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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5085 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5085

 To repeal the section of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 
  Act of 2012 that requires the Federal Communications Commission to 
              reallocate and auction the T-Band spectrum.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2018

     Mr. Engel (for himself, Mr. Zeldin, and Mr. King of New York) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the section of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 
  Act of 2012 that requires the Federal Communications Commission to 
              reallocate and auction the T-Band spectrum.

    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 ``Don't Break Up the T-Band Act of 
2018''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT TO REALLOCATE AND AUCTION T-BAND 
              SPECTRUM.

    (a) Repeal.--Section 6103 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 
Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1413) is repealed.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 1(b) of 
such Act is amended by striking the item relating to section 6103.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1465 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1465

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                      To extend au pair programs.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AU PAIR PROGRAMS.

    (a) Repeal.--Section 8 of the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 
1990 (Public Law 101-454) is repealed.
    (b) Authority for Au Pair Programs.--The Director of the United 
States Information Agency is authorized to continue to administer an au 
pair program, operating on a world-wide basis, through fiscal year 
1997.
    (c) Report.--Not later than October 1, 1996, the Director of the 
United States Information Agency shall submit a report regarding the 
continued extension of au pair programs to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations of the Senate and the Committee on International Relations of 
the House of Representatives. This report shall specifically detail the 
compliance of all au pair organizations with regulations governing au 
pair programs as published on February 15, 1995.

            Passed the Senate December 13, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1465

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

                      To extend au pair programs.
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 129 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1638]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       RECOGNIZING THE 101ST ANNIVERSARY OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. TOM REED

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 21, 2012

  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, October 10th of this year marks 101 years of 
the Republic of China (ROC). In those 101 years, the United States has 
had the support of few better friends or allies in any part of the 
world--let alone in the ever-increasingly strategically important Asia 
Pacific region--than the ROC. Inspired by the American ideals of 
individual liberty and freedom, the ROC and United States have stood 
beside each other in some of our two lands' darkest hours and most 
challenging times.
  Our two governments have stood side by side during the most trying 
times of the 20th century. Armed international conflicts have tested 
our relations, but we have emerged as two thriving nations. Our 
democracies are a shining example for which emerging nations aspire to 
become just as the ROC was one hundred and one years ago.
  On this monumental occasion, I urge all of my colleagues to join me 
in recognizing this milestone achievement in the history of the ROC. As 
one our closest allies in the Asia-Pacific region, we must continuously 
strive to strengthen the relationship between our countries. Let us 
continue to promote the fine democratic examples which the ROC has set 
for the world to see. We look forward to maintaining our strong 
relationship with the ROC for years to come, and we wish their country 
continued prosperity throughout its second century.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1450 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1450

   To provide that certain gaming contracts shall remain in effect, 
     notwithstanding filing for bankruptcy, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 6, 1995

