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

103D CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 407 

To amend title 2, United States Code, to provide that an increase in the 

rate of pay for Members of Congress may not go into effect following 

a budget deficit in the preceding fiscal year. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 1993 

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

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend title 2, United States Code, to provide that an 

increase in the rate of pay for Members of Congress 

may not go into effect following a budget deficit in 

the preceding fiscal year. 

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 ‘‘Deficit Accountability 

5 Act of 1993.’’ 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 407 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST INCREASES IN THE RATE OF 

2 PAY FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FOL3 LOWING A BUDGET DEFICIT. 

4 (a) PROHIBITION AGAINST INCREASES IN THE RATE

5 OF PAY FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FOLLOWING A

6 BUDGET DEFICIT.—Section 31 of title 2, United States 

7 Code, is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘and limited 

9 by paragraph (3)’’ after ‘‘paragraph (2)’’; and 

10 (2) by inserting at the end the following new 

11 paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(3) Except as provided in paragraph (2), an 

13 increase in the rate of pay for Members of Congress 

14 pursuant to paragraph (1) may not go into effect if 

15 the Director of the Office of Management and Budg16 et has determined that there was a deficit, as that 

17 term is defined in section 3 of the Congressional 

18 Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), for the 

19 preceding fiscal year.’’. 

20 (b) PROHIBITION AGAINST INCREASES IN RATE OF

21 PAY PRIOR TO THE INITIAL DETERMINATION BY THE OF22 FICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.—Except as pro23 vided in paragraph (2) of section 31 of title 2, United 

24 States Code, an increase in the rate of pay for Members 

25 of Congress pursuant to paragraph (1) of section 31 of 

26 title 2, United States Code, may not go into effect during 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 407 IH 

1 the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act 

2 and ending on the date of the initial determination by the 

3 Director of the Office of Management and Budget after 

4 enactment of this Act as to whether a deficit, as that term 

5 is defined in section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act 

6 of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), existed for the prior fiscal 

7 year. 

Æ 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with BILLS
★

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3984

AN ACT

To designate the building located at 216 Coleman Avenue

in Waveland, Mississippi, for the period of time during

which it houses operations of the United States Postal

Service, as the ‘‘John Longo, Jr. Post Office’’.

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 building located at 216 Coleman Avenue in

5 Waveland, Mississippi, shall, for the period of time during

6 which it houses operations of the United States Postal

7 Service, be known and designated as the ‘‘John Longo,

8 Jr. Post Office’’.
2

HR 3984 EH1S

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

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

4 referred to in section 1 shall, with respect to the period

5 referred to in section 1, be deemed to be a reference to

6 the John Longo, Jr. Post Office.

Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 1994.

Attest:

Clerk.

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3984

AN ACT

To designate the building located at 216 Coleman

Longo, Jr. Post Office’’.United States Postal Service, as the ‘‘Johnof time during which it houses operations of theAvenue in Waveland, Mississippi, for the period
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 369 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 369

To provide that no State or local government shall be obligated to take 
   any action required by Federal law enacted after the date of the 
enactment of this Act unless the expenses of such government in taking 
              such action are funded by the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Ms. Snowe introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Government Operations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that no State or local government shall be obligated to take 
   any action required by Federal law enacted after the date of the 
enactment of this Act unless the expenses of such government in taking 
              such action are funded by the United States.

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

SECTION 1. SUFFICIENT FEDERAL FUNDING REQUIREMENT FOR ANY FEDERAL LAW 
              WHICH OBLIGATES ANY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE ANY 
              ACTION REQUIRING ANY EXPENDITURE OF STATE OR LOCAL FUNDS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no State or local 
government shall be obligated to take any action required by Federal 
law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act unless the 
expenses of such government in taking such action are funded by the 
United States.

                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3979 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3979

    To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to certain 
                      mandatory minimum sentences.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 1994

 Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. Hyde) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to certain 
                      mandatory minimum sentences.

    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 ``Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Reform 
Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY OF MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES IN 
              CERTAIN CASES.

    Section 3553 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(f) Limitation on Applicability of Statutory Minimums in Certain 
Cases.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of an 
offense under section 401, 404, or 406 of the Controlled Substances Act 
or section 1010 or 1013 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export 
Act, the court shall impose a sentence pursuant to guidelines 
established by the United States Sentencing Commission, without regard 
to any statutory minimum sentence, if the court finds at sentencing 
that--
            ``(1) the defendant does not have more than 0 criminal 
        history points under the United States Sentencing Commission 
        Guidelines Manual;
            ``(2) the defendant did not use violence or credible 
        threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous 
        weapon (or induce another participant to do so) in connection 
        with the offense;
            ``(3) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily 
        injury to any person;
            ``(4) the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, 
        or supervisor of others (as determined under the United States 
        Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual) in the offense; and
            ``(5) the defendant has provided to the Government all 
        information the defendant has concerning the offense or other 
        criminal conduct related to the offense.''.

