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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 808 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 808

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 22 (legislative day, September 7), 1993

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 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.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 21, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                Clerk.,
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4904

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HOWARD MARK HARTLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,

District Judge. (2:06-cr-00017)

Submitted: January 31, 2007 Decided: February 26, 2007

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryant J. Spann, ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC, Charleston,

West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States

Attorney, Monica L. Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

After Howard Mark Hartley pleaded guilty to manufacturing by

growing and cultivating marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a) (2000), the district court sentenced him to twelve months

imprisonment. On appeal, Hartley argues that the district court

misunderstood the scope of its discretion under United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 

After reviewing the record, we agree that the district court

may have sentenced Hartley while operating under an errant

conception of the scope of its discretion under our precedent.

Under our post-Booker cases, a district court may impose a sentence

below the guidelines range if, after assessing the factors in 18

U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2006), it believes such a sentence is

“sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to achieve the goals

of § 3553(a). See United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370

(4th Cir. 2006). “The farther the court diverges from the advisory

guideline range, the more compelling the reasons for the divergence

must be.” United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 434 (4th Cir.

2006). Although we do not accord district courts a free hand with

respect to variances, we also do not foreclose a variance if

accompanied by an explanation which makes the final sentence a

reasonable one. Nothing in this opinion should be read to suggest

that we have formed any view regarding the appropriate outcome of

Hartley’s resentencing.
- 3 -

Because the record indicates that the district court

misunderstood our precedent, we vacate its judgment and remand for

resentencing consistent with this opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED
# Official Journal L 286/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 286 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 632 September 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 286

English edition

Legislation

Volume 632 September 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1242 of 1 September 2020 extending the derogation from Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 as regards the minimum distance from the coast and depth granted to boat seines fishing for transparent goby (Aphia minuta) within the Spanish territorial waters of the Autonomous Community of the Region of Murcia | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1243 of 1 September 2020 on extending the derogation from Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 as regards the minimum distance from the coast and the minimum sea depth for boat seines fishing for transparent and Ferrer’s gobies (Aphia minuta and Pseudaphia ferreri) and Lowbody picarel (Spicara smaris) in certain territorial waters of Spain (Balearic Islands) | 5 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1244 of 1 September 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 185/2013 concerning deductions from fishing quotas allocated to Spain for 2020 and 2023 | 9 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1242 of 1 September 2020 extending the derogation from Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 as regards the minimum distance from the coast and depth granted to boat seines fishing for transparent goby (Aphia minuta) within the Spanish territorial waters of the Autonomous Community of the Region of Murcia

Aphia minuta

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1243 of 1 September 2020 on extending the derogation from Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 as regards the minimum distance from the coast and the minimum sea depth for boat seines fishing for transparent and Ferrer’s gobies (Aphia minuta and Pseudaphia ferreri) and Lowbody picarel (Spicara smaris) in certain territorial waters of Spain (Balearic Islands)

Aphia minuta

Pseudaphia ferreri

Spicara smaris

5

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1244 of 1 September 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 185/2013 concerning deductions from fishing quotas allocated to Spain for 2020 and 2023

9

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Robert G. RICHARDSON, Individually, etc. v. Bernard TATE et al. Charles A. OSTARLY, Ind., etc. v. Bernard TATE et al. George W. SCHAYER, Ind., etc. v. Bernard TATE et al. Robert G. RICHARDSON, Sr. etc. v. Bernard TATE et al.

No. 53087.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1973.

In re: T. L. James & Company and National Surety Corporation applying for Cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 269 So.2d 278.

Writ denied. Under the facts found, we find no error of law.

BARHAM, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, Moore, the employer of plaintiffs, was an independent contractor and the plaintiffs were not borrowed servants of this defendant.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 140

To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to require printing

in the Congressional Record of certain travel by Members.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 25, 1993

Mr. DUNCAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to

require printing in the Congressional Record of certain

travel by Members.

1 Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representa2 tives are amended by adding at the end the following new

3 rule:

4 ‘‘RULE LIV.

5 ‘‘PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION

6 RESPECTING TRAVEL BY MEMBERS

7 ‘‘1. (a) Except as provided by clause 2, within 30 cal8 endar days before the commencement of any travel being

9 paid for with appropriated funds, a Member shall have
2

•HRES 140 IH

1 published in the Congressional Record the following infor2 mation respecting that travel—

3 ‘‘(1) the daily itinerary;

4 ‘‘(2) the purpose of the trip; and

5 ‘‘(3) the estimated costs of transportation,

6 meals, and lodging, if any.

7 ‘‘(b) If any staff (including personal, committee, or

8 subcommittee staff) or Member’s spouse is travelling with

9 appropriated funds, then that Member shall provide the

10 same information to the Congressional Record at the same

11 time as the information is provided for his travel.

