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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4753 

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to require the Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to 

provide a written report, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2018 

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

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to require the Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System to provide a written report, 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 ‘‘Federal Reserve Su5 pervision Testimony Clarification Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4753 IH

1 SEC. 2. VICE CHAIRMAN FOR SUPERVISION REPORT RE2 QUIREMENT. 

3 Paragraph (12) of section 10 of the Federal Reserve 

4 Act (12 U.S.C. 247(b)) is amended— 

5 (1) by redesignating such paragraph as para6 graph (11); and 

7 (2) in such paragraph, by adding at the end the 

8 following: ‘‘In each such appearance, the Vice Chair9 man for Supervision shall provide written testimony 

10 that includes the status of all pending and antici11 pated rulemakings that are being made by the 

12 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 

13 If, at the time of any appearance described in this 

14 paragraph, the position of Vice Chairman for Super15 vision is vacant, the Vice Chairman for the Board of 

16 Governors of the Federal Reserve System (who has 

17 the responsibility to serve in the absence of the 

18 Chairman) shall appear instead and provide the re19 quired written testimony. If, at the time of any ap20 pearance described in this paragraph, both Vice 

21 Chairman positions are vacant, the Chairman of the 

22 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 

23 shall appear instead and provide the required writ24 ten testimony.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
II 

Calendar No. 464 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4722 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2018 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 14, 2018 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 111 Market Street in Saugerties, New York, 

as the ‘‘Maurice D. Hinchey Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MAURICE D. HINCHEY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 111 Market Street in Saugerties, 

6 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Maurice 

7 D. Hinchey Post Office Building’’. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4722 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Maurice D. Hinchey 

5 Post Office Building’’. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 464 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4722 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postchey Post Office Building’’. Saugerties, New York, as the ‘‘Maurice D. Hin- al Service located at 111 Market Street in 

JUNE 14, 2018 

Reported without amendment 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
Motion Denied and Abatement Order filed October 13, 2015

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-01016-CV

____________

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF LARA MARIE 

CHARPENTIER AND JASON WALTER CHARPENTIER

On Appeal from the 306th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-FD-3409

ABATEMENT ORDER

The parties have filed a joint motion indicating they entered into a settlement 

agreement. They ask us to affirm the judgment in part and vacate it in part in 

accordance with their agreement. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a) does 

not permit us to grant the relief the parties are requesting. The rule, however,

allows this court to abate the appeal and permit the trial court to conduct further 

proceedings to effectuate the parties’ agreement. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(C). 

Accordingly, we issue the following order:

The parties’ joint motion is DENIED. In accordance with Texas Rule of 
2

Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(C), the appeal is ABATED to permit the trial court 

to conduct further proceedings to effectuate the parties’ agreement. The appeal is

treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket until 

December 14, 2015. The parties are advised that appellant must file a motion to 

reinstate and dismiss this appeal no later than December 14, 2015 or, if the 

agreement has not been effectuated by that date, appellant is required file a report 

with this court giving the status of the proceedings in the trial court and requesting 

an extension of the abatement. The failure to file a motion to reinstate and dismiss 

the appeal or a status report by December 14, 2015 will result in the dismissal of 

this appeal without further notice.

PER CURIAM
A college completion rate is the percentage of persons ages 25 

and over with a bachelor’s degree or more. The map uses natural 

breaks in the distribution to organize the data into groups of 

common values. 

College Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2005–2009

(County Rates)

Map Created: October 2013

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, 2005–2009

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

TENNESSEE

4.6% - 11.9%

12.0% - 17.8%

17.9% - 28.1%

28.2% - 48.7%

U.S. average = 27.5%

Appalachian average = 20.4%

Completion Rate 

(Natural Breaks Classification)
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 494 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 6), 2017 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To expand the boundary of Fort Frederica National 

Monument in the State of Georgia, 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, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 494 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fort Frederica Na3 tional Monument Boundary Expansion Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FORT FREDERICA NATIONAL MONUMENT, GEORGIA. 

5 (a) MAXIMUM ACREAGE.—The first section of the 

6 Act of May 26, 1936 (16 U.S.C. 433g), is amended by 

7 striking ‘‘two hundred and fifty acres’’ and inserting ‘‘305 

8 acres’’. 

