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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 204 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 204

 Expressing support for designation of May 13, 2015, as a national day 
    of celebration of the diversity in the United States, known as 
                      Diversity Day in the Nation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2015

 Ms. Lofgren submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for designation of May 13, 2015, as a national day 
    of celebration of the diversity in the United States, known as 
                      Diversity Day in the Nation.

Whereas since its foundation, the United States has been a country of 
        extraordinary ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity;
Whereas the United States has historically served as a beacon of light and hope 
        for persecuted populations and immigrants from around the world 
        searching for a better life, and has welcomed the cultural contributions 
        of these communities upon their arrival;
Whereas while each successive wave of immigrants has over time contributed 
        immensely to the United States identity, many immigrants have endured 
        against opposition that attempted to restrict their presence and 
        contributions;
Whereas through the civil rights movement, women's suffrage movement, the 
        marriage equality movement, and countless other movements, the United 
        States has continuously struggled and succeeded to achieve greater 
        acceptance and awareness of the value of diversity;
Whereas myriad cultures and communities have contributed to the fabric of 
        society, and the diversity in the United States continues to grow, with 
        substantial increases in Hispanic and Asian populations in the nascent 
        years of the 21st century; and
Whereas May 13, 2015, would be an appropriate date to designate as a national 
        day of celebration of the diversity of culture in the United States: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of a national day of 
        celebration for the diversity of the United States; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to promote 
        cultural awareness, combat polarization and stereotypes, and 
        improve community understanding and cooperation among people 
        from different cultures.
                                 <all>
```
October 15, 1996

18297

#### State v. Sandoval

Order No. 96-18

Affirmed
# C_2016202EN.01011201.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/112 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/112

---

Article 146

(ex Article 126 TEC)

(ex Article 126 TEC)

1.   Member States, through their employment policies, shall contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in Article 145 in a way consistent with the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union adopted pursuant to Article 121(2).

2.   Member States, having regard to national practices related to the responsibilities of management and labour, shall regard promoting employment as a matter of common concern and shall coordinate their action in this respect within the Council, in accordance with the provisions of Article 148.

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 01, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 01, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0027. HEALTHCARE STAFFING, INC. v. CHERYL EDENFIELD, AS MOTHER AND AS LEGAL GUARDIAN OF QUINCY EDENFIELD, AN INCAPACITATED ADULT.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: STSV2017000102
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 328 

Commemorating the inaugural ‘‘International Yoga Day’’ on June 21. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2015 

Ms. GABBARD (for herself, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. LEWIS, Mr. 

RYAN of Ohio, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. 

CROWLEY, and Mr. SMITH of Washington) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the inaugural ‘‘International Yoga Day’’ on 

June 21. 

Whereas the United Nations adopted the resolution on ‘‘Yoga 

Day’’ (A/ReS/69/131) on December 11, 2014, which proclaimed that June 21 is the ‘‘International Day of Yoga’’; 

Whereas the practicing of yoga will help promote better 

health among the global population and help encourage 

the need for healthier choices and lifestyles; and 

Whereas Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi addressed 

the United Nations General Assembly on September 27, 

2014, on the adoption of an International Yoga Day, 

stating, ‘‘Yoga is an invaluable gift of India’s ancient tradition. It embodies unity of mind and body; thought and 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 328 IH 

action; restraint and fulfillment; harmony between man 

and nature; a holistic approach to health and well-being. 

It is not about exercise but to discover the sense of oneness with yourself, the world and the nature.’’: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) commemorates the inaugural ‘‘International 

3 Yoga Day’’; 

4 (2) supports the ideals that ‘‘International 

5 Yoga Day’’ represents; and 

6 (3) encourages all individuals to participate in 

7 ‘‘International Yoga Day’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

CALVIN MALLORY, JR.,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 137 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of August, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 78978-3-I

)

 Respondent, )

)

 v. ) ORDER WITHDRAWING AND

) SUBSTITUTING OPINION

MALEK KALID PTAH, )

)

 Appellant. )

The panel has determined that the opinion filed on June 1, 2020 should be 

withdrawn and a substitute opinion filed to correct a typo on page 12. Now,

therefore, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the opinion filed on June 1, 2020 shall be withdrawn and a 

substitute unpublished opinion shall be filed.
