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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 750 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 750

 To provide the payment of salaries to Federal employees and employees 
 of the District of Columbia excepted from furlough during a lapse in 
    appropriations during fiscal year 2019, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 2019

Mr. Upton (for himself and Mrs. Dingell) introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide the payment of salaries to Federal employees and employees 
 of the District of Columbia excepted from furlough during a lapse in 
    appropriations during fiscal year 2019, and for other purposes.

    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 Essential Workers Act''.

SEC. 2. PROVIDING PAY TO EXCEPTED EMPLOYEES DURING LAPSES IN 
              APPROPRIATIONS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2019.

    (a) In General.--
            (1) December 2018 shutdown.--With respect to the lapse in 
        appropriations beginning on or after December 22, 2018--
                    (A) each excepted employee (as that term is defined 
                in section 1341(c)(1)(D) of title 31, United States 
                Code) who was required to perform work during the 
                period beginning on the first day of such lapse and 
                ending on the date of enactment of this section shall 
                be paid for such work, at the employee's standard rate 
                of pay, at the earliest date possible after the date of 
                enactment, regardless of scheduled pay dates; and
                    (B) for the remainder of such lapse, each excepted 
                employee who is required to perform work during such 
                remainder shall be paid for such work, at the 
                employee's standard rate of pay, on the employee's 
                scheduled pay dates.
            (2) Subsequent lapses in fiscal year 2019.--During any 
        lapse in appropriations during fiscal year 2019 beginning after 
        the lapse in appropriations described in paragraph (1) ends, 
        each excepted employee who is required to perform work during a 
        covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for such work, at 
        the employee's standard rate of pay, on the employee's 
        scheduled pay dates.
    (b) Appropriation.--There are appropriated such sums as are 
necessary to carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSEPH LOUIS D'ALESSANDRO, III,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1673

[November 15, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 502009CF009731AXXXMB.

Joseph Louis D'Alessandro, III, Lake Butler, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Douglas F. Rissel et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Nornew Energy Supply, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, and Mary E. Millard, Respondent. Nornew Energy Supply, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Third-Party Plaintiff, v V.D.C. Rauscher, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[722 NYS2d 643]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Douglas F. Rissel (plaintiff) while he was working on the construction of a pipeline. Plaintiff was injured when a section of pipe that was being hoisted approximately three feet off the ground by a boom' attached to a bulldozer/tractor dropped and fell on him. Supreme Court properly granted those parts of the amended motion of defendant Nornew Energy Supply, Inc. (Nornew) and cross motion of defendant Mary E. Millard seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The pipe *881“was never elevated at a level higher than plaintiff, and [plaintiff’s] work * * * was performed at approximately the same level where plaintiff was positioned” *(Puckett v County of Erie,*262 AD2d 964, 965). The court also properly granted those parts of the cross motion of Millard seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against her because she had no supervisory control over the construction work *(see, Lombardi v Stout,*80 NY2d 290, 295). Because an issue of fact exists whether Nornew’s operations superintendent exercised a supervisory role, the court properly denied those parts of the amended motion of Nornew seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against it.

The court erred, however, in granting those parts of Nornew’s amended motion and Millard’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. Defendants contend that 12 NYCRR 23-6.1 (a) specifically excludes the hoisting equipment involved in this incident. We disagree. The record establishes that the crew hoisted the pipe with the side boom and cables, not the excavating machine. Moreover, 12 NYCRR 23-6.1 (d) is sufficiently specific to support a section 241 (6) cause of action, and on this record there is an issue of fact whether a violation of that rule was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. We therefore modify the order by denying those parts of Nornew’s amended motion and Millard’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and by reinstating that claim.

Finally, the court properly denied that part of Nornew’s amended motion for conditional summary judgment seeking common-law indemnification from third-party defendant. An issue of fact exists whether Nornew is responsible for the accident (cf*., Colyer v K Mart Corp.,*273 AD2d 809). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Burns and Lawton, JJ.
11/15/2010 1G:58 FAX 2024935142 FAA •> DMS 0)001/001 

ROBERT H. LONDO N 

JUDC t IHi r > 

B EN LUl 

LiTtCATICJN MANACCn 

LAVA/ OFFICE S OF 

ROBERT H . LONDON 

A PROFCy?:iON*l_ LAW COOPORATION 

953 0 t^l-AIR DRIv e 

SUITE 30 I 

E L MONTE , CALIFORNI A 91T3 I 

TEL (62«) 575-9200 

FAX (626) S7S-3S53 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW Room 924A 

Washington DC 20591 

November 3, 2010 

Re: Si Ping Ye - Case No.: 2009EA190129 

Attention Hearing Docket Clerk: 

OF COUNSEL. 

J . KLORES VALDEZ 

ALEX R. KESSEL 

ciD 

c5-

cr 

• > • 

-ff 

o . J O 

^~: rj^ D 

m^ 

ooo 

CO 

C?/6e/vODii hoio-oV^ 

Please be advised that in the above mentioned case a settlement agreement has been 

agreed upon between Ms. Yc aiid Christopher Merrill, General Attorney on behalf oJ'the 

Federal Aviation Administration. 

As a prerequisite xo a formal final disposition by way of final settlement, our office, on 

behalf of Ms. Ye, ha.s been directed by Mr. Merrill, to request that the previous request 

for a forma! hearing be withdrawn. Therefore, please accept this notice of our intent to 

withdraw Ms. Yc request for a formal hearing so thai Ms. Ye can take advantage of the 

FAA's settleriient offer. 

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Robert H. London ' "^^(^^ ^ 

cd Christopher Merrill
##### 



Exhibit 10.11 Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement
Dated September 27, 2001
Between Cardiogenesis Corporation as Company and
Michael J. Quinn as Executive The terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement are hereby modified and amended as follows.
Unless specifically defined in this Agreement, capitalized terms used herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement. Section 3.1, line 2, after Three Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($330,000) per annum
insert and effective January 1, 2003, such salary shall be increased to an amount equal to
Three Hundred Eighty Eight Dollars Four Hundred Twenty Seven ($388,427) per annum. All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain the same. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment of the latest date set forth
below. COMPANY:
    
    
    
    EXECUTIVE:CARDIOGENESIS CORPORATION
    
    
    
    MICHAEL J. QUINNBY:
    
    Darrell Eckstein
    
    
    
    BY:
    
    Michael QuinnNAME:
    
    Darrell Eckstein
    
    
    
    NAME:
    
    Michael QuinnTITLE:
    
    President, CFO
    
    
    
    TITLE:
    
    CEO & ChairmanDATE:
    
    5/19/03
    
    
    
    DATE:
    
    5/19/03




---



##### 



Amendment No. 3 to Employment Agreement
Dated September 27, 2001
Between Cardiogenesis Corporation as Company and
Michael J. Quinn as Executive The terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement are hereby modified and amended as follows.
Unless specifically defined in this Agreement, capitalized terms used herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement. Section 3.1, line 2, after Three Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($330,000) per annum insert
and effective January 1, 2005, such salary shall be increased to an amount equal to Four Hundred
Thirty-Six Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($436,650) per annum. All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain the same. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment of the latest date set forth
below. COMPANY:
    
    
    
    EXECUTIVE:CARDIOGENESIS CORPORATION
    
    
    
    MICHAEL J. QUINNBY:
    
    Christine Ocampo
    
    
    
    BY:
    
    Michael J. QuinnNAME:
    
    Christine Ocampo
    
    
    
    NAME:
    
    Michael J. QuinnTITLE:
    
    VP, Chief Financial Officer
    
    
    
    TITLE:
    
    President and CEODATE:
    
    3/16/05
    
    
    
    DATE:
    
    3/16/05
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

************************************ 

Federal Aviation Administration * 

Complainant 

v. 

* 

* 

* 

RECEIVED 

FEB 2 7 2013 

Ht:ARING DOCKET 

* FAA Docket No. CPllGLOOOO 

D & M Custom Injection 

Molding Corporation 

Respondent 

* 

* 

*· 

* 

* 

************************************* 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

DMS No. FAA-2011-0679 

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AND STRIKE RESPONSE BRIEF TO 

INITIAL DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD c_ 

GOODWIN 

The Complainant moves to strike the Respondent's unauthorized appeal brief 

from the record and asks that an Order be entered dismissing the untimely appeal filed by 

the Respondent, based upon the following: 

1. On December 13,2012, the Honorable Judge issued a written decision on the 

August 9, 2012 hearing, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.232(c) of the Rules of Practice 

in FAA Civil Penalty Actions. 