                                 <all>
```
APPENDIX 5 

References 
(This page intentionally left blank)
Links to North Carolina General Statutes can be found on the following web page: 

• http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/Statutes.asp 

Links to the North Carolina Administrative Code can be found on the following web page: 

• http://daq.state.nc.us/rules/rules/ 

The North Carolina Analyzer Specifications can be found on the following web page: 

• http://daq.state.nc.us/motor/inspect/analyzer_vendor.shtml 

The newly revised and approved the DAQ Audit Procedures were submitted to EPA on March 5, 2010. 

Additional copies can be provided upon request. 

The DMV manuals can be provided upon request. 

North Carolina I/M SIP May 21, 2010 Appendix 5 - 1
#### Kenneth WARING, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, a corporation created by and existing under an Act of Congress of the United States, Respondent.

No. 67-315.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 25, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
_- 

## 356

OFFICEOF THE **ATTORNEY**

### GENERAL **OF TEXAS** 



### AUSTIN

Honarablo

Qhr1.a H. Thoohld oouat7 At tora.7 

### aalrertoa

OouatJ 

### (hlr48ton,

Texas

thir

### department oa fitat* 

### of Teu88,' luder the Uni~erso, -iOIJ 8Xld it8 pO8- l o u r o p ini o n 

### ar t o 

### d,. in~1Ud.8

11 th.other t8d btat88, 8d fOl'@i@h

8 

### %lthout the airit or 8ph.W 

### 8ma8tioa81

Diotionary.Eoaor8blo Chrlo8 8. 

### Th8ob8ld, ?8ge2

**VI** 

### find

nothing 

### In the

proYI810n8 of 

### Artlole 4477 t0 **bdiO8te** 

### th8tthm 9h'88* V88 th.N int8Xld.d t0 hV0 8 

### dliiennt Be-.



### It '18'tb#nfOn OW OpiniOYI 

### th8t, 8I used in raid 

### Artlolo

1477, Itub 5b, the phra80 

### “born apt8Ide of th8 

### St8k Of tOXa8,' 

### Inoludm 811 theworld 

### be7ond th8boundarIr8 Ot thI8 

### St8t@.

CO9108 OS our Opinion8 808. 0-3858 **and O-1)190,**  

### WJUO8t.d

b7 7ou,8Z'O

### enolorod hrrowlth.
EX-10.V



 EXHIBIT 10V 

LETTER FROM THE COMPANY TO RICHARD A. MORIN REGARDING STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS 

Mr. Richard A. Morin 
 Chief Financial Officer Cognex
Corporation One Vision Drive Natick, MA 01760 
 Dear Dick: 

This is to inform you that on June 17, 2008, the Compensation Committee took action to amend your outstanding options to acquire shares
of common stock of Cognex Corporation (the “Corporation”) as follows: 
 The following provisions were deleted: 

“In the event of a corporate transaction, including a merger or reorganization, whereby the holders of the outstanding
shares of common stock of the Corporation before the transaction fail to have a beneficial interest of 51 percent or more of the shares of outstanding common stock of the Corporation or its successor (or its ultimate parent) after the consummation
of the transaction, and within 12 months of the consummation of the transaction, your employment is involuntarily terminated, all your outstanding options to acquire shares of common stock of the Corporation shall become immediately vested
and fully exercisable. For purposes hereof, your employment is considered to be involuntarily terminated if the Corporation or its successor terminates your employment without Cause or you resign your employment for Good Reason. 

The term “Cause” shall mean (i) your willful and continued failure to perform substantially your duties with the
Corporation (other than any failure resulting from incapacity due to physical or mental illness), after a written demand of performance is delivered to you by the Board or the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation which identifies the manner in
which the Board or Chief Executive Officer believes that you have not substantially performed your duties; or (ii) your willful engagement in illegal conduct or gross misconduct which is materially injurious to the Corporation. 

The term ‘Good Reason’ shall mean (i) a material diminution in your duties or responsibilities, excluding for
this purpose any diminution related solely to the Corporation ceasing to be a reporting company for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or (ii) the Corporation’s requiring you to be based at any office or location that is more
than fifty (50) miles from your current office.” 
 The following provision was added: 

“In the event of a corporate transaction, including a merger or reorganization, whereby the holders of the outstanding
shares of common stock of the Corporation before the transaction fail to have a beneficial interest of 51 percent or more of the shares of outstanding common stock of the Corporation or its successor (or its ultimate parent) after the consummation
of the transaction, all your outstanding options to acquire shares of common stock of the Corporation shall become vested and fully exercisable immediately prior to the consummation of the transaction.” 

All your Stock Option Agreements with the Corporation are deemed amended in accordance with the foregoing. 

 

	
	Sincerely yours,
	
	 /s/ Reuben Wasserman

	Reuben Wasserman
	Chairman, Compensation Committee Cognex Corporation
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




The Board of Directors
American Technology Corporation

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-09265, File No. 333-09269, File No.
333-23845 and File No. 333-59929) and Forms S-3 (File No. 333-27455 and File No.
333-36003) of our report dated November 6, 1998, except for Note 13, which is
as of December 28, 1998 relating to the financial statements of American
Technology Corporation appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
for the year ended September 30, 1998.



/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
BDO Seidman, LLP


Denver, Colorado
December 28, 1998
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

RICKY NOLAN, No. 83820 Appellant, vs. STEFANY ANN MILEY; AND KATLYN M. BRADY, Res • ondents. 

# FILED DEC 1 3 2021 ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY DEPUl

f =

f1 / 4 1 r K

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jessica K. Peterson, Judge.

