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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7808 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7808

   To amend section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (commonly 
referred to as the Communications Decency Act) to stop censorship, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2020

Mr. Gosar (for himself, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Norman, Mr. Gooden, 
  Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Banks, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Yoho, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. 
Wright, Mr. Grothman, and Mr. Crawford) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (commonly 
referred to as the Communications Decency Act) to stop censorship, 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 ``Stop the Censorship Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. REVOCATION OF IMMUNITIES.

    Section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) 
is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by striking ``and Screening of 
        Offensive Material'' and inserting ``of Unlawful or 
        Objectionable Material''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A)--
                            (i) by striking ``or otherwise 
                        objectionable'' and inserting ``, unlawful, or 
                        that promotes violence or terrorism''; and
                            (ii) by striking ``; or'' and inserting a 
                        semicolon;
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``paragraph 
                (1).'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A); or''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following new 
                subparagraph:
                    ``(C) any action taken to provide users with the 
                option to restrict access to any other material, 
                whether or not such material is constitutionally 
                protected.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10(j)
                                                                   -------------


April 1, 2002

Insilco Technologies, Inc.
425 Metro Place North
Dublin, OH 43017

Attention: Mr. David A. Kauer, President & Chief Executive Officer


Insilco Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") has requested that we consent to the
inclusion of our report on the Company's consolidated financial statements as of
December 31, 2000, and for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999 in the
annual report on Form 10-K dated April 1, 2002.

By agreeing to the terms of this letter, you agree to indemnify KPMG LLP
("KPMG") from certain risks inherent in including our audit report on the
Company's consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2000, and for the
years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999 in the annual report on Form 10-K dated
April 1, 2002. Specifically, you agree to indemnify and hold KPMG harmless
against and from any and all legal costs and expenses (including reasonable fees
and expenses of attorneys, experts and consultants) which we may incur in
connection with our successful defense of any legal action or proceeding that
may arise as a result of our consent to the inclusion of our report on the
Company's consolidated financial statements in the annual report on Form 10-K
dated April 1, 2002, whether brought under the federal securities laws or other
statutes, state statute or common law, or otherwise. In the event KPMG incurs
legal costs or expenses indemnified hereunder, you agree to reimburse KPMG for
those costs as incurred on a monthly basis. KPMG shall not be indemnified, and
shall refund to you, any amounts paid to it pursuant to this indemnification in
the event there is court adjudication that we are guilty of professional
malpractice, or in the event that KPMG becomes liable for any part of the
plaintiff's damages by virtue of settlement. In the event KPMG is requested
pursuant to subpoena or other legal process to produce its documents relating to
the Company in judicial or administrative proceedings to which KPMG is not a
party, the Company shall reimburse KPMG at standard billing rates for its
professional time and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred
in responding to such requests.



<PAGE>


Please indicate your acceptance of these terms by signing and returning a copy
of this letter to me.

Very truly yours,

KPMG LLP

/S/ THOMAS C. DONOHOE
---------------------------
THOMAS C. DONOHOE
PARTNER





ACCEPTED:


/S/ DAVID A. KAUER
---------------------------
DAVID A. KAUER
Insilco Technologies, Inc.
David A. Kauer
PRESIDENT & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


April 1, 2002
---------------------------
Date
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2037

_____________________________

LEONARD TAYLOR,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS and CORIZON 

HEALTH, INC.,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Karen Gievers, Judge.

October 21, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Leonard Taylor, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Erik Kverne, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee, Florida Department 

of Corrections; Gregg A. Toomey of the Toomey Law Firm, LLC, 

Fort Myers, for Appellee Corizon Health, Inc.
#### Charles H. McCALLISTER, Appellant, v. Clemma A. McCALLISTER, Appellee.

No. 71-828.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 2, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Claude R. Edwards, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 808 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.808

                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  four


                                 An Act

  
 
  For the relief of James B. Stanley.

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

SECTION 1. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS.

    (a) Payment.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any 
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $400,577 to James B. 
Stanley.
    (b) Basis.--The payment required by subsection (a) shall be to 
compensate James B. Stanley for the physical, psychological, and 
economic injuries sustained by him as a result of the administration to 
him, without his knowledge, of lysergic acid diethylamide by United 
States Army personnel in 1958.

SEC. 2. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS.