  Mr. Breaux introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide that certain gaming contracts shall remain in effect, 
     notwithstanding filing for bankruptcy, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN CONTRACTS REMAINING IN EFFECT NOTWITHSTANDING 
              BANKRUPTCY FILING.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 11 of 
title 11, United States Code, or any reorganization plan resulting from 
a bankruptcy filing described under subsection (b), any contract 
described under subsection (c) shall not be affected by such filing or 
such reorganization plan, unless agreed to by the parties to the 
contract.
    (b) Bankruptcy Filing.--A bankruptcy filing referred to under 
subsection (a) is the bankruptcy filed in the Federal bankruptcy court 
by any gaming corporation on or after November 1, 1995.
    (c) Contracts Unaffected.--The contracts referred to in subsection 
(a) are any contracts between--
            (1) a gaming corporation and the city in which the gaming 
        corporation is operating or has operated, or any public benefit 
        corporation incorporated by the city for purposes of 
        contracting with a gaming corporation;
            (2) a gaming corporation and the county or parish in which 
        the gaming corporation is operating or has operated; and
            (3) a gaming corporation and the State in which the gaming 
        corporation is operating or has operated.
    (d) Definition.--As used in this Act, the term ``gaming 
corporation'' means any common gaming or gambling establishment 
operated for the purpose of gaming or gambling, including accepting, 
recording, or registering bets, or playing any game of chance, for 
money.
                                 <all>
```
# ALASK AJUNEA U

• T

- ; '•- . • - , V •''•' ' ^ ^ Jun e 10 , 201 0 Denni s Devany,

- Chie f Essentia l Ai r

Servic e .X5 3 roo m640 1 40 0 7 * St . S W Washington , D.C . 2059 0 RE : Docke t

OS T 2008-020 9 Dea r Mr . DeVany : Pleas e accep t

thi s lette r

a s clarificatio nt o statement s mad e i nou r proposa l t o provid e essentia l ai r

servic e t o Greenville , MS . O npag e 1 1 w e state dthat w e woul dhav e full GD S (globa l distributio n system ) availabilit y i nApri l 2010 . Thi s wa s correct . Ou r inventory i s fully distribute dSabre , Apollo , Worldspan , Galileo , an dAmadeus . W e unfortunatel y wen t

o n t o us e onlin e trave l agencie s a s example s of GD S availability . Inasmuc ha s w e planne dt o b e i n ever y OT A b y th e dat e stated , du e t o technica l difficultie s w e ar e currentl y onl y visibl e i nExpedia.co man dKayak.com . Thi s distributio n i s onl y t o destination s serve db y SeaPort . Th e statemen t i nou r proposa l wa s an oversight , an dno t

intende dt o inflat e SeaPort' s actua l distributio ncapabilities . W e d o expec t

t o hav e thi s availabilit y prio r t o th e start

o f servic e t o Greenville . Additionall y w e are i n talk s wit hmajo r carrier s for

interlin e servic e t o destination s beyon dthos e citie s serve db y SeaPort . W e believ e that

ou r trac k recor do f servic e fa

r surpasse s an y curren t

limitation s o n inventory distribution . Respectfully , Ro b McKinne y Presiden t • AlasTc aJuneau Aeronautics , Inc . d/b/aSeaPort

Airlines '

750 5 NEAirport

Wa y • Portland , O R9721 8 • 971-340-170 0
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5051 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to revise the shareholder 

threshold for registration under such Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2018 

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

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to revise 

the shareholder threshold for registration under such 

Act, 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 ‘‘Public Company Reg5 istration Threshold Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SHAREHOLDER THRESHOLD FOR REGISTRATION. 

7 The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a 

8 et seq.) is amended— 

9 (1) in section 12(g)— 

10 (A) in paragraph (1)— 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5051 IH

1 (i) by striking ‘‘shall—’’ and all that 

2 follows through ‘‘register such security’’ 

3 and inserting ‘‘shall, not later than 120 

4 days after the last day of its first fiscal 

5 year ended after the effective date of this 

6 subsection on which the issuer has total as7 sets exceeding $10,000,000 (or such great8 er amount of assets as the Commission 

9 may establish by rule) and a class of eq10 uity security (other than an exempted se11 curity) held of record by 2,000 or more 

12 persons (or such greater number of per13 sons as the Commission may establish by 

14 rule), register such security’’; and 

15 (ii) by adding at the end the fol16 lowing: ‘‘The dollar figure in this para17 graph shall be indexed for inflation every 5 

18 years by the Commission to reflect the 

19 change in the Consumer Price Index for 

20 All Urban Consumers published by the Bu21 reau of Labor Statistics, rounded to the 

22 nearest $100,000.’’; and 

23 (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘300 

24 persons’’ and all that follows through ‘‘1,200 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5051 IH

1 persons persons’’ and inserting ‘‘1,200 per2 sons’’; and 

3 (2) in section 15(d)(1), by striking ‘‘300 per4 sons’’ and all that follows through ‘‘1,200 persons 

5 persons’’ and inserting ‘‘1,200 persons’’. 

Æ 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.43**AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ESCROW AGREEMENT**     This Amendment No. 1 to Escrow Agreement is made this 10th day of August, 2007, byand among AMDL, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Buyer”), Jade Capital Group Limited, a BritishVirgin Islands corporation (“Jade Capital”), Pearl King Global Limited (“Pearl King”), and HomingNominees Limited (“Homing”) (collectively Pearl King and Homing are referred to as “Shareholders”)and Louis Taubman, Esquire (in his capacity as Escrow Holder hereunder, the “Escrow Holder”).**RECITALS**     This Amendment is being entered into in reference to the following facts:     A. During the period after the execution of the Escrow Agreement dated as of September 28,2007 (“Escrow Agreement”) and the date hereof, the China State Federal Drug Agency (“SFDA”) hadundergone significant changes in administration, including but not limited to, the death byexecution of the chairman of the SFDA, none of which changes could have been reasonably anticipatedby the parties to the Escrow Agreement at the time of execution thereof.     B. Both Buyer and Jade Capital have proceeded diligently with the preparation and filing ofthe SFDA application for approval of DR-70®, but some of the delays were attributable toBuyer.     C. In fairness to Jade Capital and its stockholders, Buyer has agreed to extend the date forreceipt of SFDA approval of DR-70®to March 28, 2008.     NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:     1. Article 2 of the Escrow Agreement is amended and restated to read in full as follows:“ARTICLE 2 – THE ESCROW     The Escrow Holder shall disburse the Escrow Shares in accordance with thefollowing procedures:     (a) If, before March 28, 2007, Jade Capital and/or the Shareholders shallhave demonstrated that People’s Republic of China State Federal Drug Agency orother appropriate agency (“SFDA”) has issued a permit or the equivalent regulatoryapproval for Buyer to sell and distribute DR-70® in the People’s Republic of Chinawithout qualification (the “Approval to Market DR-70®”), in form and substancesatisfactory to Buyer, then the Escrow Holder shall promptly disburse the EscrowShares to Jade Capital and/or Shareholders, in such proportions as Jade Capitalshall instruct.
 

 
