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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 290 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 290

 To amend title 31, United States Code, to eliminate the statutory cap 
 on the public debt and to place limitations on the purposes for which 
                       public debt may be issued.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2013

    Mr. Nadler (for himself, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Moran, Mr. 
 Blumenauer, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Ellison, Ms. McCollum, and Mr. Welch) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 31, United States Code, to eliminate the statutory cap 
 on the public debt and to place limitations on the purposes for which 
                       public debt may be issued.

    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 ``Full Faith and Credit Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 3101. Limitation on obligations
    ``Obligations may only be issued under this chapter to fund 
commitments incurred by the Federal Government that require current 
funding.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 3130(e)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is 
        amended by inserting ``, as in effect on the day before the 
        date of the enactment of the Full Faith and Credit Act of 
        2011'' before the period at the end.
            (2) The table of contents for chapter 31 of title 31, 
        United States Code, is amended by amending the item relating to 
        section 3101 to read as follows:

``3101. Limitation on obligations.''.
                                 <all>
```
Named Executive Officer Compensation Schedule



 Exhibit 10.23 
  
 Named Executive Officer Compensation Schedule 
  
 On February 16, 2006, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Westlake Chemical Corporation (the “Company”)
set 2006 base salaries and bonus targets for certain executive officers of the Company and determined the amount of 2005 bonuses payable in 2006 to such executive officers. Set forth below are the amounts for the “named executive officers”
of the Company. 
  

							
	 Name/Position

	  	2006 Annual Base Salary

	  	 2006 Bonus Target (% of
Base Salary)

	  	 2005 Bonus Payable in 2006


	 Albert Chao
 President and
 Chief Executive Officer
	  	$640,000	  	75%	  	$689,034
				
	 James Chao
 Chairman of the Board
	  	$470,000	  	75%	  	$505,292
				
	 Wayne D. Morse
 Sr. Vice President
 Vinyls
	  	$297,000	  	40%	  	$270,059
				
	 Stephen Wallace
 Vice President
 General Counsel &
 Secretary
	  	$272,000	  	35%	  	$152,549
				
	 Warren W. Wilder
 Vice President
 Olefins and Styrene
	  	$265,000	  	40%	  	$175,375
				
	 David R. Hansen
 Sr. Vice President
 Administration
	  	$278,000	  	40%	  	$184,902

  
 The 2006 bonus targets set forth above
relate to the Company’s EVA Incentive Plan (the “EVAIP”). The EVAIP provides for awards that are principally contingent upon the attainment of specific targeted EVA® results. EVA, or “economic value added,” is a measure of financial performance based upon the achievement of
returns for shareholders above the invested cost of capital. Under the plan, if the expected improvement in EVA is met in 2006, participants will be awarded a cash bonus equal to one times their target bonus. This is referred to as a 1X bonus. If









 
2006 results exceed the expected improvement, awards will be granted at a rate corresponding to the rate of increase above expectation. Similarly, if 2006
results do not meet the expected improvement, the awards will be correspondingly lower. The gross EVA declared bonus is subject to modification by an Individual Performance Factor as recommended by management and approved by the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Terrence P. Gill, Chief Financial Officer of K-Sea General Partner GP LLC, as general partner of K-Sea
General Partner L.P., the general partner of K-Sea Transportation Partners L.P. (the "Partnership"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
that:



Dated:
September 14, 2009

/s/ TERRENCE P. GILLName:

Terrence P. GillTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF TPI ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 1, 1995,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-26-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-1995
<CASH>                                           6,146
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,202
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,402
<PP&E>                                         229,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                  78,943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 235,738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,237
<BONDS>                                         83,365
<COMMON>                                           333
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   235,738
<SALES>                                         65,492
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,492
<CGS>                                           61,608
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (947)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (947)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (947)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.05)
        

</TABLE>
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00011-CV

__________________

IN RE CITY OF BEAUMONT, KENNETH R. WILLIAMS, 

IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CITY MANAGER, 

AND EARL WHITE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS FIRE CHIEF

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

136th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. D-210950

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

The City of Beaumont, Kenneth R. Williams, in his official capacity as City 

Manager, and Earl White, in his official capacity as Fire Chief, Relators, filed a 

petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relators are defendants in 

Trial Cause Number D-210950, International Association of Firefighters Local 399

v. The City of Beaumont, Kenneth R. Williams, in his official capacity as City 

Manager, and Earl White, in his official capacity as Fire Chief. Relators seek a writ 

compelling the Honorable Baylor Wortham, Judge of the 136th District Court of
2

Jefferson County, Texas, to dissolve a temporary restraining order, and prohibit the 

trial court from taking any action in Trial Cause Number D-210950 that would 

effectively enforce the judgment in Trial Cause Number B-210244, a judgment that 

Relators have appealed in Appeal Number 09-22-00413-CV. See Tex. Gov’t Code 

Ann. § 22.221.

