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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1234 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prohibit seizing private 

land for a border wall, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2019 

Mr. VELA (for himself and Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and 

in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be 

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 

of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prohibit 

seizing private land for a border wall, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preventing the Taking 

5 of Americans’ Land to Build Trump’s Wall Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1234 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS ON SEIZING PRIVATE LAND FOR A 

2 BORDER WALL. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle H of title VIII of the 

4 Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 890B. LIMITATION ON SEIZING PRIVATE LAND FOR A 

7 BORDER WALL SYSTEM. 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections 

9 (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), and (d)(1) of section 3114 of title 

10 40, United States Code, or any other provision of law, 

11 until such time as the Secretary submits to Congress a 

12 certification that each property owner whose property the 

13 United States Government seeks to condemn or acquire 

14 for the purpose of constructing or installing additional 

15 physical barriers or roads between ports of entry along 

16 the land border with Mexico has received payment that 

17 each such property owner accepts as just compensation as 

18 established by judgment at the conclusion of the judicial 

19 process under section 3113 of such title, the following pro20 hibitions shall apply with respect to each such property 

21 owner and the property of such property owner: 

22 ‘‘(1) The Government may not take possession 

23 of or title to the property of such property owner. 

24 ‘‘(2) The Government may not alter in any way 

25 the property of such property owner. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1234 IH

1 ‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘prop2 erty’ means land, including an estate or interest in land, 

3 including an easement or right of way in land.’’. 

4 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

5 in section 1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is 

6 amended by inserting after the item relating to section 

7 890A the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 890B. Limitation on seizing private land for a border wall system.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14


                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT


         THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT is made and entered into
this _____ day of April, 2000, by and between M.G.A., INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION (the "Company"), and H. HARRISON PARRISH (the "Employee").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered into that certain Employment
Contract, dated June 9, 1994 (the "Agreement"), providing for the employment of
Employee as President of the Company; and

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has approved an
amendment to the Agreement to increase the base annual salary payable to
Employee under the Agreement;

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby
agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

         1. Paragraph 4.1 of ARTICLE IV of the Agreement is hereby removed and
deleted in its entirety, and a new Paragraph 4.1 of ARTICLE IV is hereby added
in its place and stead as follows:

                  "4.1 For the services to be rendered by Employee in his
         capacity hereunder, or any other duty assigned to him by the Board of
         Directors of the Company, the Company agrees to pay Employee a base
         annual salary of Four Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($400,000.00)
         per year, subject to such increases as the Board of Directors (or the
         Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors) in its sole
         discretion deems appropriate in accordance with the Company's customary
         procedures regarding the salaries of its executive officers. Said base
         annual salary shall be payable in successive biweekly payments due on
         the normal payroll payment days of each month in equal amounts."

         2. This amendment shall be effective as of April 3, 2000.

         3. In all other respects, the Agreement is hereby ratified and
affirmed.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First
Amendment to Employment Contract on the day and year first above written.


ATTEST:                                           M.G.A., INC.


/s/ LEAH C. BROOK                                 BY: /s/ S. PAGE TODD
----------------------------                          --------------------------
Assistant Secretary                                   Senior Vice President
----------------------------                          --------------------------
/s/ MARTHA F. COMPTON                                 /s/ H. HARRISON PARRISH
----------------------------                      ------------------------------
WITNESS                                           H. HARRISON PARRISH
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,317                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,596                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,791                       0
<PP&E>                                         281,602                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                (64,005)                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 246,126                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,327                       0
<BONDS>                                        315,958                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                     50,252                       0
<COMMON>                                           187                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (154,872)                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   246,126                       0
<SALES>                                         31,863                  17,048
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,219                  17,660
<CGS>                                           17,179                   8,463
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,179                   8,463
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,490                   9,740
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,400)                   (517)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,400)                   (517)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,400)                   (517)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.43)                  (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43)                  (0.15)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6822

JAMES A. BIGGINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARYLAND DISTRICT COURT #2-3 D.C.; WICOMICO

COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA99-476-PJM)

Submitted: September 9, 1999 Decided: September 15, 1999

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James A. Biggins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1 Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

March 4, 1999, the district court’s records show that the order was

entered on the docket sheet on March 5, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58

and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date

that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1243-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2 Under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), the notice is

considered filed as of the date Appellant delivered it to prison

officials for forwarding to the court.