     (b) If Jade Capital has not notified Escrow Holder that the SFDA has issuedthe Approval to Market DR-70® before March 28, 2008, or if Buyerdisputes that the purported approval is satisfactory, the Escrow Shares shallbe delivered by Escrow Holder to Buyer for cancellation.”     2. All other provisions of the Escrow Agreement shall remain unchanged by this Amendment No.1.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the dateand year first above written.         **“BUYER”** **“JADE CAPITAL”**           AMDL, INC., a Delaware corporation Jade Capital Group Limited, a British Virgin
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-06-00007- CR Ja c kie Sm it h, A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-20 05- 3000 93, H ONO RAB LE WILF ORD F LOW ERS, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N J ackie Smit h seeks to appeal from judg ments of conviction for ag g ravated sexual assault and indec ency

with a child by

exposure. The trial c ourt has ce rtified that Smith waived the rig ht of appea l. The appe al is dismis sed. SeeTe x. R. A pp . P. 25 .2 (d); Mo nre al v . S tate , 99 S.W .3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

__________________________________________ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pury ear Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: January

26, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh
----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 22 November 2006         

concerning the non-inclusion of ammonium sulphamate, hexaconazole, sodium tetrathiocarbonate and 8-hydroxyquinoline in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing these active substances

(notified under document number C(2006) 5535)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/797/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1) and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Ammonium sulphamate, hexaconazole, sodium tetrathiocarbonate and 8-hydroxyquinoline shall not be included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.

Article 2

Member States shall ensure that:

Article 3

1.   By derogation from Article 2, a Member State listed in column B of the Annex may maintain authorisations for plant protection products containing substances listed in column A for uses listed in column C of that Annex until 31 May 2010 at the latest. A Member State making use of the derogation provided for in the first subparagraph shall ensure that the following conditions are complied with:

2.   The Member State concerned shall inform the Commission about the measures taken in application of paragraph 1, and in particular about the actions taken pursuant to points (a) to (d), by 31 December of each year.

Article 4

Any period of grace granted by Member States in accordance with Article 4(6) of Directive 91/414/EEC, shall be as short as possible.

Where authorisations shall be withdrawn in accordance with Article 2 by 22 May 2007 at the latest, the period shall expire on 22 May 2008 at the latest.

Where authorisations shall be withdrawn in accordance with Article 3(1) by 31 May 2010 at the latest, the period shall expire on 30 November 2010 at the latest.

Article 5

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 November 2006.

For the Commission

Markos KYPRIANOU            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2004/20/EC (OJ L 70, 9.3.2004, p. 32).

(2)OJ L 55, 29.2.2000, p. 25. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1044/2003 (OJ L 151, 19.6.2003, p. 32).

(3)OJ L 224, 21.8.2002, p. 23. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1744/2004 (OJ L 311, 8.10.2004, p. 23).

----

ANNEX

List of authorisations referred to in Article 3(1)

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CMI INDUSTRIES INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 28, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                           1,729
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,962
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,200
<INVENTORY>                                     53,927
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               104,349
<PP&E>                                         247,756
<DEPRECIATION>                                 144,164
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 216,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,541
<BONDS>                                        124,528
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,695
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,349
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   216,540
<SALES>                                        422,722
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               422,722
<CGS>                                          366,471
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  399,385
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,499
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,986
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,186
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,186
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.24


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6677

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus RYAN REECE LAMB, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Wallace W. Dixon, Magistrate Judge. (CR-02-199; CA-03-304-1) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 21, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ryan Reece Lamb, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Even if Lamb’s notice of appeal was construed as appealing the district court’s final order, entered on January 22, 2004, dismissal would be appropriate. Despite being warned of the consequences of failing to file timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, Lamb failed to file timely objections and therefore has waived this court’s review of the claims asserted in his § 2255 motion. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see alsoThomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Ryan Reece Lamb seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to deny relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that Lamb seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. * 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