    The payment made pursuant to section 1(a) shall be in full 
satisfaction of all claims James B. Stanley may have against the United 
States for--
        (1) the injuries received by him as described in section 1; and
        (2) for any injuries received by him subsequent to his 
    discharge from the United States Army that are the result of the 
    injuries described in section 1.

SEC. 3. INELIGIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.

    James B. Stanley shall not be eligible for any compensation or 
benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of 
Defense for any injury received by him as described in section 1.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION OF ATTORNEYS' OR AGENTS' FEES.

    It shall be unlawful for an amount of more than 10 per centum of 
the amount paid pursuant to section 1 to be paid to or received by any 
attorney or agent of James B. Stanley for any service rendered in 
connection with the payment made by this Act. Any person who violates 
this section shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be subject to a 
fine in the amount provided in title 18, United States Code.







                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.`
[ARTICLE] 5
[MULTIPLIER]   1,000
Part II.  Other information,   Item 6a.
Exhibit 11.1

                              CORNERSTONE IMAGING, INC.
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               Three Months Ended
                                                   March 31,
                                              -------------------
                                                1998      1997
                                              --------- ---------
<S>                                           <C>       <C>
Net income (loss)                              ($2,610)   $1,055
                                              ========= =========


Shares used in basic EPS calculation             6,375     7,508

Dilutive effect of stock options                    19        69
                                              --------- ---------
Shares used in diluted EPS calculation           6,394     7,577
                                              ========= =========

Basic EPS                                       ($0.41)    $0.14

Diluted EPS                                     ($0.41)    $0.14
                                              ========= =========

</TABLE>
<TABLE>
                           Fleming Companies, Inc.   
             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges        
<CAPTION>
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       40 Weeks Ended       
                                                    Oct. 3,       Oct. 4, 
  (In thousands of dollars)                          1998          1997  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------  
<S>                                                 <C>           <C>
  Earnings:
   Pretax income                                    $ 54,252      $ 56,201
   Fixed charges, net                                154,353       153,981
  
       Total earnings                               $208,605      $210,182
  
  Fixed charges:
   Interest expense                                 $124,411      $124,129
   Portion of rental charges
      deemed to be interest                           29,614        29,570
   Capitalized interest                                    -             -
  
       Total fixed charges                          $154,025      $153,699
  
  Ratio of earnings
    to fixed charges                                    1.35          1.37
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
  
  "Earnings" consists of income before income taxes and fixed charges
  excluding capitalized interest.  Capitalized interest amortized during
  the respective periods is added back to earnings.
  
  "Fixed charges, net" consists of interest expense, an estimated amount
  of rental expense which is deemed to be representative of the interest
  factor and amortization of capitalized interest.
  
  The pro forma ratio of earnings to fixed charges is omitted as it is not
  applicable.
#### Joseph STOKER, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 71-668.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 19, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 7, 1973.

Case dismissed.
Exhibit 11

                             FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC.
	             COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                                THREE MONTHS ENDED           SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                    MARCH 31,                     MARCH 31,

                                 2007         2006          2007         2006

Net income                   $26,210,000  57,810,000     70,489,000   99,825,000

Common shares:

Weighted average shares
 outstanding during the
 period - used for basic
 earnings per share           65,556,991   65,679,736     65,446,796  65,617,601

Shares issuable under
 stock options which are
 potentially dilutive          1,260,049    1,199,657      1,187,169   1,274,247

Shares used for diluted
 earnings per share           66,817,040   66,879,393     66,633,965  66,891,848

Earnings per share:

 Basic Net Income                   $.40          .88           1.08        1.52

 Diluted Net Income                 $.39          .86           1.06        1.49
**Exhibit 31.1**
I, Jack Friedman, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive    Officer of Friedman Industries, Incorporated, a Texas    corporation, certify that:
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Friedman Industries, Incorporated;
     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;

     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, result of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

     The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

b) [intentionally omitted per SEC release 33-8238]

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

     The registrant's other certifying officers(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant's board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: August 14, 2003 /s/  JACK FRIEDMAN Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
#### Sophia K. CRANE, Appellant, v. C. J. KAY ELECTRIC COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-1076.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 16, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Claude Errol HICKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-301.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 22, 1970.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Palm Beach County; Vaughn J. Rudnick, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.69

United Shipping & Technology


January 10, 2001


Timothy Becker


Dear Tim:

      This letter will serve as notice to you of US&T's (the "Company") election
to terminate your employment with the Company, not for cause, effective January
10, 2001 and subject to the terms herein. This letter agreement will also serve
to modify your Employment Agreement, dated November 5, 1999, to the extent
provided for herein.