2

PER CURIAM:

James Biggins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) claim. We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Biggins’ notice of

appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,

434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361

U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March

5, 1999.1 Biggins’ notice of appeal was filed on May 28, 1999.2

Because Biggins failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss
3

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.4

          Summary of the Brokerage Bonus Plan under which one of the
          policymakers of the Parent Company is eligible to receive a
          bonus each year. 
     47
<PAGE>
1995 BROKERAGE BONUS PLAN

The following is a summary of the Brokerage Bonus Plan for 1995:

A.  The bonus plan covers the President-Brokerage Services.

B.  The President-Brokerage Services may earn up to a maximum of 40.0%
    of base compensation.

C.  The bonus amount is earned ratably based on a tiered achievement scale
    relating to pre-tax operating earnings of the brokerage operation.

D.  The tiered achievement scale is negotiated between the President-
    Brokerage Services and the Chairman of the Board.
     48
<TABLE> <S> <C>

 <ARTICLE>                                   5
 <MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                            YEAR
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Dec-31-1999
 <PERIOD-START>                    Jan-01-1999
 <PERIOD-END>                      Dec-31-1999
 <CASH>                                    769
 <SECURITIES>                                0
 <RECEIVABLES>                            1665
 <ALLOWANCES>                              (20)
 <INVENTORY>                               162
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                         3707
 <PP&E>                                    882
 <DEPRECIATION>                           (524)
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                           8903
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    3852
 <BONDS>                                  2431
 <COMMON>                                  486
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
 <PREFERRED>                                 0
 <OTHER-SE>                               4100
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             8903
 <SALES>                                 13360
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>                        13422
 <CGS>                                   11605
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                           15042
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       (360)
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                         (4199)
 <INCOME-TAX>                                0
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (1971)
 <DISCONTINUED>                          (2228)
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
 <CHANGES>                                   0
 <NET-INCOME>                            (4199)
 <EPS-BASIC>                           (1.17)
 <EPS-DILUTED>                           (1.17)

</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1330 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource 

study of the site known as ‘‘Amache’’ in the State of Colorado. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2019 

Mr. BUCK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 

special resource study of the site known as ‘‘Amache’’ 

in the State of Colorado. 

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 ‘‘Amache Study Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

6 In this Act: 

7 (1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

8 the Secretary of the Interior. 

9 (2) STUDY AREA.—The term ‘‘study area’’ 

10 means the site known as ‘‘Amache’’, ‘‘Camp 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1330 IH

1 Amache’’, and ‘‘Granada Relocation Center’’ in Gra2 nada, Colorado, which was 1 of the 10 relocation 

3 centers where Japanese Americans were incarcerated 

4 during World War II. 

5 SEC. 3. AMACHE SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a 

7 special resource study of the study area. 

8 (b) CONTENTS.—In conducting the study under sub9 section (a), the Secretary shall— 

10 (1) evaluate the national significance of the 

11 study area; 

12 (2) determine the suitability and feasibility of 

13 designating the study area as a unit of the National 

14 Park System; 

15 (3) consider other alternatives for preservation, 

16 protection, and interpretation of the study area by 

17 the Federal Government, State or local government 

18 entities, or private and nonprofit organizations; 

19 (4) consult with interested Federal agencies, 

20 State or local governmental entities, private and 

21 nonprofit organizations, or any other interested indi22 viduals; and 

23 (5) identify cost estimates for any Federal ac24 quisition, development, interpretation, operation, and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1330 IH

1 maintenance associated with the alternatives de2 scribed in paragraphs (2) and (3). 

3 (c) APPLICABLE LAW.—The study required under 

4 subsection (a) shall be conducted in accordance with sec5 tion 100507 of title 54, United States Code. 

6 (d) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

7 on which funds are first made available to carry out the 

8 study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to 

9 the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Rep10 resentatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 

11 Resources of the Senate a report that describes— 

12 (1) the results of the study; and 

13 (2) any conclusions and recommendations of the 

14 Secretary. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
**Exhibit32.1**

BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Briggs & Stratton Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended July 1, 2007, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, John S. Shiely, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ John S. Shiely      |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| John S. Shiely          |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| September 17, 2007      |

 

This certificationaccompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
Noncompliance

Issued1

----------------

(Combined

Notice Possible2)

Applicant

Responds?

----------------

Response deadline

determined

by certifier

205.405(a)(3)

Operation

Responds?

