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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 534 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 534

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 20, 1994.
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. RETURN.

    The Senate is requested to return to the House of Representatives the 
amendment of the House to the Senate bill (S.725).

SEC. 2. CORRECTION.

    Upon the return of the House amendment to the Senate bill (S.725), the Clerk 
of the House of Representatives shall make the following change in the 
engrossment of the House amendment: Strike section 5 and insert the following:

``SEC. 5. STATE STANDARDS.

    ``(a) Preemption.--Section 403A(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (21 U.S.C. 343-1(a)) is amended--
            ``(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting at the end the following: 
        `except that this paragraph does not apply to a standard of identity 
        of--
                    ```(A) a State or political subdivision of a State for maple 
                syrup which is of the type required by sections 401 and 403(g), 
                or
                    ```(B) a State for fluid milk which is of the type required 
                by sections 401 and 403(g) and which specifies a higher minimum 
                level of milk components than is provided for in the 
                corresponding standard of identity promulgated under section 
                401,',
            ``(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting at the end the following: 
        `except that this paragraph does not apply to a requirement of a State 
        or political subdivision of a State which is of the type required by 
        section 403(c) and which is applicable to maple syrup,',
            ``(3) in paragraph (3), by inserting at the end the following: 
        `except that this paragraph does not apply to a requirement of a State 
        or political subdivision of a State which is of the type required by 
        section 403(h)(1) and which is applicable to maple syrup,', and
            ``(4) by adding at the end the following: `For purposes of paragraph 
        (1)(B), the term ``fluid milk'' means liquid milk in final packaged form 
        for beverage use and does not include dry milk, manufactured milk 
        products, or tanker bulk milk.'''.
    (b) Procedure.--Section 701(e)(1) of such Act (21 U.S.C. 371(e)(1)) is 
amended by striking ``or maple syrup (regulated under section 168.140 of title 
21, Code of Federal Regulations)''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0095n.06 F iled: F ebruary 6, 2007 No. 06-3648 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
MI CHEL E R. MOFF A, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. COMMI SSI ONER OF SOCI AL SECURI TY, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE S O U T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

B e fo re : SU HRHE I

NR I CH , G I B B ON S and

CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s.
PER CU RIAM
. Ap pe lla

nt a pp e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r gra nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt t o the Commiss ioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) a

nd aff irming the Commi ssioner’s de cision to deny disability

bene fi t s t o t h e Appe llant. After r eviewingthe re cord, the parties’ briefs, the applicable law, and ha

ving ha d the bene fit of ora l argument, this court deter mines that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion and affirms t he dis trict court’ s decision for the r easons state d in that court’s opinion.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements Form S-8 (No. 333-08847) pertaining to the Lark Sequencing
Technologies, Inc. 1990 Stock Option Plan, Form S-8 (No. 333-35675) pertaining
to the Lark Technologies, Inc. 1997 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors and Form S-8 (No.333-46280) pertaining to the Lark
Technologies, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan of our report dated February 16, 2001
with respect to the financial statements of Lark Technologies, Inc. included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Houston, Texas
March 29, 2001
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 24, 2015

d1116

Order 

Clerk

November 24, 2015

150936(44)(46)(51)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150936

COA: 317206

Kent CC: 12-009542-FH

CHRISTOPHER LEE JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 12, 2015 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. The motion to add issue and motion for bond pending appeal are 

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet of Global Marine Inc. and subsidiaries
as of 6-30-99 and the related condensed consolidated statement of operations
for the six months ended 6-30-99, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          19,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  126,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               169,600
<PP&E>                                       2,085,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                 436,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,004,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,400
<BONDS>                                        595,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,400
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,092,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,004,500
<SALES>                                          2,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               423,700
<CGS>                                            2,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  312,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 84,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             65,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    65,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37






</TABLE>
#### Bennett KRUPKIN, Appellant, v. HUGHES MANUFACTURING COMPANY INCORPORATED OF PINELLAS COUNTY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-474.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 15, 1972.

Dennis G. Diecidue, of Yado, Keel & Nelson, Tampa, for appellant.

Richard M. Robbins, and Jerome C. Latimer, Clearwater, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a summary judgment entered in favor of appellee, defendant in the trial court. The appellant, Bennett Krupkin, filed suit against Hughes Manufacturing Company Incorporated of Pinel-las County for back salary incurred during the course of his employment.