Relators’ mandamus petition seeks mandamus relief and asks for emergency 

relief from a temporary injunction hearing which is set for January 13, 2023. The 

Court finds temporary relief is necessary to avoid undue prejudice and to protect the 

Court’s jurisdiction. It is ORDERED that all further proceedings in Trial Cause 

Number D-210950, including any hearing on a temporary restraining order or 

temporary injunction, are STAYED until our opinion issues in this original 

proceeding or until further order of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b). No 

bond is required of Relators as a condition to any relief herein granted.

The response of the Real Party in Interest, International Association of 

Firefighters Local 399, is due January 23, 2023.

TEMPORARY RELIEF GRANTED. 

ORDER ENTERED January 12, 2023.

PER CURIAM

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
#### BRADLEY v. STATE.

No. 22383.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 3, 1943.

Robert J. Allen, of Lubbock, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was charged with a violation of the local option liquor laws of Lubbock County, and, upon a plea of guilty, he was by the court fined the sum of $100.

It appears from the statement of facts that upon being first arraigned appellant pleaded not guilty. Whereupon he was told by the trial court to have a seat in the court room while some other business was being disposed of. In the meantime, after a conversation with a Liquor Control Board agent, appellant told the trial court that he desired to change his plea to one of guilty. This plea was accepted by the court, and a fine of $100 was entered by the judge. It appearing that appellant was possessed of insufficient funds to pay such fine and the costs, the court allowed him to go upon his own recognizance until the following Monday, this all having occurred on Saturday afternoon. Appellant was instructed to appear Monday either with the money1 or a deferred payment bond.

It seems to be appellant’s present contention that he did not enter a plea of guilty to such complaint and information at such time. We think the testimony clearly establishes the fact that such a plea was entered as shown by the statements of the Board agent as well as that of the county judge, as well as the judgment of the court reciting such plea of guilt.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record.

Perceiving no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
#### The State, ex rel. The Akron Coal Co., Appellee, *v.*Bd. of Directors of Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District et al., Appellants. The State, ex rel. The Kimbolton Milling Co., Appellee, *v.*Bd. of Directors of Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District et al., Appellants.

(Nos. 27985 and 27986

Decided April 10, 1940.)

*486*Mr. John Charles Sheppard, Mr. Jesse J. Fasehas*and *Messrs. Scott é Scott,*for appellees.

*Messrs. Fisher, Limbach, Smith & Benner,*for appellants.

Zimmerman, J.

Relators contend that under Section 6, Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, giving Courts of Appeals original jurisdiction in mandamus, *487and under Sections 6828-70 and 12284, General Code, the Court of Appeals of Guernsey county was authorized to entertain these actions and to issue the writs.

Section 6828-70, General Code, is a special statutory grant of power to conservancy districts to enforce certain of their orders by the extraordinary writ of mandamus *(State, ex rel. Miami Conservancy Dist.,*v. *Baden,*130 Ohio St., 251, 198 N. E., 865), and Section 12284, General Code, simply authorizes the issuance of the writ of mandamus by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or the Common Pleas Court.

The respondents contend that the Court of Appeals lacked authority to act in the present cases, the matter being wholly within the jurisdiction of the Conservancy Court, which possessed the right and power to enforce its own orders. *Wind*v. *State,*102 Ohio St., 62, 64, 130 N. E., 35, 36. They further contend that a mandamus action against the Conservancy Court,- in the event of its failure or refusal to enforce its order upon the filing of contempt charges against the conservancy district, would be the only proper mode of procedure.

A mandamus action in a higher court to compel the judge of an inferior court to exercise jurisdiction in litigation before such court is familiar to the law, but here we have direct actions against litigants to compel them to comply with the order of a court still having jurisdiction of the dispute, with full power to act and to which no application has been addressed to command obedience to its order — an unusual proceeding, to say the least.

While the problem is not free from difficulty, we are brought to the conclusion that this particular situation falls within the generally accepted rule that where it appears that a prior action is pending between the same litigants, involving the same subject-matter, in a court having jurisdiction, a mandamus proceeding in another court is barred, unless it is plain that ade*488quate relief is not obtainable in the prior case. 38 Corpus Juris, 572, Section 45; *Abiaca Drainage District*v. *Albert Theis & Sons, Inc.,*185 Miss., 110, 112, 187 So., 200, 201; *State, ex rel. Wahl,*v. *Speer et al., Judges,*284 Mo., 45, 223 S. W., 655. Compare, *State, ex rel. Commercial Investors Corp.,*v. *Zangerle, County Aud.,*126 Ohio St., 247, 185 N. E., 69.