---------------- Response

deadline

determined

by certifier

205.662(a)(3)

Issue

Denial

---------------- 205.405

Process

Concluded

Issue Resolution

Process

Concluded

Issue Certification

Process

Concluded

Certified Operation

Yes

No

Noncompliance and Adverse Actions Flow Chart

Certification 

Applicant3

Applicant

Does Not Pursue

Options

Denied applicant can 

reapply for certification 

at any time.

Rev 01 - Updated March 20, 2024

Applicant’s

Options4

Not

Resolved

Not

Resolved

Resolved

Resolved

Submits

Corrective 

Action

No

Response

Submits 

Rebuttal

Submits

Corrective 

Action

Submits

Rebuttal

Certifier’s

Decision

Certifier’s

Decision

Mediate

---------------- 205.663

Applicant

May Appeal

Decision

with NOP or State 

Organic Program

• If the

applicant

does not file

an appeal, 

process 

concluded

Establish

Settlement

Agreement

Appeal

---------------- NOP 4011

Yes

No

Resolved

through

Mediation?

Process

Concluded

Certified

Operation Does 

Not Pursue

Options

Certified Operation

Pursues Available 

Options4

Mediate5

---------------- 205.663

Establish

Settlement

Agreement

Yes

No

Resolved

through

Mediation?

Operation May 

Appeal Decision 

with NOP or State 

Organic Program

• Certifier must confirm 

filing status w/NOP

• If the operation does

not file an appeal,

issue adverse action

Appeal • NOP 4011

Proposed

Adverse Action

----------------

Issue Proposed

Suspension or

Proposed Revocation

205.662 (c)

Adverse Action

---------------- Issue

Suspension or

Revocation

205.662 (e)

Note 1. A certified operation may surrender its certification at any time. When certification is surrendered prior to a certifier issuing a proposed adverse action, 

the certifier accepts the surrender and the process is closed. If an operation surrenders its certification after the certifier issues a proposed adverse 

action, the certifier accepts the surrender and continues the process for adverse action.

Note 2. For information on combined notices, see §205.662(c) and §205.405(g).

Note 3. The noncompliance/adverse action process for reinstatement applicants is different than for other certification applicants (see NOP 2605). 

Note 4. Certifiers have the option to accept or reject a request for mediation (§ 205.663(b)(2)). 

Note 5. Certifiers are required to continue providing certification services during the mediation and appeal processes.
FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB) 

TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM (NOP) 

Date: ___November 30, 2007_____________________

Subject: __Glucono Delta Lactone for re-listing on § 205.605a______________ 

Chair: ____Andrea Caroe_________________________________________ 

 (sign) 

Recommendation

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: ___XXX_____ 

Guidance Statement: ________ 

Other: ________ 

Statement of the Recommendation (including Recount of Vote):

The Board Recommends the continuation of Glucono Delta Lactone on the National List under 

section 205.605a Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in or on 

processed products labeld as “organic” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food 

group(s)).” 

Motion: Julie Weisman Second: Steve DeMuri 

Board Vote: Yes – 15 No – 0 Abstain - 0 Absent - 0 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with OFPA and NOP):

Demonstrated continued use in handling. Organic substitute unavailable at this time. 

Response by the NOP:

Updated 2/25/05 
National Organic Standards Board 

Final Recommendation for Sunset Review of Materials on § 

205.605a 

November 30, 2007 

I. List: 205.605 Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in 

or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with organic (specified 

ingredients or food groups.” 

(a) Nonsynthetics allowed 

II. Committee Summary: 

The Federal register notice of the sunset of these materials had elicited no public 

comments by early October when this committee was due to give its recommendation on 

the continued use of Glucono Delta Lactone. 

Review of the original TAP did not reveal unacceptable risks to the environment, human 

or animal health as a result of the use or manufacture of these materials. There is no new 

information contradicting the original TAP review which was the basis for the previous 

NOSB decision to list this substance.

Even though this material appeared not to present a risk to the environment, the sunset 

process requires public comment to support the continuation of this regulation. For this 

reason the initial recommendation of the Handling Committee in early October for the relisting of these materials failed. 

In the eight weeks prior to the Board meeting, numerous comments have been received 

requesting that this materials be re-listed and there have been no comments received 

opposing it’s continued use in organic handling. 

Motion for the Handling Committee to reconsider it’s earlier vote was made and 

seconded.

Deleted: ¶
III. Board Recommendation(s): 

The Board recommends the re-listing of the following substances in this use category as 

published in the final rule: 

Glucono Delta Lactone 

Moved: Julie Weisman Second: Steve DeMuri 

Yes: 15 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0