Patterson’s testimony relating to this document


would cause the loss of business advantage and serious and irreparable injury to MGI. A review
of the affidavit in support of the motion, the document for which in camera treatment is sought,
and the portions of Patterson’s testimony that were granted provisional in camera status, reveals
that this information meets the standards for in camera treatment.

Accordingly, MGI’s motion is GRANTED. Jn camera treatment, for a period of one
year, to expire December 1, 2003, is hereby GRANTED to CX 1579 and to the portions of

Patterson’s November 13, 2002 trial testimony that were previously granted provisional in
camera treatment pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(g).

ORDERED: hype heya
D. Michael Chapp:

Administrative Law Judge

Date: December 13, 2002
================================================================================

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 Annual Report of Semper Resources Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, Mark G.
Hollo, Chief Executive 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
to the best of my knowledge:

      (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 result of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ Mark G. Hollo
----------------------------------------
Mark G. Hollo
Chief Executive Officer















--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PNK EX 10.29 12.31.13






Exhibit 10.29
Summary of Director Compensation
Director Fees 
The compensation of the non-employee directors of Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. (the “Company”), is paid in the form of an annual retainer, meeting and chair fees and stock-based awards. The fees that each non-employee director (other than the Chairman of the Board) or committee chair, received for his or her service, are the following:    
An annual retainer of $75,000 effective as of May 21, 2013; prior to that date the annual retainer was $66,000;


An additional $20,000 retainer for the Chair of the Audit Committee; 


An additional $20,000 retainer for the Chair of the Compensation Committee; 
 
An additional $20,000 retainer for the Chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee; 


An attendance fee of $1,500 for each Board meeting or committee meeting (telephonic or in person), other than meetings of the Audit Committee (whether regularly scheduled meetings or special meetings);  


An attendance fee of $2,000 for each meeting of the Audit Committee (whether regularly scheduled or special meetings). 




Director Fees Paid to the Chairman of the Board
The Chairman of the Board receives an annual retainer of $225,000 effective as of May 21, 2013; prior to that date the annual retainer was $191,000.  The annual retainer paid to the Chairman of the Board is in lieu of the annual retainer of $75,000 paid to other directors and attendance fees for attending Board or committee meetings paid to other directors.
Equity Grants 
In 2013, the Company granted to each non-employee director who was then serving 7,357 restricted stock units, which were granted and vested on the date of the 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONof CEO

 

I, Walter J. Zable, certify that:

 

1)              I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Cubic Corporation;

 

2)              Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3)              Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this  report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this  report;

 

4)              The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and wehave:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this  report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of March 31, 2005; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s quarter ended December 31, 2004 that has materiallyaffected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5)              The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of theinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 
| May 9,  2005                      |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                   |
|                                   |
| /s/ W. J. Zable                        |   |
| W. J. Zable                            |
| President and Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
p.1 

Dyno Nobel Americas RECEIVED 

OPPTCBIC 

20I3MAR28 AH 10=31* 

DYM© 

Dyno Nobel 

Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460-0001 

ATTN: Test Rule § 799.5087 for PETN 

353100 DYNO NOBEL INC. 

A business of Incitec Pivot Limited 

2795 East Cottonwood Parkway 

Suite 500 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

84121 USA 

Telephone: 801-364-4800 

Fax: 801-328-6452 

www.dynonobel.com 

Date 26 March 2013 

Re: Testing of High Production Volume Chemicals - PETN (CAS No. 78-11-5) 

Dear Madam/Sir; 

Test Rule § 799.5087 required the testing of PETN (CAS No. 78-11-5). Enclosed are reports for acute 

toxicity testing to fish (Pimephales promelas) and aquatic invertebrates (Daphnia magna). 

Because PETN is a highly sensitive explosive compound, the safety of personnel handling the compound 

was of paramount importance. The ability to find laboratories willing to test explosive compounds in 

accordance with TSCA GLP was unsuccessful until we established communications with knowledgeable 

personnel within the Department of Defense. 

Toxicologists and chemists with the U.S. Army Public Health Command provided guidance and aqueous 

solutions of PETN to AECOM's Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology Laboratory to facilitate these tests. 

If there are any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to contact me using the information 

provided below. 

Neal Olsen 

Senior Director / Environment 

Phone: +1 801 328 6434 

e-mail: neal.olsen@am.dynonobel.com i iiiiiiwiiiiipnj!! 

4 0 1 3000003 1 

111 

CONTAINS NO CBI
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40001

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ENRIQUE GOMEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-437-1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Enrique GomezRodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gomez-Rodriguez has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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

August 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40001 Document: 00514122643 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 17-40001

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-40001 Document: 00514122643 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
<PAGE>
<PAGE> 21

                                                                  Exhibit 12

<TABLE>
               AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                 (Unaudited)



<CAPTION>
                                                         Six Months Ended
                                                             June 30,
                                                        2000          1999
                                                      (dollars in thousands)
<S>                                                   <C>           <C>
Earnings:
  Income before provision for income
    taxes                                             $136,744      $166,410
  Interest expense                                     333,116       276,380
  Implicit interest in rents                             8,000         7,482

Total earnings                                        $477,860      $450,272


Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                    $333,116      $276,380
  Implicit interest in rents                             8,000         7,482

Total fixed charges                                   $341,116      $283,862


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        1.40          1.59
</TABLE>
<Page>


                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q Equivalent of Birds
Eye Foods, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 25, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2006 (the "Report"), I,
Neil Harrison, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

      Date: May 5, 2006                  /s/ Neil Harrison
                                         ---------------------------
                                         Chairman of the Board, President and
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         (Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33058]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 30-31373-CivP and ASLBP No. 98-735-01-CivP]


CONAM Inspection, Inc.; Establishment of Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board

    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, 
published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 28710 (1972), and Sections 
2.105, 2.700, 2.702, 2.714, 2.714a, 2.717, 2.721, and 2.772(j) of the 
Commission's Regulations, all as amended, an Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following 
proceeding.

CONAM Inspection, Inc.; Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty

    This Board is being established pursuant to the request of Conam 
Inspection, Inc. for an enforcement hearing. The hearing request was 
made in response to an Order issued by the Director, Office of 
Enforcement, dated November 5, 1997, entitled ``Order Imposing Civil 
Monetary Penalty'' (62 FR 60923, November 13, 1997).
    The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:

Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555
Dr. Richard F. Cole, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555
Dr. Charles N. Kelber, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555

    All correspondence, documents and other materials shall be filed 
with the Judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.701.

    Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of December 1997.
B. Paul Cotter, Jr.,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 97-33058 Filed 12-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P