"Wherefore, the judgments of the Courts of Appeals are reversed and the cases remanded to that court with instructions to dismiss the same.

*Judgments reversed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
**UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION** INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance Month XX, 2013 Firstname Lastname Title Organization Address Line 1 City, ST XXXXX Dear Dr./Mr./Ms. Lastname : Congratulations! We understand that your state received Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility approval including approval to use 21 st Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) funds to support expanded learning time (ELT) programs. As you know, ELT is receiving considerable attention and support as a promising strategy f or school reform
. The U.S. Department of Education is sponsoring a study to learn about SEA 21 st CCLC competitions. The Department is particularly

interested in the extent to which SEA ’s are taking advantage of the ELT option and how they are constructing their competitions to incorporate ELT
. We have contracted with Mathematica Policy Research and partners (Abt Associates, Evidence
Based Education Research & Evaluation, Synergy Enterprises, and Public Consulting Group

– Focus on Results) to learn about states’ plans to use 21 st CCLC funds to support ELT in states with ESEA Flexibility around the country. The study team will also examine the process states use to support the districts that will be implementing ELT. To this end, researchers from these organizations will be conducting an hour long interview with 21 st CCLC state coordinators from all states with this ESEA Flexibility in the coming weeks
. A member of the research team will be contacting you in the next few days to tell you more about the study and answer your questions. At that time, they will also be requesting some preliminary materials from you to help make the interview process as efficient as possible and work with you to schedule an interview time. In the meantime, if you have any questions about the study, please feel free to contact the project director, Phil Gleason at (315) 781
-8495 or pgleason@mathematica
mpr.com or me at (202) 219
- 1373 or Erica.Johnson@ed.gov
. Sincerely, Erica Johnson Federal Project Officer **Public Burden Statem ent:**  According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average one hour per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching

### LETTER TO: Dr./Mr./Ms. Lastname

FROM: Project Officer Name DATE: October 8, 2012 PAGE: 2 existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and com pleting and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is voluntary. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20210
-4537.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-225V

Filed: March 10, 2015

Not for Publication

*************************************

PEGGY A. COFFEY, *

as Personal Representative of the Estate of *

WOODROW COFFEY, JR., *

*

 Petitioner, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision based on

 * stipulation of fact

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Lisa A. Roquemore, Irvine, CA, for petitioner.

Glenn A. MacLeod, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On March 9, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

Petitioner submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent. 

During informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain items in petitioner’s

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.

 
application. Based on these objections, petitioner amends her application for attorneys’ fees and 

costs to $38,507.93. In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner asserts that 

she incurred $792.07 in costs to pursue her petition. Respondent does not object to these

amounts. The undersigned finds these amounts to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court 

awards:

a. $38,507.93, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award 

shall be in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Law Office of Lisa A. 

Roquemore in the amount of $38,507.93; and

b. $792.07, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s costs. The award shall be in the 

form of a check payable to petitioner in the amount of $792.07.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2015 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.

2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2899 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2899

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the quarterly 
   wages paid threshold for classification as an agricultural labor 
              employer for purposes of unemployment taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2013

 Mr. Welch (for himself and Mr. Hanna) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the quarterly 
   wages paid threshold for classification as an agricultural labor 
              employer for purposes of unemployment taxes.

    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 ``Growing Small Farms Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN QUARTERLY WAGES PAID THRESHOLD FOR CLASSIFICATION 
              AS AGRICULTURAL LABOR EMPLOYER.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 3306(a)(2) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``$20,000'' and 
inserting ``$40,000''.
    (b) Employment.--Clause (i) of section 3306(c)(1)(A) of such Code 
is amended by striking ``$20,000'' and inserting ``$40,000''.
    (c) Inflation Adjustment.--Paragraph (2) of section 3306(a) of such 
Code, as amended by subsection (a), is amended--
            (1) by striking ``In the case of agricultural labor'' and 
        inserting ``(A) In the case of agricultural labor'',
            (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
        (i) and (ii), respectively, and moving such clauses 2 ems to 
        the right, and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(B) In the case of any year beginning after 2014, the 
        dollar amounts contained in subparagraph (A) and subsection 
        (c)(1)(A)(i) shall each be increased by an amount equal to--
                    ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
                    ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined 
                under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which 
                the taxable year begins, determined by substituting 
                `calendar year 2013' for `calendar year 1992' in 
                subparagraph (B) thereof. Any increase determined under 
                the preceding sentence shall be rounded to the nearest 
                multiple of $100.''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to remuneration paid after December 31, 2013, for 
services performed after such date.
                                 <all>
```