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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7522 

To establish the Small Business Economic Assistance Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2020 

Mr. GALLEGO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To establish the Small Business Economic Assistance 

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. SMALL BUSINESS ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE PRO4 GRAM. 

5 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of the Treas6 ury shall establish the Small Business Economic Assist7 ance Program to provide financial assistance to each cov8 ered entity. 

9 (b) ASSISTANCE.—Subject to subsection (d), the Sec10 retary shall provide each covered entity a financial assist11 ance payment equal to $5,000 per employee of that covVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:01 Jul 28, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7522.IH H7522

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7522 IH

1 ered entity. Such assistance may not be treated as taxable 

2 income, and expenses of a covered entity that arise from 

3 such assistance shall be eligible for any otherwise applica4 ble tax deduction. 

5 (c) PURPOSE.— 

6 (1) A covered entity that receives assistance 

7 under subsection (b) shall use at least 80 percent of 

8 the assistance under subsection (b) for employee 

9 compensation, and the balance for business costs 

10 (including rent, mortgage payments, or utility pay11 ments). 

12 (2) The Secretary shall treat any portion of a 

13 payment of assistance under subsection (b) not used 

14 pursuant to paragraph (1) as a loan— 

15 (A) subject to an interest rate the Sec16 retary determines to be low; and 

17 (B) that the covered entity shall repay not 

18 later than one year after the Secretary makes 

19 such payment. 

20 (d) OPT-OUT.—A covered entity may elect in writing 

21 not to receive financial assistance under subsection (b). 

22 (e) DISTRIBUTION.—The Secretary shall distribute 

23 payments under subsection (b) based on information in 

24 the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7522 IH

1 (f) FRAUD.—All documents relating to the program 

2 under this section shall be subject to section 1001 of title 

3 18, United States Code. 

4 (g) COVERED ENTITY DEFINED.—In this section, the 

5 term ‘‘covered entity’’ means an entity that— 

6 (1) is categorized as a sole proprietorship, part7 nership company, limited liability company, C cor8 poration, S corporation, B corporation, or 501(c) or9 ganization; 

10 (2) has more than one but fewer than 50 em11 ployees; 

12 (3) has any type of income subject to Federal 

13 income tax; 

14 (4) paid employment or self-employment tax 

15 during calendar year 2019; 

16 (5) did not receive a payment under the Pay17 check Protection Program; 

18 (6) was established before January 1, 2020; 

19 and 

20 (7) has not filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES KING,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 181 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
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 Sauer-Danfoss Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David J. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 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.

|Dated: March 15, 2004 |  | /s/DAVID J. ANDERSONDavid J. Anderson
President and Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

I, Howard R. Levine, Chairman of the Boardand Chief Executive Officer of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. (the “Company”),do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

•                  theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended February 26,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

•                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: April 7, 2005        |
|---------------------------------|
|                            |
|                            |
| /s/  Howard R. Levine |   |
|                            | Howard R. Levine |
|                            | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive  Officer |
|                            | (Principal Executive Officer) |
|                                 |  |  |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and will be retained byFamily Dollar Stores, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ENACTED BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the annual report on Form 10-K/A of THQ Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward K. Zinser,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|        | /s/ EDWARD K.  ZINSER                                                                          |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Edward K. Zinser  Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer   January 19, 2007 |

 

----
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 4008 Not in labor force Number in thousands 25 to 29 years 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value**LNU05024932Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, 25-29 yrs.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:08:24 PM)
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Harry Douglas HAGGARD, Appellee.

No. 70-154.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 18, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellant.

John L. Riley, of Riley, Davis, Schowe & Saltsman, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed on the authority of State v. Morgan (Fla.App.2d 1970), 237 So.2d 301, State v. Williams (Fla.App.2d), 238 So.2d 140, 1970 and State v. Hardy (Fla.App.2d), 239 So.2d 279, 1970.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
#### GUARANTY NATIONAL BANK, a National Banking Corporation, Appellant, v. V. V. RADIONOFF, Appellee.

No. 72-525.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 14, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Louis Weissing, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
**CMF** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0161 STATE OF MONTANA,

P la intiff and Appellee , v. ROBERTO SALAMAN - GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including Dec em

ber 14 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief

.

Electronically signed by: James Jeremiah Shea Justice, Montana Supreme Court November 6 2020

11/06/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0161
#### Emiliano H. MACHADO, Appellant, v. J & B CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellee.

