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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3098 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3098

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance the treatment of 
certain small business concerns for purposes of Department of Veterans 
               Affairs contracting goals and preferences.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 12, 2013

  Mr. McNerney (for himself, Mr. Garamendi, and Ms. Brown of Florida) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance the treatment of 
certain small business concerns for purposes of Department of Veterans 
               Affairs contracting goals and preferences.

    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 ``Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small 
Business Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF TREATMENT UNDER CONTRACTING GOALS AND 
              PREFERENCES OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) In General.--Section 8127(h) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``rated as'' and all that 
        follows through ``disability.'' and inserting a period; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by amending subparagraph (C) to read 
        as follows:
            ``(C) The date that--
                    ``(i) in the case of a surviving spouse of a 
                veteran with a service-connected disability rated as 
                100 percent disabling or who dies as a result of a 
                service-connected disability, is 10 years after the 
                date of the veteran's death; or
                    ``(ii) in the case of a surviving spouse of a 
                veteran with a service-connected disability rated as 
                less than 100 percent disabling who does not die as a 
                result of a service-connected disability, is three 
                years after the date of the veteran's death.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to contracts awarded 
on or after such date.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Roger K. Brooks, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AmerUs Group Co.,certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of AmerUs Group Co.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a – 15(e) and 15d – 15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and34-47986];  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Dated: March 12, 2004     By /s/ Roger K. Brooks       Roger K. Brooks   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer   AmerUs Group Co.
#### HAYS v. STATE.

No. 21832.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 21, 1942.

No attorney for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

This appeal is from the district court of Hardeman County and, as we analyze the record, it is an attempt to appeal from an order of the court revoking a suspended sentence which had been given by a jury in Cause No. 1991 on the 3rd day of October, 1939, wherein the appellant was given a suspended sentence upon a verdict of five years in the penitentiary. Appellant was charged with the offense of passing a forged instrument and the proceedings thereon appear to be in every respect regular.

It appears further that at the January Term, 1940, of the District Court of Chil-dress County, Texas, the appellant was indicted for a felony, to-wit, driving an automobile on a public highway while intoxicated, in Cause No. 2047. On June 11 of the same year he was tried before a jury which found him guilty and assessed a penalty of five days in jail and a fine of $50. Certified copies of this procedure appear in the record. On May 26, 1941, the State filed a motion in Cause No. 1991, Hardeman County, asking that the judgment of the court in said cause suspending the sentence be revoked in consequence of the subsequent conviction in Childress County. The matter came on for hearing on the 30th day of May and the record contains the order of the court revoking the previous order suspending the sentence and setting it aside, further directing that appellant be delivered to the proper authorities to be transferred to. the state penitentiary. The judgment further recites: “From which judgment and sentence defendant gave notice of appeal, etc.”

The appeal, therefore, is before us, but we find in it no statement of facts and no bills of exception and no irregularities are shown. There is nothing presented for our consideration and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Brian R. Ervine, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report of Evolving Systems, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Evolving Systems, Inc.

/s/
Brian R. Ervine

Brian
R. Ervine
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
March 31, 2005

---



QuickLinks
EX-10.3



 






Exhibit 10.3




AMENDMENT TO

WESCO INTERNATIONAL, INC.

OPTION PLAN FOR BRANCH EMPLOYEES




     Pursuant to Section 9 of the WESCO International, Inc. Option Plan for Branch Employees (the
“Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:



     1. Section 8 of the Plan is amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:




     “8. Change in Control. Unless otherwise provided by
the Committee in the applicable Stock Option Agreement, in the event
of Change in Control, all Options outstanding on the date of such
Change in Control shall become immediately and fully exercisable.
The provisions of this Section 8 shall not be applicable to any
Options granted to a Participant if any Change in Control results
from such Participant’s beneficial ownership (within the meaning of
Rule 13d.3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) of
Common Stock.”



     2. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, the other terms and conditions of the Plan
are hereby ratified, affirmed and confirmed in all respects.
#### L. T. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27195.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 24, 1954.

*739No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is the driving, while intoxicated, of a motor vehicle upon, a public highway. Punishment was assessed at a fine of $150 and confinement in jail for three years.

The record is before us without a statement of fact or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Foster CAUDILL, Appellant, v. Scott WALLEN et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 8, 1954.

Cordell H. Martin, Hindman, for appellant.

Joe Hobson, Prestonsburg, for appellees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

This suit was brought by appellant to collect $500 from a burial fund after the death of his mother whom he claimed as a dependant. Appellees by answer pleaded as a defense that at the time appellant joined the burial fund he falsely and fraudulently misrepresented that his mother was in good health. There were other allegations in the answer setting up other defenses. Appellant failed to reply to this, answer and the allegations therein were not controverted. ■

After a trial the jury returned a verdict for appellant. Thereupon appellees moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that under Section 386 of the former Civil Code of Practice the pleadings entitled them to judgment. This motion was sustained.

Under the Civil Code of Practice we have often held that proof without pleading is insufficient. In particular it has. been held that the allegations of an answer setting up a defense must be taken as true in the absence of some pleading of the plaintiff putting that defense in issue. Brannon v. Scott, 288 Ky. 334, 156 S.W.2d 164; Maggard v. Johnson, 312 Ky. 770, 229 S.W.2d 764.

