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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4366 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4366

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs to make payments to individuals entitled to 
   educational assistance under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance 
   program who pursue a program of education solely through distance 
               learning to be used to purchase computers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 9, 2017

 Mrs. Torres introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs to make payments to individuals entitled to 
   educational assistance under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance 
   program who pursue a program of education solely through distance 
               learning to be used to purchase computers.

    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 ``GI Bill Distance Learning 
Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PAYMENT TO DISTANCE LEARNERS UNDER DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 
              FOR PURCHASE OF COMPUTER.

    Section 3313 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(j) Additional Amount for Purchase of Computers for Distance 
Learners.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make a one-time 
        payment to an individual pursuing a program of education solely 
        through distance learning on more than a half-time basis in an 
        amount of $500 to be used for the purchase of a computer for 
        use in pursuing such program of education.
            ``(2) Application.--To be eligible for a payment under this 
        subsection, an individual shall submit to the Secretary an 
        application containing such information and assurances as the 
        Secretary may require.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORM 10Q DATED JUNE 28, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                           4,955
<SECURITIES>                                     7,888
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,634<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,492
<INVENTORY>                                      1,227
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,233<F2>
<PP&E>                                           1,234<F3>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,992
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           227
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,243
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,651<F4>
<SALES>                                          7,497
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,497
<CGS>                                            1,722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,835<F5>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (65)<F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,273)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,273)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,273)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
<FN>
<F1>IS NET OF ALLOWANCES
<F2>INCLUDES PREPAID & OTHER CURRENT ASSETS OF $1,529
<F3>IS NET OF DEPRECIATION
<F4>INCLUDES $189 OF LONG TERM OBLIGATIONS
<F5>INCLUDES OPERATING EXPENSES OF $7,113
<F6>INCLUDES INTEREST INCOME, NET.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2007297EN.01004402.xml

| 8.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/44

---

Action brought on 11 October 2007 — Portuguese Republic v Commission

(Case T-387/07)

(2007/C 297/90)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: L. Inês Fernandes, S. Rodrigues and A. Gattini, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund for the global grant ‘SGAIA’ (global grant for local development) pursuant to Decision C(95) 1769 of the European Commission of 28 July 1995; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund for the global grant ‘SGAIA’ (global grant for local development) pursuant to Decision C(95) 1769 of the European Commission of 28 July 1995;

| — | an order that the Commission of the European Communities should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Commission of the European Communities should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Lack of clarity in the statement of reasons. With the expression ‘as shown above’, the defendant makes a generic reference to the analysis summarily carried out and reconstructed in the contested decision. In Chapter 6, ‘Conclusions’, the defendant does not clearly identify what are the laws or provisions infringed by the Portuguese Republic.

Non-existence of the irregularity detected and infringement of the terms of the agreement concluded by the Commission and the Caixa Geral de Depósitos on 15 November 1995 by the Commission in the contested decision. The irregularity referred to by the Commission in the contested decision is groundless, for no account has been taken of Articles 5 and 6 of the Agreement, which allow the remaining future payments to be put back to 31 December 2001.

---
EXHIBIT 10.4

[GENAERA LETTERHEAD]

May 27, 2008

Henry R. Wolfe, Ph.D.

c/o Genaera Corporation

5110 Campus Drive

Plymouth Meeting, PA

19462

Dear Hank:

In conjunction with Genaeras
decision to implement initiatives designed to conserve cash into mid-2009, we have discussed and you have agreed, intending to be legally bound, to the following:



| |  |  | A voluntary 10% reduction in base compensation. As such, effective June 1, 2008, your base salary will be $18,750.00 per month ($225,000/year); and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | A voluntary forfeiture of cash incentives, including salary increases and discretionary bonus awards, for 2008.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please indicate your agreement with these changes by signing in the space provided below.



|          |  |                    |  |  |  |       |  |                                      
|--------- |  | ------------------ |  |  |  | ----- |  | -------------------------------------
|          |  |                    |  |  |  |       |  | Sincerely,                           
|          |  |                    |  | 
|          |  |                    |  |  |  |       |  | /s/ John L. Armstrong, Jr.           
|          |  |                    |  |  |  |       |  | John L. Armstrong, Jr.               
|          |  |                    |  |  |  |       |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|JLA/jlb   |  |                    |  |  |  |       |  |                                      
|          |  |                    |  | 
|Accepted: |  | /s/ Henry R. Wolfe |  |  |  | Date: |  | May 29, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             936
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,958
<ALLOWANCES>                                       320
<INVENTORY>                                      4,919
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,019
<PP&E>                                          50,508
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,525
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  60,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,431
<BONDS>                                         11,589
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           638
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    60,585
<SALES>                                         10,925
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,893
<CGS>                                            7,351
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,299
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,802
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,657
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,153
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,153
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.69
        