*185The courts have on many occasions held that summary judgment should be issued with great caution. Where there is an issue of material fact in dispute it should go to the trier of fact, whether judge or jury.

We have examined the record, the briefs and heard oral argument, and we believe that there are issues of material fact which would defeat the entry of summary judgment.

For this reason we reverse.

LILES, Acting C. J., McNULTY, J., and DAYTON, ORVILLE L., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>       5

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Jun-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            Jul-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                    14,333,000
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                              1,315,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 289,000
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          16,727,000
<PP&E>                                     5,428,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             1,356,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            26,657,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      4,174,000
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      36,000
<OTHER-SE>                                21,823,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              26,657,000
<SALES>                                    6,735,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           6,735,000
<CGS>                                      5,611,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             39,142,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             762,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (406,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (38,374,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (38,374,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           33,502,000
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              (4,872,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.14)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 29, 2010 

0322 

Order 

 

March 29, 2010 

139819 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139819 

 COA: 291096 

Wayne CC: 05-003139-02 

DEMOND EARL GOINS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 3, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### GREENMAN ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. MARINE ATTRACTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-266.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 25, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; L. Clayton Nance, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RAYMOND E. AYALA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 449 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RAYMOND E. AYALA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 450 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of February, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 480

Establishing July 10, 1994, as ‘‘Cost of Government Day’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 14, 1994

Mr. DELAY (for himself, Mr. BAKER of California, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Ms. DUNN, Mr. EWING, Mr.

HEFLEY, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. LUCAS, Mr.

ROHRABACHER, and Mr. SOLOMON) submitted the following resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

RESOLUTION

Establishing July 10, 1994, as ‘‘Cost of Government Day’’.

Whereas the cost of Government has increased from 49.05

percent of net national product (NNP) in 1989 to an estimated 52.24 percent of NNP in 1994;

Whereas the total cost of Government now exceeds

$3,000,000,000,000;

Whereas Federal regulatory costs now exceed

$650,000,000,000 annually;

Whereas the cost of Government in general and regulations

in particular have placed a tremendous drain on the

economy in recent years by reducing worker productivity,

increasing prices to consumers, and increasing unemployment; and
2

•HRES 480 IH

Whereas the average American worker does not earn enough

money to pay off all his or her Government-imposed financial obligations (Government spending and the cost of

regulations) until July 10, 1994: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That we, the United States Congress, do

2 hereby recognize July 10, 1994, as Cost of Government

3 Day and encourage all Federal, State, and local elected

4 officials to carefully consider the costs of Government

5 spending and regulatory schemes in the year to come.

Æ
Veterans’ Preference

Veterans may be given preference during the hiring process when applying for Federal 

government positions. Depending on eligibility, veterans may also qualify for special hiring 

authorities. 

Veterans' Preference gives eligible veterans preference in hiring over many other applicants. 

However, veterans' preference does not guarantee veterans a job. Note that this preference does 

not guarantee employment but provides preference over non-veterans during the hiring process. 

Veterans' preference eligibility can be based on dates of active duty service, receipt of a 

campaign badge, Purple Heart, or a service-connected disability. Note that not all active duty 

service qualifies for veterans' preference. 

 Only veterans discharged or released from active duty in the armed forces under 

honorable conditions are eligible for veterans' preference. 

 This means you must have been discharged under an honorable or general discharge. 

Retired members of the armed forces are not included in the definition of “preference eligible” 

unless they are a disabled veteran OR retired below the rank of major or its equivalent. 

There are basically two types of preference eligibles:

 Disabled (10 point preference eligible), and

 Non-disabled (5 point preference eligible) 

10 point preference for veteran who 

served at any time, and:

 Have a service connected disability, OR 

 Received a Purple Heart. 

10 point preference eligibles are 

divided into four basic groups as 

follows:

 CPS - Disability rating of 30% or more (10 points) 

 CP - Disability rating of at least 10% but less than 

30% (10 points) 

 XP - Disability rating less than 10% (10 points) 

 TP - Preference eligibles with no disability rating (5 

points) 
5-point preference eligibles must 

meet any one of the following:

 180 or more consecutive days, any part of which 

occurred during the period beginning September 11, 

2001 and ending on a future date prescribed by 

Presidential proclamation or law as the last date of 

Operation Iraqi Freedom, OR

 Between August 2, 1990 and January 2, 1992, OR

 180 or more consecutive days, any part of which 

occurred after January 31, 1955 and before October 

15, 1976. 