No. 72-1390.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 22, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit1035-DirectorPlan




Exhibit 10.35 
Summary of Director Compensation 
Set forth below is a summary of the compensation paid by SunEdison, Inc. (the “Company”) to its outside directors who are not employees of the Company or any subsidiary of the Company. Directors that are also employees of the Company receive no additional compensation for their service as a director. 
Initial Election to the Board of Directors 
Upon initial election to the Company’s Board of Directors, all outside directors are awarded non-qualified stock options for 25,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. These options will have a strike price equal to the market value at date of grant and vest ratably over four years. 
Annual Compensation 
Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) 
		
	•
	Annually (as of the date of the Annual Stockholder Meeting for that year), each person whose term on the Board of Directors extends for an additional year or who is expected to be nominated for re-election at such Annual Meeting of Stockholders, shall be awarded restricted stock units (RSUs) for shares of the Company’s common stock having a value of approximately $185,000 on the date of grant (based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant). Each RSU shall represent the right to receive one share of the Company’s common stock. The actual number of RSUs to be awarded shall be determined in increments of 100 RSUs such that the value of the Company’s common stock underlying the RSUs is as close to $185,000 as possible. 


		
	•
	The RSUs shall vest 100% on the first anniversary of the date of grant.


Cash Compensation 
The directors shall receive the following cash compensation: 
		
	•
	An annual retainer of $50,000. 


		
	•
	An additional retainer of $50,000 for the Chairman of the Board. 


		
	•
	An additional retainer of $40,000 for the Chairman of the Audit Committee and an additional retainer of $10,000 for each other member of the Audit Committee. 


		
	•
	An additional retainer of $20,000 for the Chairman of the Compensation Committee and an additional retainer of $5,000 for each other member of the Compensation Committee. 


		
	•
	An additional retainer of $5,000 for the Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. 


		
	•
	An additional fee of $1,000 for each Board and Committee meeting attended. 


Reimbursable Expenses 
All reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by a director for attending Board or Committee meetings will be reimbursed by the Company.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

DELBERT JOHNSON d/b/a TWO DOGS 

AVIATION 

Complainant 

V. 

GOLDSBORO-WAYNE AIRPORT 

AUTHORITY 

Respondent. 

Docket No. 16-08-11 

^ 

(.-3 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPEAL 

On November 12, 2009, counsel for Complainant submitted a Notice of Appeal with a 

motion requesting an extension of time to file Complainant's Memorandum in support of 

the appeal.' FAA counsel has confirmed that the parties' counsel have mutually agreed to 

respective 30 day extensions of time. 

The Director supports efforts to informally resolve matters and believes an extension of 

time may assist these efforts. 

Therefore, pursuant to 14 CFR §16.11(a), the time period for the Complainant to file a 

complete appeal is extended to December 11,2009 and the time period for the 

Respondent to file a reply to the appeal is extended to February 3, 2010. 

fVov. /^ T^oj 

Date 

Director 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Field Operations 

' 14 CFR Part 16 § 16.33 permits a party to the proceeding adversely affected by the Director's 

Determination to file an appeal with the Associate Administrator within 30 days after the date of service of 

the mitial determination. The regulation does not differentiate between a notice of appeal and a 

memorandum of appeal, but rather contemplates the filing of a written appeal within 30 days. See Preamble 

to the Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998, 54001 (October 16, 1996), "If the initial determination finds the 

sponsor in compliance and dismisses the complaint, the complainant may appeal the determination by a 

written appeal to the Associate Administrator within 30 days." 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November Z^, 2009,1 caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class, postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy of the foregoing 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPEAL addressed to: 

Glenn A. Barfield, Esq. 

HAITHCOCK, BARFIELD, HULSE, & KINSEY, PLLC 

231 East Walnut Street 

P.O. Drawer 7 

Goldsboro, North Carolina 27533-0007 

Counsel for Complainant 

Pablo O. Nuesch, Esq. 

SPIEGEL &. McDIARMID, LLP 

1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

Counsel for Respondent 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

ACO-lOO 

MULnfA. 

le Torgerson 

Airport Compliance & Field Operations
Exhibit 4.9

 

WRITTEN ACTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

of
 CHS INC.

 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of CHS Inc. (the “Company”) has created a series of capital stock designated “Class B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock” (the “Class  B Preferred Stock”), pursuant to a resolution adopted September 5, 2013 (the “Creation Resolution”), and has authorized the issuance of up to 20 million shares of the Class B Preferred Stock, Series 2, pursuant to a resolution adopted February 7, 2014 (the “Authorizing Resolution”);

 

WHEREAS, the Authorizing Resolution authorizes issuance of the Shares containing final pricing terms (including the initial dividend rate and period, the terms of any rate reset, the initial offering price per share, any no-call period, and the date from which dividends begin to accumulate) to be approved by a written action of this Board of Directors at the time of pricing of the Shares; and

 

WHEREAS, the pricing of the Shares has been concluded on acceptable terms and conditions.

 

RESOLVED, that this Board of Directors authorizes the issuance and sale of the Shares containing the following final pricing terms:

 

(1)         The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding Shares, voting as a class, is required to approve any amendment to our articles of incorporation that relates solely to the Shares or to the resolutions establishing the specific economic terms of the Shares if such amendment adversely affects the powers, rights or preferences of the holders of the Shares.