2. On January 30, 2012, the Respondent filed a document titled Response Brief to 

Initial Decision of Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. 

3. The Respondent did not file a Notice of Appeal. 

4. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.233(a), a Notice of Appeal must be filed in the FAA 

Hearing Docket within 10 days after the service of the written initial decision. 
2 

5. The Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions do not allow the filing of a 

Response Brief to Initial Decision. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant requests that if the Administrative Law Judge considers the 

filing of the Response Brief as an Appeal that the Appeal be dismissed on the grounds 

that a Notice was never filed with the Hearing Docket. In the alternative, Complainant 

requests that the Response Brief be stricken as it is not an authorized pleading in the 

Federal Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jeffrey A. Klang 

Regional Counsel 

Kate Barber 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

23 00 East Devon A venue 

Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Motion has been faxed and mailed to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-50 

Room 5411 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

And by CERTIFIED MAlL to: 

Mr. Scott Hagen 

Vice President 

D&M Custom Injection Molding Corporation 

150 French Road 

P.O. Box 158 

Burlington, IL 60109 

Hearing Docket 

FAA, AGC-400 

600 Independence Ave., SW 

Room 2014 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: (202) 493-5020 

TEL: (202) 3 85-8229 

Offic f t e Regional C 

J/Jilt2 

3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7760-7761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4173]


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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

CGSC Advisory Committee

AGENCY: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
committee meeting:

[[Page 7761]]

    Name of Meeting: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC) 
Advisory Committee.
    Dates of Meeting: 30 April--2 May 1997.
    Place: Bell Hall, Room 113, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-1352.
    Time: 1700-2200, 30 April 1997; 0730-2100, 1 May 1997; 0730-2100, 2 
May 1997.
    Proposed Agenda:

1700-2200, 30 April: Review of CGSC educational program.
0730-2100, 1 May: Continuation of review.
0730-1030, 2 May: Continuation of review.
1030-1130, 2 May: Executive Session.
1300-1400, 2 May: Report of Commandant.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Philip J. Brookes, USACGSC Advisory Committee, One Reynolds Ave., Bell 
Hall, Room 123, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-1352; Phone (913) 684-
2741.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is for the 
Advisory Committee to examine the entire range of college operations 
and, where appropriate, to provide advice and recommendations to the 
College Commandant and faculty.
    The meeting will be open to the public to the extent that space 
limitations of the meeting location permit. Because of these 
limitations, interested parties are requested to reserve space by 
contacting the Committee's Executive Secretary: Philip J. Brookes at 
the above address or phone number.
Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-4173 Filed 2-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Mr. Clayton Gamber 

CEO, Twin Air Calypso 

700 SW 341h Street 

Suite 100 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 3 3 315 

Assistant Secretary 

NOV 06 2012 1 ,, "''q ......... ! 

.· - ....... ! 

Re: Cancellation of On-demand Air Taxi Registration under 14 CFR Part 298 

Dear Mr. Gamber: 

,- ·': I ; 

This letter serves as notice that the Department has canceled Twin Air Calypso Limited, 

Inc.'s ("Twin Air Calypso"), 14 CFR Part 298 on-demand air taxi registration. Pursuant 

to 14 CPR 298.24(d) of our rules, the registration of an Air Taxi Operator may be 

canceled by the Department if the operator's Air Carrier Certificate is revoked by the 

Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"). On August 7, 2012, the FAA revoked Twin 

Air Calypso's operating certificate on an emergency basis. 

Accordingly, by this letter Twin Air Calypso's Part 298 on-demand air taxi registration is 

hereby canceled and it no longer possesses economic authority from the Department to 

directly engage in air transportation. Therefore, all future obligations involving such 

activities must be canceled and the proper parties should be notified of their cancelation 

immediately. Twin Air Calypso should provide appropriate refunds to consumers in a 

timely manner for those canceled services. 

We are also concerned about Twin Air Calypso's failure to comply with the 

Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings' settlement agreement 

regarding the company's unauthorized operations of scheduled passenger service in 

violation of 49 U.S.C. §§ 41101, 41712, and 41738, and 14 CFR Part 298, which was 

outlined in Orders 2012-2-20 and 2005-3-38. This matter raises questions regarding 

whether it is in the public interest to permit Twin Air Calypso to operate pursuant to the 

exemption authority of Part 298 or otherwise, and we intend to consider these issues if 

Twin Air Calypso or its current principals seek air carrier authority in the future. 