</TABLE>
# C_2008209EN.01003301.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/33

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Murcia (Spain) lodged on 19 June 2008 — María Julia Zurita García v Delegado del Gobierno en la Región de Murcia

(Case C-261/08)

(2008/C 209/49)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Murcia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: María Julia Zurita García

Applicant:

Defendant: Delegado del Gobierno en la Región de Murcia

Defendant:

Question referred

Should Article 62(1) and (2)(a) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community and Articles 5, 11 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) be interpreted as precluding national legislation, and the case-law which interprets it, which permits the substitution of the expulsion of any ‘third country national’ who does not have documentation authorising him to enter and remain in the territory of the European Union by the imposition of a fine?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 105, p. 1.

1

---
19756

#### Shaw v. State

Affirmed
#### Di Stefano *v.*Di Stefano, Appellant.

*116Argued March 10, 1943.

Before Keller, P. J., Bald-r.igb, Stadteeld, Bhodes, Hirt, Kenworthey and Beno, JJ.

*Lemuel B. Schofield,*with him *W. Bradley Ward,*for appellant.

*Wathan Agran,*with him *Arthur Gortese,*for appellee.

April 13, 1943:

Per Curiam,

This is an action in divorce brought by the husband, alleging cruel and. barbarous treatment and indignities. Testimony was. taken before a master, who, after a careful review, reeominended the divorce on the ground of indignities. The court adopted the recommendation and a final decree in divorce was entered. Eespondent appeals.

*117Our independent examination of the testimony com vinces us that the master correctly and fairly analyzed the evidence. It will serve no useful purpose to repeat it here. Suffice it to say, the false and totally unproven accusations of immorality, together with conduct maliciously designed to humiliate and embarrass libellant in his business and social life, made out a case of indignities. Sec*or v. Secor,*126 Pa. Superior Ct. 561, 191 A. 647; *Zonies v. Zonies,*151 Pa. Superior Ct. 817, 30 A. (2d) 193.

A short reconciliation was effected between the parties after the libel was filed, but this did not mean an abandonment of the suit. *Epstein v. Epstein,*93 Pa. Superior Ct. 398. After two weeks of good behavior, respondent resumed the indignities. We therefore regard the reconciliation merely as a factor to consider in determining whether the conduct, both before and after, was such as to make the marital status intolerable. *Nixon v. Nixon,*329 Pa. 256, 198 A. 154.

There was evidence that libellant was not wholly without fault and that he, on one occasion, inflicted a rather serious assault on respondent. However, “We are not called upon to balance such an account of mutual delinquencies, but only to determine which party is least open to the charge of causing the situation.” *Breene v. Breene,*76 Pa. Superior Ct. 568, 573, 574; and we think libellant, with the aid of his witnesses and respondent’s testimony, adequately satisfied and discharged the burden cast upon him.

Decree affirmed, costs on appellant.
Exhibit 10.1





Extension of Loan Agreement


 


Lender:
Merit Crown Limited (a company registered in Hong Kong, company No.: 2174556).


 


Borrower:
Hongkong Takung Assets and Equity of Artworks Exchange Co., Ltd. (a company registered in Hong Kong, company No.: 1801348).


 


WHEREAS:


 


1. The Lender
and the Borrower entered into a loan agreement dated July 15, 2016 by which they agreed (among others) that the Borrower would
borrow US$1,500,000 from the Lender, the loan period would expire on December 31, 2016;


2. The Lender
and the Borrower entered into a loan agreement dated August 24, 2016 by which they agreed (among others) that the Borrower would
borrow US$1,999,500 from the Lender, the loan period would expire on December 31, 2016; and


3. The Borrower
requested the Lender to extend the loan periods of the above two loan agreements to March 31, 2017.


 


After full negotiations,
and in accordance with Article 3 of the above two loan agreements in relation to extension of loan period, the two parties has
agreed as below:


 


Article 1. The
loan periods for the US$1,500,000 and US$1,999,500 borrowed by the Borrower from the Lender under the above two loan agreements
respectively shall be extended to March 31, 2017 (hereinafter the “New Loan Period”).


 


Article 2. The
Borrower shall pay a total amount of US$69,212 (being the interest of the above two loan amounts calculated based on annual interest
rate of 8% and 360 days a year for the period from January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017) in lump sum to the Lender by January 13,
2017. Upon expiry of the New Loan Period, the Borrower shall repay the principal amounts of US$1,500,000 and US$1,999,500 in lump
sum to the Lender. The parties can agree in advance to shorten or extend the New Loan Period.


 


Article 3. This
Agreement has two original copies, each of the Lender and the Borrower will keep one original copy, which shall have equal legal
effect.


   


Article 4. This
Agreement shall take effect on January 1, 2017. The above-mentioned two loan agreements shall cease to be effective automatically
from the effective date of this Agreement.


 


	
        Lender:

        Date: January 4, 2017
	
        Borrower:

        Date: January 4, 2017
# C_2008079EN.01002001.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/20

---

Action brought on 22 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Portugal

(Case C-24/08)

(2008/C 79/34)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Afonso and H. Kraemer, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Portugal

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Republic of Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Republic of Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Portugal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Portugal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the Directive into national law expired on 29 April 2004.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark B. Cox, Chief Financial Officer of Giant Industries, Inc. ("Giant"), do
hereby certify that: (a) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Giant for the annual
period ended December 31, 2002 (the "Form 10-K") to which this certification is
being furnished as an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (b) the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Giant.

Giant Industries, Inc.

By:    /s/ MARK B. COX
   ---------------------------------
Name:  Mark B. Cox
Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 28, 2003.
Exhibit 10(t)

POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.

AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE

PCS SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN FOR U.S. EXECUTIVES

The PCS Supplemental Retirement Plan for U.S. Executives, effective as of January 1, 1999 (the Plan), as heretofore amended, is
hereby further amended effective as specified herein as follows:



|1. | Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by the addition of the following paragraph:
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Benefit of any Participant who is a Supplement G Participant as defined in Supplement G to the Pension
Plan (a Supplement G Participant) shall be fully vested regardless of such Participants age and years of Vesting Service. The Committee may, in its sole discretion, provide that any other Participant is fully or partially vested
regardless of age and years of Vesting Service.



|2. | Section 4.2 of the Plan is hereby amended by the addition of the following paragraph:
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In
the case of a Participant whose Benefit is payable prior to the annuity starting date under the Pension Plan, the amount of the Benefit shall be calculated based on the amount of the Pension Plan benefit that would be payable at the time the Benefit
is paid. A Participant who is not eligible to commence his benefit under the Pension Plan at the time of his Separation from Service shall receive the Actuarial Equivalent of his Benefit calculated as of the earliest date on which he could commence
payment of his Pension Plan benefit. A Supplement G Participant who will attain eligibility for the Special Early Retirement Benefit under the Pension Plan as a result of his age and Vesting Service being calculated as of the end of the Severance
Period shall receive the Actuarial Equivalent of his Benefit be calculated as if the Participant commenced the Special Early Retirement Benefit on the earliest date on which he was eligible to do so. The Committee may, in its sole discretion,
provide that the Benefit of any other Participant is calculated taking into account future eligibility for early retirement benefits.



|3. | In all other respects the Plan remains unchanged.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------

EXECUTED on this 2nd day of December, 2013.



POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.By:

/s/    L. Knafelc




---

|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of:
|                                               
|David R. Haverick                              
|Name of Witness                                
|                                               
|/s/    D. Haverick                             
|Signature of Witness
#### Hockiug-Hershey Associates, Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*Louis Iandoli, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

May 4, 1959.

*Molloy Fletcher*for plaintiff.

*Henry W. Steingarten*for defendant.

*Marvin Usdin*for intervenor.

Marcus G. Christ, J.

Motion by Advance Insulation Co. Inc., a judgment creditor of the plaintiff for leave to intervene in the above-entitled action denied.

Pursuant to section 687-a of the Civil Practice Act (subd. 6) a judgment creditor may, upon presenting the court with proof that a party is indebted to the judgment debtor, be permitted to maintain an action against such party. That section does not authorize intervention in an existing action between the judgment debtor and the third party.

*211Section 193-1> of the Civil Practice Act relates to intervention in existing actions but the situation disclosed by the motion papers neither supports an absolute right of intervention under subdivision 1 nor facts permitting the court to grant intervention in the exercise of its discretion under subdivision 2. There is no fund in the custody of the court or an officer thereof which would support intervention by one who would be adversely affected by the distribution of said fund and there is no statute authorizing the court to grant intervention.

Moreover, absent any proof of indebtedness sufficient to obtain permission to maintain a separate action under section 687-a or that the judgment debtor is not prosecuting the action with due diligence, the court would not grant the application if it had the discretionary power to permit intervention under section 193-b.