Exhibit 10.1

















Written Description of Annual Incentive Plan


 


The annual incentive plan is structured to provide potential bonus payments to the participants based upon an economic value added (EVA) performance measurement, which is derived from return on capital employed.  The plan was created pursuant to the Culp Inc. 2015 Equity Incentive plan and provides for bonuses based upon the EVA of the entire Company in the case of certain executives, and upon the EVA of one of the Company’s two divisions for other executives.


 


EVA is calculated under the incentive plan by determining the capital employed in the portion of the Company that employs the award recipient (the Company or one of the Company’s two divisions, referred to herein as a “reporting unit’), and then multiplying the capital employed by a cost of capital (stated as a percentage) to determine the “capital charge” for each reporting unit.  The sum of operating income (prior to bonus payments and excluding non-recurring items) earned by a reporting unit for each month during the fiscal year in excess of the capital charge for the reporting unit for that month is deemed to be the economic value added, or EVA, produced by the reporting unit for the year.  To the extent that EVA is produced by a reporting unit in a fiscal year, a sharing percentage is used to determine the bonus pool for the award recipients from that reporting unit.  The bonus pool is divided among the recipients from the reporting unit in accordance with proportions established by the Compensation Committee, stated as a target bonus opportunity.  The Committee also establishes a target amount of EVA for each reporting unit.  The sharing percentage for award recipients increases if the reporting unit achieves EVA above the target level.  Bonus amounts are paid in cash.
### NUMBER 13
- 11 - 00 098 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JDS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. AND GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY , A ppellants ,

v. BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY OF TEXAS, INC. , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 445 th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant s , JDS Construction Company, Inc. and Great American Insurance Company , filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the 445 th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number 2009

- 01

- 0182

- I . Appellant s ha ve filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the parties have reached an agreement to2

settle and compromise their differences. Appellant s request that thi s Court dismiss the appeal. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants ’ motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellants = motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellants. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at ap pellants = request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.
PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 21st day of April , 20 11

.
April 

### 3, 1950

Hon. William I. Hensley Orimina~ M?tr+ot Attorney opi’lioa HO. v-1028 pox2 p&Y Be: The euthorlty~ of the San Antonio 

### 5, Texas c~wleeionere
~’court to establish coning reetriotlone r0r the area eurrouadlalg Kelly Dear Sir: Field.

Refermoe Is madeto your reoent request whaidh reads In part aa follows:

“lie hereby mqueet aa interpretation df the Airport Zoning Pot, H.B. 

### X0.333,50th Legislature, Regular $eerloa, P. 

### 784,ASt. 468-l to 

### 46-15 of Vezmoa’e ,Annotated Civil. Statutes, and nom eepeoielly to Se&ion l(1) thereof whereiq the telrr ‘aimotis is defined. Weneed this in oonneotion w$th a request from Kelly Field to the CommleeloaSrs* Court of Boxer couaty, Texas eeldag tlwe~to peee~a 8OtiQg OrdinSMe UUd6rth6 tOPSi Of thiS AOt which **would** apply to the area surrounding Kelly Field. This request has been referred to u11 by the Commieeionera~ Court.

. . .

“The “owaer’ of Kelly Field does n,ot’perq lt the ulle of said area by othepe. AU **Foroe** Regulation Ro. 

### 87-7,3eatlon I, Paragraph 5.e. (a oopy of eioh la atteohed hereto as annex 1) *ads a8 f

’ollowe: "'A. As a general rule, airports eetabliehed and designated by Oonrpetent authority ior the prlmery purpose of eupportlng the operation of Air F6me aimraft will not be uued to support the operation or naiatenenoe of oommeroial or private airorait. *

“we made **iaqulry** o? the authoritlee at the Field and determined that Xelly F’ield operates uader this general,rule, aad not **under** the exoeptlonm thereto whioh wouldEon. William R. Iiensley, page 2 (V-1028)
peyit_ use of. the fleld~ by others. This is qeae clear in the letter to us of March 2, 1950 by Cal. Jacks, doting Base Ereoutive, a o~opyof which is atteohed hereto aad marked *Annex 2. I” The letter to whioh you refer is as follows:

“In enswe* ~toquest~lon ooatain0d in your letter of February 

### 16, 1950, as to whether. or not Kelly Air Foroe Base operates **under** the general ruli,~~laid downin Air **Foroe** Reguletioh RO. 