Our review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the notice of appeal appears to be untimely filed under NRAP 4(a) because it appears that it was filed more than 30 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order. See NRAP 4(a)(4); NRAP 26(c). An untimely notice iThe challenged order was filed in district court on June 15, 2021. Written notice of entry of the challenged order was served on appellant, via email, on June 16, 2021. It appears appellant filed a motion for reconsideration on July 1, 2021. The district court issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration on August 11, 2021, and written notice of entry of the district court's order appears to have been served on appellant on August 19, 2021. While appellant's official notice of appeal was not filed in district court until November 17, 2021, it appears that he attempted to continued on next page...

S 3-7 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 41401:.J. Cadish

Pickering 

# Pitith ti'y

J Herndon

cc: Hon. Jessica K. Peterson, District Judge Ricky Nolan Attorney General/Carson City Attorney General/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court. See Healy v. Volkswctgenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 103 Nev. 329, 331, 741 P.2d 432, 433 (1987). Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction, and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

file a notice of appeal initially on October 4, 2021, which was rejected, as appellant's in forma pauperis status expired on August 27, 2021. However, this initial notice of appeal was still outside the 30-day appeal period. See NRAP 4(a)(4), NRAP 26(c).

2 J.

SUPREME Coma'

OF NEVADA (0) I947A (44P44

,
EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<PAGE>

Parent

FSF Financial Corp.


                                      Percentage                 State of
Subsidiaries                            Owned                  Incorporation
------------                            -----                  -------------

First Federal fsb (a)                    100%                  United States


---------------
(a)  Because FSF Financial  Corporation  neither  completed  its initial  public
     offering nor conducted any operations prior to the year ended September 30,
     1994, the operations of First Federal fsb are included in the  consolidated
     financial  statements  contained in the 1994 Annual Report to  Stockholders
     incorporated  herein by reference.  First Federal fsb became a wholly owned
     subsidiary of FSF Financial Corp. on October 6, 1994.

                                       22
**
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2018 (the “Report”) of Solar Senior Capital Ltd. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,RICHARD L. PETEKA, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

 
 /s/ RICHARD L. PETEKA**Name:** **Richard L. Peteka****Date:** **November 5, 2018****
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3753 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3753

                 For the relief of Thomas R. Dahlberg.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1994

  Mr. Murphy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 For the relief of Thomas R. Dahlberg.

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

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF LIABILITY.

    Thomas R. Dahlberg of Hempfield Township, Pennsylvania, is relieved 
of liability to pay to the United States the attorney fees and court 
costs the United States District Court for the Fort Wayne Division of 
the Northern District of Indiana required Mr. Dahlberg to pay under its 
order in the civil action entitled Civil No. F 89-151. Mr. Dahlberg is 
relieved of such liability because Mr. Dahlberg is permanently disabled 
with a primary chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, is receiving 
benefits under title II of the Social Security Act based on disability, 
and is otherwise unable to pay such fees and costs.

                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Pemstar Inc. of our report dated May 7,2004, included in the 2004 Annual Report to Shareholders of PEMSTAR Inc. 

 

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Pemstar Inc. listed in Item 15(a)(2). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinionbased on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

 

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-44044) pertaining to the Pemstar Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan, Pemstar Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan, Pemstar Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan, Pemstar Inc. 1999 Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan, Pemstar Inc.2000 Stock Option Plan and 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-75284) pertaining to Common Stock, Preferred Stock, Debt Securities, Depository Shares, Securities Warrants and Units, the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8, No. 333-97517) pertaining to the Pemstar Inc. 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Pemstar Inc. 2002 Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-97511) pertaining to Common Stock and the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8, No. 333-112974) pertaining to the Pemstar Inc. 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated May 18, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Pemstar Inc. incorporated herein by reference and ourreport included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Pemstar Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

June 11, 2004
NUMBER 13-19-00306-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant,

v.

ROSIE RANGEL, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 347th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellant, the State of Texas, by and through its Assistant District Attorney, the 

Honorable Douglas K. Norman, has filed a motion for dismissal of its appeal pursuant to 

Rule 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). No 

decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion and dismiss the 
2

appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will 

be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

LETICIA HINOJOSA

Justice 

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

31st day of October, 2019.