 

(2)         A dividend rate of 7.100% per annum (equivalent to $1.775 per annum per Share), until March 31, 2024.

 

(3)         The issuance and sale of 16,800,000 Shares at an initial offering price of $25.00 per Share.

 

(4)         A rate reset provision providing for adjustment of the initial dividend rate ten years after original issuance to be calculated as set forth in the Registration Statement (provided that the dividend rate shall not in any event be greater than 8% per annum).

 

(5)         The Shares shall be subject to a no call period of ten (10) years from their date of issuance, during which the Shares will not be subject to optional redemption by the Company.

 

(6)         Dividends shall be fully cumulative and shall accumulate without interest from and including March 11, 2014.
#### BAKO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Larry R. LAWSON, d/b/a Lawson Concrete Finishing Service, Appellee.

No. 73-420.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 13, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
OR\G\NAL MAR 1 Z 2012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRáE,GOMMISSION .5:;9/1° SECRETARY 7
 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUGES 

If.. ~ ~. ~j !... l l ': .:. ~ ':í,'" . L . f, ,. :.' ; '\: ~",', 

'.. . '~)..,~.,;. ': -.; . ".' ".~..' ..; .' 

In the Matter of ) 

) McW ANE, INC., )
 a corporation, and ) DOCKET NO. 9351
 

) STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., )
 a limited partnership,
 )
 Respondents.
 ) 

) 

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION OF 

EVERETT J. PRESCOTT, INC. FOR 
 EXTENSION OF TIME 

On March 12,2012, non-pary Everett l. Prescott, Inc. ("ElP") filed an unopposed motion to
 

extend the time for ElP to file a motion to quash or limit a Subpoena Duces Tecum and Subpoena Ad
 

Testifcandum (collectively, the "Subpoenas") served on it on or about February 29,2012 by
 

Respondent McWane, Inc. ("McWane"), with a response date of 
 March 23,2012 and a deposition date of March 29,2012. ElP states that pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Rules of 
 Practice
 

16 C.F.R. § 3.34 (c), the deadline to fie a Motion to Limit or Quash McWane's Subpoena is March
 

13,2012. ElP seeks an order extending its deadline to March 26,2012 and requests its obligation to
 

complete its response to the Subpoenas be tolled during that period.
 

In support of its motion, ElP states that the parties are engaged in negotiations regarding the 

scope ofthe Subpoenas, its objections, and the time required for ElP to produce its documents and 

data and to conduct the deposition. ElP further states that Respondent Mc Wane does not oppose an 

extension through March 26,2012 in order to afford ElP's counsel sufficient time to continue 

negotiating with McWane's counsel on reasonable limitations and modifications ofMcWane's 

requests to reduce the burden on ElP of responding, thereby potentially avoiding the necessity of 

filing a motion to quash or limit the Subpoenas. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. It is hereby 

ORDERED that the deadline for non-party ElP to file any motion to limit or quash the Subpoena 

shall be March 26,2012. During that time, ElP's obligation to complete its response shall be tolled. 

ORDERED: :DM eh,,u 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law ludge 

Date: March 12, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>      5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                         APR-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>
                             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          3,761,354
<ALLOWANCES>                                             220,711
<INVENTORY>                                              360,929
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       4,245,451
<PP&E>                                                 9,317,001
<DEPRECIATION>                                         5,121,771
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        10,078,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 11,209,011
<BONDS>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                              35,256,747
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                              463,673
<OTHER-SE>                                           (44,050,395)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          10,078,759
<SALES>                                                4,530,429
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       4,530,429
<CGS>                                                  3,742,061
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          1,778,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        (932,669)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         138,421
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (57,104)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      (57,104)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                             (57,104)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (0.00)



</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7315 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the penalty for use of 

force, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2020 

Ms. OMAR (for herself, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, 

Ms. NORTON, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, and Ms. 

OCASIO-CORTEZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the penalty 

for use of force, 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 ‘‘Protecting Our Pro5 testers Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS 

7 UNDER COLOR OF LAW. 

8 Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7315 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘United States,’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘United States, including the use of force during a 

3 response to a protest’’; and 

4 (2) by striking ‘‘, or may be sentenced to 

5 death’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 767 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 

at 180 West Main Street in Abingdon, Virginia, as the ‘‘H. Emory 

Widener, Jr., Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 24, 2019 

Mr. GRIFFITH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 180 West Main Street in Abingdon, 

Virginia, as the ‘‘H. Emory Widener, Jr., Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

5 located at 180 West Main Street in Abingdon, Virginia, 

6 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘H. Emory Widener, 

7 Jr., Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 767 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

4 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec5 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘H. Emory 

6 Widener, Jr., Federal Building and United States Court7 house’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### Robert A. MACKENZIE, Appellant, v. Lauretta M. MACKENZIE, Appellee.

No. 73-240.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 31, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.