### 87-7,Paragraph 5-a, this ia to adVLee that enoh 1s the oaee. Exoeptlon made et thlr base. to the polloies and proaedUree set out in~reierenoed regulation is only when dl.r&oted by higher Headquarters or proper euthorlty

. vides : Subseotion (1) of:Artiole 

### 468-1,V.C.S., proWe-n&sin aooord with your opinion that the” adYeatageeof ‘khe Aof iti question were Intended for the benefit of those airport instellatio~ whioh e~ervethe publio generally by pemitting pHvete and oommerolel planes other than those belonging to the **owaer** thereof to use the faoilitiea. Therefore, we do not believe that the word “airport” within the meaning of the above statute ia eilifidieatlj broad enough to include Kelly Field.

The word “airport” es used in A?tlole 46e-1, V.C.3. does not lnolude or apply to Kelly A&%! Foroe Base, aloh iS an airport YBOIL. william R. Hsneley, page 

### 3 (v-1028)



### or air base 3@ rated **under the**  **jtmiedio -**  **;cArFEge atlona**  **of** ,yu’mpartmeat 0s

**.** Yours very truly,

APPROVHD: J. C~.Davfs, Jr. County Affairs Division PRICH DAHIHL Attorney General

Charles D. M&hewn Hxeoutlve Aeeietaat BA:WU
# L_2012112EN.01002101.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/6

---

ACT

ACT

concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

PART FOUR

TEMPORARY PROVISIONS

TEMPORARY PROVISIONS

TITLE III

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Article 28

1.   Croatia shall pay the following amount to the Research Fund for Coal and Steel referred to in Decision 2002/234/ECSC of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, of 27 February 2002 on the financial consequences of the expiry of the ECSC Treaty and on the Research Fund for Coal and Steel (1):

1

(EUR, current prices)

| Croatia | 494 000. |
| --- | --- |

Croatia

494 000.

2.   The contribution to the Research Fund for Coal and Steel shall be made in four instalments starting in 2015 and paid as follows, in each case on the first working day of the first month of each year:

| — | 2015: 15 %, |
| --- | --- |

—

2015: 15 %,

| — | 2016: 20 %, |
| --- | --- |

—

2016: 20 %,

| — | 2017: 30 %, |
| --- | --- |

—

2017: 30 %,

| — | 2018: 35 %. |
| --- | --- |

—

2018: 35 %.

---

(1)  OJ L 79, 22.3.2002, p. 42.

1

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

739 

CA 11-00260 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF BRYON K. RUSS, SR., 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, AND 

HAROLD GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT, AUBURN 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

 

BRYON K. RUSS, SR., PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FRANK BRADY OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court,

Cayuga County (Thomas G. Leone, A.J.), entered December 17, 2010 in a

proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment denied and

dismissed the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Supreme Court.

Entered: June 8, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 384 

Calling for a formal end of the Korean War. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2015 

Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, and Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 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 

RESOLUTION 

Calling for a formal end of the Korean War. 