Sincerely, 

Assistant Secretary for 

Aviation and International Affairs 
cc: Mr. Ryan M. Landers 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Southern Region 

PO Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Mr. Michael Moulis, Esq 

Moulis Aviation Law, PA 

Suite 344 

1100 Lee Wagener Boulevard 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 3 3 315 

2
The Honorable Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and

recommendation of the Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States

Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

___________

No. 96-1582

___________

Paul William Criswell, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States of America, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 5, 1996

 Filed: March 25, 1997

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Paul William Criswell appeals the district court's dismissal of his 1

second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as an abuse of the writ. After careful

review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not thereby

abuse its discretion, see Nachtigall v. Class, 48 F.3d 1076, 1079 (8th Cir.

1995) (standard of review), and that Criswell's allegations of pro se

status and illiteracy are insufficient to demonstrate cause, see Smittie

v. Lockhart, 843 F.2d 295, 298 (8th Cir. 1988). To the extent Criswell

suggests his failure to present his claims in his first motion is excused

because he did not receive the correct version of the presentence report,

we conclude Criswell has not demonstrated he was prejudiced
-2-

by any alleged inaccuracies. See United States v. Flynn, 87 F.3d 996, 999

(8th Cir. 1996) (court need not determine whether cause exists where movant

fails to demonstrate actual prejudice). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 10.6

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                              BJ SERVICES COMPANY
                       1990 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


         WHEREAS, BJ SERVICES COMPANY (the "Company") has heretofore adopted
the BJ SERVICES COMPANY 1990 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN (the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, pursuant to certain amendments to the rules promulgated under
Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Amended
Rules"), the Company desires to amend the Plan to ensure compliance with the
Amended Rules;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows, effective
December 12, 1996:

         1.      The second paragraph of Section 2 shall be deleted.

         2.      As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and
reaffirmed.
CYBERSECURITY FOR

SMALL BUSINESS

LEARN MORE AT:

FTC.gov/SmallBusiness

CYBERSECURITY BASICS

Cyber criminals target

companies of all sizes.

Knowing some cybersecurity basics and 

putting them in practice will help you 

protect your business and reduce the risk 

of a cyber attack.

PROTECT

YOUR FILES & DEVICES

Update your software

This includes your apps, web 

browsers, and operating 

systems. Set updates to 

happen automatically.

Secure your files

Back up important files offline, 

on an external hard drive, or in 

the cloud. Make sure you store 

your paper files securely, too.

Require passwords

Use passwords for all laptops, 

tablets, and smartphones.

Don’t leave these devices 

unattended in public places.

Encrypt devices

Encrypt devices and other media that 

contain sensitive personal information. 

This includes laptops, tablets, 

smartphones, removable drives, backup 

tapes, and cloud storage solutions.

Use multi-factor authentication

Require multi-factor authentication to access areas 

of your network with sensitive information. This 

requires additional steps beyond logging in with a 

password — like a temporary code on a smartphone 

or a key that’s inserted into a computer. 

LEARN MORE AT:

FTC.gov/SmallBusiness
CYBERSECURITY FOR

SMALL BUSINESS

PROTECT YOUR WIRELESS NETWORK

Secure your router

Change the default name and password, turn off remote management, 

and log out as the administrator once the router is set up.

Use at least WPA2 encryption

Make sure your router offers WPA2 or WPA3 encryption, and that it’s 

turned on. Encryption protects information sent over your network so it 

can’t be read by outsiders.

MAKE

YOUR BUSINESS AS USUAL

SMART SECURITY

Require strong passwords

A strong password is at least 

12 characters that are a mix of 

numbers, symbols, and capital 

lowercase letters.

Never reuse passwords and 

don’t share them on the phone, 

in texts, or by email. 

Limit the number of 

unsuccessful log-in attempts to 

limit password-guessing attacks.

Train all staff

Create a culture of security 

by implementing a regular 

schedule of employee training. 

Update employees as you 

find out about new risks and 

vulnerabilities. If employees 

don’t attend, consider blocking 

their access to the network.

Have a plan

Have a plan for saving data, 

running the business, and 

notifying customers if you 

experience a breach. The FTC’s 

Data Breach Response: A Guide 

for Business gives steps you 

can take. You can find it at 

FTC.gov/DataBreach.

LEARN MORE AT:

FTC.gov/SmallBusiness