      By agreement with US&T you will receive three (3) months severance
beginning upon the effective date of termination and you hereby agree you will
not be entitled to the remaining 15 months of severance as stated in the
Employment Agreement. Further, you will receive the benefits under paragraphs
7.01 (b), (c) and (d) of your Employment Agreement. As part of this agreement,
US&T agrees to make all reasonable efforts to seek approval from its Board of
Directors to modify any plans necessary to allow for an extension of the
expiration date for your stock options. Further, you have also agreed to a
lockup on all currently owned US&T stock for a period of six (6) months, which
prevents you from trading in any US&T securities owned by you directly.

      Both parties hereto agree to keep the terms and conditions of this
agreement strictly confidential. Additionally, the Company hereby releases you
from any obligations or limitations under Article 9 of the Employment Agreement
regarding non-competition and non-recruitment.


Sincerely,



Peter C. Lytle
President and CEO                           Agreed to: ________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           1,262
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,783
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     91,357
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                             547
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         54,547
<COMMON>                                         1,270
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,174
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,060
<SALES>                                         22,506
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,878
<CGS>                                           19,411
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   203
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 235
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    350
<INCOME-TAX>                                        52
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       298
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
#### BARNETT FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF DeLAND, a Florida banking institution, Appellant, v. William D. GLOVER, d/b/a Discount Mobile Home Sales and R. D. Hill, St. Johns County Tax Collector, in his representative and not in his individual capacity, Appellees.

No. P-138.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 1, 1972.

Patrick McGrotty, of Booher & Mc-Grotty, for appellant.

*90Richard O. Watson, of Stephens, Stephens & Watson, St. Augustine, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Contacts, With whom outside the FAA hasthis proposal beendiscussed? Organization Person Contacted Date Response TCCA Gordanku Jeremic 2/3/10 Concurred Bombardier Chester Liburski 2/3/10 Concurred RM David Lottcrer 2/3/10 Concurred

.I
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A
- 2544

- 16T1

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTER VIVOS TRUST, GEORGIA L. TILLI a/k/a LORRAINE TILLI, GRANTOR .

__________________________ ______ Submitted May 2, 2018

– Decided Before Judges Nugent and Currier. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Probate Part, Bergen County, Docket No. P
- 000 100

- 16. Jon Tilli, appellant pro se. Kridel Law Group, attorneys for respondent Janice Paul, Trustee of the Georgia L. Tilli a/k/a Lorraine Ti lli Irrevocable Living Trust (James A. Kridel , Jr. and Anne L. Heldman, on the brief).

PER CURIAM Appellant, Jon Tilli, appeals from the summary judgment entered against him in favor of the Georgia L. Tilli a/k/a Lorraine Tilli Irrevocable Living Trust ( the Trust) . The judgment was for money appellant borrowed from his mother, decedent Georgia "Lorraine" Tilli, and did not repay. In her will, decedent vested NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court . " A lthough it is posted on the internet , this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36

- 3.

September 4, 20182 A
- 2544

- 16T1

her residuary estate in the Trust. The Trust documents identified
numerous loans decedent had m ade and instructed the Trustee on how
to treat and collect the loans. Appellant's primary arguments in opposition to the summary judgment motion were these: the sums of money he received were gifts, not loans; the assets securi ng the loans were owned by the

e state; and the net estate was undervalued. On appeal, he argues the following points:

Point 1 The Trial Court Erred in Granting Summary Judgment To Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Awarded on Assets Pre

- Disposed . Point 2 Plaintiff misrepresent [sic] claim . Point 3 Plaintiff not seeking repayment of House . Point 4 Defendant maintains gifts, not aware of any loans . Deposition . Point 5 Defendants share of Estates . Having considered appellant's arguments in light of the record and prevailing legal principl es, we affirm the judgment, substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Robert P. Contillo in his written opinion. The competent evidence on the summary judgment motion record is so one

- sided that plaintiff must prevail3 A
- 2544

- 16T1

as a matter of law. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). A ppellant's arguments are without suff icient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R.
2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.