 In a war, campaign or expedition for which a 

campaign badge has been authorized or between 

April 28, 1952 and July 1, 1955. 

Source: Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Page 2
June 25, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GREGORY T. JOSEFSBERG, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00613-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court 

orders the judgment AFFIRMED, and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
#### OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Appellant, v. Marshall GRAUER, Appellee.

No. R-300.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 29, 1973.

James M. McLean, of Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay, Jacksonville, for appellant.

David R. Lewis, of Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Isaac, Jacksonville, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Lorber v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, 207 So.2d 305 (Fla.App.1968).

SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 3.1(c)

                            AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED
                   AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                          CHICAGO MINIATURE LAMP, INC.



          We, the undersigned officers of Chicago Miniature Lamp, Inc., an 
Oklahoma corporation, do hereby file this Amendment to the Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation, to reflect an amendment to the Amended and
Restated Certificate of Incorporation filed with the Oklahoma Secretary of State
on December 30, 1996, which amendment is set forth below:


          Article I of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation is
     hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


                                   ARTICLE I


                                      NAME


          The name of the Corporation is SLI, Inc.


          The foregoing amendment was adopted in accordance with the procedures
set forth in Section 1077 of the Oklahoma General Corporation Act.


          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this amendment to be
signed by its President and attested by its Secretary, this 27th day of April,
1998.


                                   CHICAGO MINIATURE LAMP, INC.




                                   By  /s/ Frank M. Ward
                                      -----------------------------------
                                       Frank M. Ward, President


ATTEST:



 /s/ Richard F. Parenti
-------------------------------
 Richard F. Parenti, Secretary
#### Roy G. TABOR et al., Appellants, v. VINEYARD INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee.

No. 73-383.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 28, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Bonorable Forrester I&mock 

Cr.%mhal Distriat Attorney 

uaxahaohle, Texan 

DQer sir1 op~on No. o-3018 

Bsr salary of CKnlnty 

tullg considered by thin department, 

pue8t as followal 

“Does an Audl8or 

thmmnnd population 

twenty-reven and 

derlvs his salary unde 

1645 s-l, R.c.s., 

ant mentioned 

ituation and 

controlling 

‘a AnnaOetsd *xsr $wal aa-- 

tafAona1 (La a looal and 

affairs of oounties, by 

Certain provisions of 

xaa Oiril Btatutes, vere 

special law atbamptopini0n It0. 0-2973. 

5~1, V.A.T.O.S., appliesin your let-bQr are ale0 

tional as a leaal end epeold. lrv atte@ilng 

to regulate the afTaIr of a county, under the cuth~~~tler cited 

In Opinion So. O-2973. we wlc1orre h0Petith a oopy or salid 

opinion. 

The folloving ~rovisiaxm of A%'tlale 1645, Vm'non'rr 

Annotated Texao Civil Bbatutes, vill control the question 
Eonarable Forreatelr Hsnooak, Pege 2 

herein; 

"In any county having a population of thlrtyfive thousand (35,000) inhabitants, or over, according to the pmaeding Federal Census, or having a 

tsx valuation of Fifteen lrullion Dollars (@5,000,000), 

or over, aooordlng to the last approved tsx ro&la, 

there shall be biennially appointed m Auditor of 

Amounts and Flnanaea, the title of said of’fioer to 

be County Auditor, who shall hold his ofilce Sor two 

(2) years, and who shall reoelve as oolqpensation for 

hle serviceu One Hundred and Tventy-five Dollars 

($125) for each million dollars, or ppsjor portion 

thereof on the assessed valuation, the annual salary 

to be computed from the last approved tax rolls; raid 

annual salary from county fund#:~ll--not exceed 

Three Thousand; Six Hundred Dollar8 ($3,600)....' 

Under tb@ Sacta stated the oounty auditor's salary 

should be set on the basis outlined &r Artiale 1645, nupra, 

($125.00 on each mllllon dollars valuition OF major portion 

thereof, which in this instance would be 27 x 4125.00 inasmuch 

as one-half million is not a major portion of one million) 

and the proper amount for said salary is the mm of (3,375.OO. 

Trusting that this satisfactorily ansvero your inqulry, we are 

very truly yourll 

ATTORHEYWRERALOFTEXAS 

WJFIAW 

ImLosm