Appellant cites several cases which involve *defective*pleadings that may be *896cured by a trial of the issues inadequately presented. .These cases are obviously not in point because here we have the complete *absence*of any pleading controverting the defenses alleged.

In view of our consistent rulings under the Civil Code of Practice, which are applicable here, the trial court properly entered judgment for appellees.

The judgment is affirmed.
Proposed Rule: Change to the Reporting Date for Inputs to Emission Equations under the GHG R

Meeting Documentation: NEDA/CAP, June 9, 2011 Date EPA Staff Contact 

Information (Name, email, phone #) 

Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees’ names and emails if possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., 

applicability, reporting requirements, etc.)

Written CommProvided? Did they also submit to Doc

6/9/11 

Jessica Gordon Gordon.jessica@epa.gov

Jennifer Bohman Bohman.jennifer@epa.gov

Benjamin Grawe, Johnson Controls/  Gonzalez Saggio Harlan LLP Al Collins, Occidental Petroleum Corp. Leslie Ritts, Ritts Law Group Mike Palazzolo, Alcoa Inc. Jeffrey J. Lettrich, Alcoa Inc. Mike Babos, Merck & Co., Inc. Steve Woock, Weyerhaeuser Co. Rob Kaufmann, Koch Company Public  Sector LLC Barbara Bankoff, Eli Lilly & Co. Maxine Dewbury, Proctor & Gamble Doug Deason, ExxonMobil Jenna Martin, ExxonMobil Linda Farrington, Eli Lilly Steve Zuiss, Invista SARL 

- timing of the final deferral rule - basis for reclassifying certain data elements as CBI rather than inputs to emission equations 

Written comments submitted to Docket EPAOAR-2010-0
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27551]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RT01-77-000]


Southern Company Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

October 20, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 16, 2000, Southern Company Services, 
Inc., acting on behalf of Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, 
Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Savannah Electric 
and Power Company (collectively referred to as Southern Companies), 
filed a Petition for Declaratory Order in compliance with the 
Commission's Order No. 2000. In their Petition, Southern Companies 
proposed the formation of a Gridco that would be a Regional 
Transmission Organization. Southern Companies also proposed a 
ratemaking approach for the Gridco.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene, comments, or protest with the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such 
motions, comments and protests should be filed on or before November 
20, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine 
the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make 
protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This 
filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 
1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the 
internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27551 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**EXHIBIT 15**

Securities and Exchange Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20549 

We have made a review of the condensed consolidated financial statements of Superior Uniform Group,Inc. and subsidiary (“the Company”) as of June 30, 2006 in accordance with standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and issued our report thereon dated July 25, 2006. We are awarethat such financial statements and our above-mentioned report appearing in the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 are being incorporated by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-105906,effective June 6, 2003) and that such report pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 is not considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountantwithin the meaning of Paragraphs 7 and 11 of that Act. 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

Tampa, Florida 

July 25, 2006
EXHIBIT 10.02

SWANK, INC.

90 PARK AVENUE

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017

 

                                                     September 23, 2004

Mr. Eric P. Luft
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 23

- 00672

- CV

SAN ANTONIO VILLA DEL SOL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

, Appellant

v.

Michael MCCORMACK , Michael Hopkins, Dora Alexander, and Diana Alaniz,

Appellees

From the 438th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023

- CI

- 11817

Honorable Antonia Arteaga , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs o f

court for this appeal are taxed against Appellant San Antonio Villa del Sol Homeowners

Association.

SIGNED October 4, 2023.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-10228

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Michael Deshaun Trevino, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:21-CR-110-1

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Michael 

Deshaun Trevino has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Trevino has not filed a response. We 

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 7, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10228 Document: 00516570141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2022
No. 22-10228

2

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-10228 Document: 00516570141 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2022
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Nos. DA 22-0650

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

AARON EUGENE MCLAUGHLIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

_______________________________________________________________

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 14, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 2 2024

05/02/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0650
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB FOR QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,
1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         400,625
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,784,965
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  7,923,293
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,844,291
<PP&E>                                       6,129,805
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,093,183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,411,845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,092,741
<BONDS>                                      4,769,808
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        100
<COMMON>                                         3,867
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,549,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,411,845
<SALES>                                     16,586,798
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,586,798
<CGS>                                       10,962,078
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,292,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               185,551
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                49,993
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             514,222
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (417,738)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (417,738)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (417,738)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63570-63571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27196]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION:  Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title and OMB Number: Defense Systems Management College (DSMC) 
Information Technology Study; OMB Number 0704--[To Be Determined].
    Type of Request: New Collection.
    Number of Respondents: 1,000.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 1,000.
    Average Burden per Response: 2.5 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 2,500.
    Needs and Uses: The collection of information is needed to 
characterize the personality characteristics, behaviors, and workplace 
climate needs common among Information Technology specialists. The 
results from the analysis of these data will be used to determine the 
management practices most effective for working with these specialists 
and to develop management curricula based upon these findings. 
Respondents are information technology professionals from approximately 
300 companies within the U.S. The goal of this effort is to use this 
information to form the basis for a new Software Best Management 
Practices, to be encapsulated into the Defense Systems Management 
College curriculum, as

[[Page 63571]]

well as that of the Defense University's Chief of Information Officers 
and civilian programs.
    Affected Public: Business or Other For-Profit; Non-For-Profit 
Institutions.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edwad C. Springer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent jto Mr. Springer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: October 17, 2000.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-27196 Filed 10-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M