12 ‘‘2. Clause 1 shall not apply to travel between Wash13 ington, D.C. and the Member’s district or within the Mem14 ber’s district.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT  11

                             PERIPHONICS CORPORATION
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                     Year Ended
May 31,
                                                                             1997           1996         1995
                                                                             -----          -----        ----
<S>                                                                      <C>            <C>          <C>

NET EARNINGS:                                                             $  12,637     $  9,215     $   3,184
                                                                          =========     ========     =========

COMPUTATION OF ADJUSTED WEIGHTED AVERAGE
   SHARES OUTSTANDING:
   Weighted average shares outstanding                                       13,641       12,890         8,270
   Add:  Shares assumed to be issued upon conversion of Series A
     preferred stock                                                        -              -             1,246
   Add:  Shares assumed to be issued upon conversion of preferred
     stock issued by subsidiary through exercise of a warrant               -                 78            78
   Add:  Effect of stock options outstanding                                364              292           184
                                                                          ---------     --------     ---------
   Weighted average shares and common equivalent shares used
     for primary earnings per common share computation                       14,005       13,260         9,778
   Add:  Effect of additional stock options outstanding for fully
     diluted computation                                                    -                 88            -
                                                                          ---------     --------     ---------
   Weighted average shares and common equivalent shares used
     for fully diluted earnings per common share computation                 14,005       13,348         9,778
                                                                          =========     ========     =========

EARNINGS PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE:
   PRIMARY:                                                               $    0.90     $   0.69     $    0.33
                                                                          =========     ========     =========

   FULLY DILUTED:                                                         $    0.90     $   0.69     $    0.33
                                                                          =========     ========     =========

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 183 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 183

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 26, 1993.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2244) making supplemental appropriations, transfers, and rescissions 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, and for other purposes. The first 
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
rule. The amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in 
the Committee of the Whole. The bill as so amended shall be considered as the 
original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule. 
All points of order against the bill, as so amended, are waived. At the 
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
recommit.
    Sec. 2. All points of order against the bill (H.R. 2118) making supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, and for other 
purposes, and against its consideration are waived. The following amendment to 
the bill shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the 
Whole: page 12, strike line 20 and all that follows through page 13, line 19.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1934

In re: JANE DOE , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 1:22

- cv - 00947

- PTG

- JFA )

Submitted : December 20 , 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jane Doe, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1934 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Jane Doe petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district
court to grant her in forma pauperis status, leave to proceed under a pseudonym and under seal, leave to file electronically, leave to exceed page numb er requirements, and a temporary restraining order . We conclude that Doe is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) ; I n re Murphy

- Brown,
LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to
attain the relief [ she ] desires.” Murphy

- Brown , 907 F.3d at 795 ( cleaned up ). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Doe is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid th e decisional process.
PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1934 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">New York Medical &amp; Diagnostic Center, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Foster Nachande, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Foster Nachande, appellant pro se.Paul J. Hooten, Esq., for respondent, (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Sally E. Unger, J.), entered November 23, 2015. The order denied defendant's motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this personal injury action, which was begun in Supreme Court and was removed to Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (d), the parties entered into a so-ordered stipulation of settlement. Shortly thereafter, defendant moved to vacate the stipulation, and she appeals from the Civil Court's order denying her motion.</p><p>It is well settled that stipulations of settlement are judicially favored and will not be set aside absent proof that the settlement was obtained by fraud, collusion, mistake, accident or other ground sufficient to invalidate a contract (<i>see Hallock v State of New York</i>, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]; <i>Matter of Frutiger</i>, 29 NY2d 143 [1971]; <i>Cach, LLC v Woodsnajac</i>, 42 Misc 3d 129[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52165[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2013]). Here, the basis for defendant's motion to vacate the stipulation is that she entered into it under duress. However, in the order appealed from, the Civil Court noted that the stipulation had been entered <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>into after a full conference between defendant and a court attorney, and that the court had so-ordered the stipulation only after determining that defendant understood its terms and that she was freely entering into it.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: August 18, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
-.. 

..,. 

I.: 

. . . 

: 

. . . 

_” : 

. . 

.: 

‘. 

. . 

. ., 

.., 

. . 

,$C 

‘.~. _. : . 

:. 

. . . 

. 

. 

_- 

. . 
:: 

I~’ 

.~ 

.., 

‘:, 

8 

:,, 

: 

i
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<S>                 <C>
<ARTICLE>           UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from FPL's condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
September 30, 2000 and condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the nine months ended September 30,
2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

<CIK>                                  0000037634
<NAME>              Florida Power & Light Company
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000,000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          Sep-30-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                             PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                  $7,928
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                $1,556
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                     $1,571
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                   $0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                             $784
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             $11,839
<COMMON>                                   $0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                  $0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                        $0
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             $5,169
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      $0
<PREFERRED>                                $226
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                       $2,081
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                         $0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                  $0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>             $0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>              $0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                  $0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                $0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                           $0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             $4,363
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              $11,839
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                  $4,788
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                       $326
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 $3,767
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 $4,093
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                    $695
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                         ($2)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>             $693
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   $129
<NET-INCOME>                               $564
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                $11
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>              $553
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                   $0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                  $0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                     $964
<EPS-BASIC>                              $0
<EPS-DILUTED>                              $0




</TABLE>
#### Robert DYKES v. NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 53154.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1973.

In re: Robert Dykes applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Tangipa-hoa. 270 So.2d 329.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal and the assignment of errors, this case does not warrant the granting of writs.
EXHIBIT 99.16



CONSENT OF ANDREW MACKENZIE



March 27, 2013



Brigus Gold Corp.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission



Re: Brigus Gold Corp.



Ladies and Gentlemen:



I hereby consent to (i) the use of my name in connection with
the following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for
the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Form 40-F”) of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consent
relates: (A) the technical report entitled “Black Fox Project National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report” dated January
6, 2011 (the “Report”), (B) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2012 and (C)
the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2012, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation
by reference of information derived from the Report in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-113889, 333-162558
and 333-167757), as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or
to any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated
by reference in the above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.



|Sincerely,             | 
|---------------------- | 
|                       | 
|/s/ Andrew MacKenzie   | 
|Name: Andrew MacKenzie |