Whereas the Korean War broke out on June 25, 1950, and 

active combat ceased with the Armistice Agreement 

signed on July 27, 1953; 

Whereas the Armistice Agreement did not formally end the 

war, so the Korean War remains one of the world’s longest ongoing armed conflicts; 

Whereas the Korean War was a global conflict that involved 

not only South Korea and North Korea, but also the 

United States along with more than 20 other nations, 

which altogether suffered hundreds of thousands casualties and losses, including millions of civilians killed and 

wounded; 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 384 IH 

Whereas 2015 marks the 70th anniversary of Korea’s independence after Imperial Japan surrendered to the United 

States during World War II on August 15, 1945; and 

Whereas peaceful unification of Korea is desired by all Korean people: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) pays tribute to the sacrifices of the Vet3 erans of the Korean War, its victims and divided 

4 families; and 

5 (2) calls upon the international community to 

6 support the vision of a unified Korea and assist ef7 forts to promote international peace and security, 

8 denuclearization, economic prosperity, human rights, 

9 and the rule of law both on the Korean Peninsula 

10 and elsewhere. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Griffing v. Griffing

24581

04/23/2004

Vacated & remanded
Order entered August 20, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00817-CV

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Appellant

V.

CARLOTTA HOWARD, Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-13467

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s August 13, 2013 motion for stay of proceedings and 

appellee’s August 19, 2013 response to that motion. We DENY the motion to stay.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### T.D. v. J.H.

27665

08/31/2006

Affirmed
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00418-CR

Brandon Kurtis Jewell

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From County Court at Law No. 2

of Parker County (CCL2-12-0334)

July 10, 2014

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Lee Gabriel___________________

 Justice Lee Gabriel
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



              Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-45019) pertaining to the RSI Holdings, Inc. Incentive Stock
Award Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-45021) pertaining
to the RSI Holdings, Inc. Stock Option Plan of our report dated October 15,
1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of RSI Holdings,
Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended August 31,
1997.



                                                        /s/ ERNST AND YOUNG LLP


Greenville, South Carolina
November 24, 1997
#### State v. Williams

16853, 17077

5/14/96

Affirmed
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 279 

Urging respect for freedom of expression and human rights in Turkey. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2015 

Mr. GRAYSON (for himself, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. RUSH, and Mr. LIPINSKI) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Urging respect for freedom of expression and human rights 

in Turkey. 

Whereas Turkey is a constitutional, secular state with an ethnically, religiously, and culturally diverse population; 

Whereas Turkey has long been a modern democracy, an Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe 

(OSCE) participating State, and a major North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) ally to the United States; 

Whereas respect for universal human rights, especially freedom of expression, is essential to maintain a democratic, 

open society; 

Whereas prominent human rights monitors, including the 

U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights and Labor, the OSCE Representative on 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 279 IH 

Freedom of the Media, Freedom House, and Human 

Rights Watch, have expressed concern about the erosion 

of freedom of expression under President Recep Tayyip 

Erdogan and the Justice and Development Party (AKP); 

Whereas the Government of Turkey has increasingly conducted widespread intimidation and manipulation of 

media, private companies, and other civil society actors 

through a number of means, including active interference 

in their operations and regulatory action to compel government-friendly outcomes; 

Whereas, in recent years, criminal prosecution or intimidation 

based on overly broad terrorism laws and other measures 

taken by authorities in Turkey have been widely criticized 

as ideologically driven and unusually severe; 

Whereas several members of independent media groups in 

Turkey have been arrested on questionable charges; 

Whereas following protests in late 2013 and early 2014, authorities in Turkey banned Twitter and YouTube for two 

weeks until the Constitutional Court of Turkey overturned the ban; and 

Whereas, on April 6, 2015, Turkey again blocked access to 

Twitter and YouTube for several hours and threatened to 

ban Google: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) calls on the Government of Turkey to imme3 diately lift restrictions on freedom of expression, in4 cluding expression online or in social media; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 279 IH 

1 (2) urges the Government of Turkey to fully re2 spect universal human rights consistent with its 

3 OSCE commitments; and 

4 (3) reaffirms the United States long-standing 

5 partnership and friendship with the people of Tur6 key. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

National Animal Health Monitoring

System (NAHMS) Studies

Last Modified: 

Print

This page offers quick access to National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS)

studies and related materials.

Use the search box to filter data by title, study year, category, or document type.

Combine search words to filter the list further. For example, enter "goat" or "swine

antimicrobial" (no quotes). Re-sort the table by selecting a column name. 

If you need any help finding NAHMS documents, email us at nahms@usda.gov.

Loading...

NAHMS Studies