9 (b) BOUNDARY EXPANSION.— 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—The boundary of the Fort 

11 Frederica National Monument in the State of Geor12 gia is modified to include the land generally depicted 

13 as ‘‘Proposed Acquisition Areas’’ on the map enti14 tled ‘‘Fort Frederica National Monument Proposed 

15 Boundary Expansion’’, numbered 369/132,469, and 

16 dated April 2016. 

17 (2) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map described 

18 in paragraph (1) shall be on file and available for 

19 public inspection in the appropriate offices of the 

20 National Park Service. 

21 (3) ACQUISITION OF LAND.—The Secretary of 

22 the Interior may acquire the land and interests in 

23 land described in paragraph (1) by donation or pur24 chase with donated or appropriated funds from will25 ing sellers only. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 494 RFS

1 (4) WRITTEN CONSENT OF OWNER.—No non2 Federal property may be included in the Fort Fred3 erica National Monument without the written con4 sent of the owner. 

5 (5) NO USE OF CONDEMNATION OR EMINENT

6 DOMAIN.—The Secretary of the Interior may not ac7 quire by condemnation or eminent domain any land 

8 or interests in land under this Act or for the pur9 poses of this Act. 

10 (6) NO BUFFER ZONE CREATED.—Nothing in 

11 this Act, the establishment of the Fort Frederica 

12 National Monument, or the management plan for 

13 the Fort Frederica National Monument shall be con14 strued to create buffer zones outside of the Monu15 ment. That activities or uses can be seen, heard, or 

16 detected from areas within the Fort Frederica Na17 tional Monument shall not preclude, limit, control, 

18 regulate, or determine the conduct or management 

19 of activities or uses outside of the Monument. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 6, 

2017. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Table of Contents

Exhibit 4.19

[THE COCA-COLA COMPANY LETTERHEAD]

June 3, 2009

Industria Nacional de Gaseosas S.A.
Republic of Colombia

Dear Sirs:

In regards to the Bottler Agreement in force and effect since July 1, 1999 (the Agreement) entered into between you and The Coca-Cola Company (the Company), we inform you that a new bottler agreement is in the final stages of
discussion and approval among the parties, which we estimate will be executed towards the middle of July 2009, hereby the Agreement is temporarily extended from March 31, 2009 until:

July 31, 2009

With the exception of said extension, all the terms and conditions of the Agreement will continue to be fully valid until the expiration of said additional term, and once the extension expires, the Bottler will no longer have the right to claim a
tacit renewal of the aforementioned Agreement.



| |                      
| | ---------------------
| | Sincerely,           
| | THE COCA-COLA COMPANY



| |                          
| | -------------------------
| | /s/                      
| |                          
| | Authorized Representative

Accepted by:
INDUSTRIA NACIONAL DE GASEOSAS S.A.

|                          | 
|------------------------- | 
|/s/                       | 
|                          | 
|Authorized Representative | 

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Huntington Preferred
Capital, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John D. Van Fleet, Vice President of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

                  (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company.

                                     /s/ John D. Van Fleet
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                         John D. Van Fleet, Vice President
                                         (Chief Financial Officer)
                                          August 14, 2003


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.14 - Form of Employment Agreement for Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.14 
  

					
	To:	  	 	 	 
			
	From:	  	 	 	 
			
	 	  	 	 	 
			
	Re:	  	 	 	Employment Agreement Annual Review
			
	Date:	  	 	 	April 6, 2005

  
 I am pleased to
confirm that the Board of Directors of BankFinancial, F.S.B. and the Board’s Human Resources Committee conducted the annual review referenced in Section              of your
Employment Agreement. The Board concluded, after performing the review, to extend the Employment Period, as referenced in Section              of the Employment Agreement, for an
additional one year so that the remaining term of the Employment Period will be thirty-six (36) months and will end on March 31, 2008; and to ratify the decision that the Human Resources Committee made earlier this year regarding your base salary
and incentive compensation. 
  
 Kindly acknowledge your receipt
and acceptance of this notice by signing it in the space indicated below and returning it to me.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21

                    SUBSIDIARIES OF ULTRATECH STEPPER, INC.

The following is a list of Ultratech Stepper Inc.'s subsidiaries including their
states of incorporation as of March 10, 1998:


SUBSIDIARIES                                STATE AND  COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION
Ultratech Stepper International, Inc.            State of Delaware, USA
Ultratech Stepper UK Limited                     United Kingdom
Ultratech Stepper Foreign Sales Corp.            Barbados
Ultratech Kabushiki Kaisha                       Japan
Ultratech Capital, Inc.                          State of Delaware, USA
UltraBeam Lithography, Inc.                      State of Delaware, USA
Ultratech Stepper (Thailand) Co. LTD.            Thailand
Verdant Technologies, Inc.                       State of Delaware, USA
U.S. Advanced Lithography LLC                    State of Delaware, USA
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALBERTO MONTELONGO,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. **§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§** No. 08

- 16

- 00001

- C R

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20150D02224)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s f ifth motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until June 13 , 2022. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Joe A. Spencer, Jr. , the Appellant’s attorney, prepare

the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before Ju ne 13 , 2022

.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 1 8 th day of April , 2022.

PER CURIAM

B efore Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

 

**Pursuant to**

 

**Section 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 quarter ended **September 30, 2003** (the“Report”) of **MCG Capital Corporation** (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, **Bryan J. Mitchell**, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify,to the best of my knowledge, that: 

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theRegistrant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF THE MAXIM GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF
JANUARY 31, 1997 AND THE RESTATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH
FLOWS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>                           
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                          
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JAN-31-1997                   
<PERIOD-START>                  FEB-01-1996                   
<PERIOD-END>                    JAN-31-1997                   
<CASH>                                6,439                   
<SECURITIES>                              0                   
<RECEIVABLES>                        49,845                   
<ALLOWANCES>                          2,059                   
<INVENTORY>                          43,487                   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    104,069                   
<PP&E>                              138,917                   
<DEPRECIATION>                       37,514                   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      219,673                   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                45,782                   
<BONDS>                              91,100                   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                   
<PREFERRED>                               0                   
<COMMON>                                 13                   
<OTHER-SE>                                0                   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        219,673                   
<SALES>                             309,721                   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    309,721                   
<CGS>                               222,290                   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        72,366                   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        302                   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        375                   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    7,006                   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       4,074                   
<INCOME-TAX>                          1,929                   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   2,145                   
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                   
<CHANGES>                                 0                   
<NET-INCOME>                          2,145                   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .16                   
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .15                   
<FN>
<F1>Tag (EPS-PRIMARY) Denotes Basic EPS.
</FN>
        





































</TABLE>
# C_2011055EN.01000501.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-89/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment - Article 43 EC - Public health - Operation of bio-medical analysis laboratories - National legislation under which no more than 25 % of own capital may be held by shareholders who are not professional biologists - Prohibition on holding shares in more than two companies operating jointly one or more biomedical analysis laboratories - Objective of ensuring the professional independence of biologists - Objective of maintaining diversity of supply in the biomedical field - Consistency - Proportionality)

2011/C 55/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and E. Traversa, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 43 EC — Rules concerning the operation of bio-medical analysis laboratories — National legislation under which no more than 25 % of a company’s capital may be held by shareholders not engaged in the relevant professional activity — Prohibition on holding shares in more than two companies operating jointly one or more biomedical analysis laboratories — Restrictions on freedom of establishment which may be justified by the objective of protection of public health and are proportionate

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by prohibiting biologists from holding shares in more than two companies formed in order to operate jointly one or more biomedical analysis laboratories, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by prohibiting biologists from holding shares in more than two companies formed in order to operate jointly one or more biomedical analysis laboratories, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 16.05.2009.

1

---
Exhibit 23




                        INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors and Stockholders 
The Beard Company:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(No. 33-87110, 33-98482, and 333-06757) on Form S-8 of The Beard Company
of our report dated April 13, 1999, relating to the balance sheet of The
Beard Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the 
related statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for 
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which 
report appears in the December 31, 1998, annual report on Form 10-K of
The Beard Company.


                                                     KPMG LLP


Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
April 13, 1999
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7458
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD CALLOWAY, a/k/a Stink, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at N orfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-92-113, CA-96-393-N) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 19, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Calloway, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298); United States v. Calloway , Nos. CR-92-113; CA-96-393-N (E.D. Va. Apr. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED