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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Research Resources Special Emphasis Panel, Biomedical Research Technology.                    

*Date:*                         November 16, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 PM to 1:00 PM.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Office of Review, National Center for Research Resources, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Rebecca A. Fuldner, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Review, National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Dr., MSC 7965, Room 6018, Bethesda, MD 20892-7965, 301-435-0809, fuldnerr@ncrr.nih.gov.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine, 93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333; 93.371, Biomedical Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 16, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-30170 Filed 11-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 315

Designating May 30, 1994, through June 6, 1994, as a ‘‘Time for the

National Observance of the Fiftieth Anniversary of World War II’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1994

Mr. MYERS of Indiana introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating May 30, 1994, through June 6, 1994, as a

‘‘Time for the National Observance of the Fiftieth Anniversary of World War II’’.

Whereas the brave men and women of the United States of

America made tremendous sacrifices during World War

II to save the world from tyranny and aggression;

Whereas the winds of freedom and democracy sweeping the

globe today spring from the principles for which over four

hundred thousand Americans gave their lives in World

War II;

Whereas World War II and the events that led up to that war

must be understood in order that we may better under-
2

HJ 315 IH

stand our own times, and more fully appreciate the reasons why eternal vigilance against any form of tyranny

is so important;

Whereas the World War II era, as reflected in its family life,

industry, and entertainment, was a unique period in

American history and epitomized our Nation’s philosophy

of hard work, courage, and tenacity in the face of adversity;

Whereas, between 1991 and 1995, over nine million American veterans of World War II will be holding reunions

and conferences and otherwise commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of various events relating to World War

II; and

Whereas June 4, 1994, marks the anniversary of the Battle

of Midway, and June 6, 1994, marks the anniversary of

D-Day: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That May 30, 1994, through June 6, 1994, is designated

4 as a ‘‘Time for the National Observance of the Fiftieth

5 Anniversary of World War II’’, and the President is au6 thorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling on

7 the people of the United States to observe that period with

8 appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133551 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133551 

 COA: 275568 

Berrien CC: 95-000415-FJ 

ANTHONY LEE ARRINGTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 7, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

s0723 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA- 24 - 00 37 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ANDREW DAVID LARSON,

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 July 1 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 23 2024

05/23/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0037
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 LeCroy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas H. Reslewic, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                           
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2007 |  | /s/ Thomas H. Reslewic                    
|                   |  | Thomas H. Reslewic Chief Executive Officer

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.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40220

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OCIEL MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-777-ALL 

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ociel Martinez-Martinez (Martinez) appeals his conviction

and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. He

argues that the district court plainly erred by characterizing

his state felony conviction for simple possession of marijuana as

an “aggravated felony” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C)

and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), when that same offense was

punishable only as a misdemeanor under federal law. This issue,

however, is foreclosed by United States v. Caicedo-Cuero,
No. 04-40220

-2-

312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1021

(2003), and United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 694

(5th Cir. 1997). Therefore, Martinez has not demonstrated plain

error. 

Martinez also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated

felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in

light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). He

acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed, but seeks to

preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review. As

Martinez concedes, this issue is foreclosed. See AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247 (1998); United States

v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). 

AFFIRMED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 13, 2023

No. 04-22-00467-CR

Gary Franz DEVAUGHN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-CR-11400

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for an extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. 

Appellant’s brief is due on or before February 27, 2023. Further requests for an extension of 

time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of February, 2023.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,289
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,091
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,275
<PP&E>                                          41,423
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,680
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 408,008
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,780
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           290
<OTHER-SE>                                     241,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   408,008
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,293
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,232
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,355
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,445
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,910
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,910
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.5.1

 

Execution Version

 

	
 
    	

    
	
 
    	
19411 Atrium Place   Suite 170, Houston, TX 77084
    


 

November 1, 2013

 

Judd Nystrom

 

Dear Judd,

 

Garden Ridge has reviewed its vacation policy and as a result of this review is eliminating the vacation policy in favor of a Paid Time Off (PTO) Policy, which addresses both vacation and other personal time off. In order to conform your Employment Agreement to the new policy, Garden Ridge requests your consent to the following amendments to your Employment Agreement:

 

Section 2.6 (Vacation) is amended to read in its entirety: During the Employment Period, the Executive shall be entitled to two hundred (200) hours of paid time off (PTO) per calendar year, prorated for partial years in accordance with the terms of the Company’s PTO Policy.

 

Section 3.1 (Termination of Employment) is amended so as (a) to change the reference in the first sentence from “15 days” to “30 days” in both instances where “15 days” appears in that sentence, and (b) to delete clause (iii) of the second sentence of the section.

 

Please evidence your agreement to the foregoing changes by executing and returning to me a copy of this letter.

 

	
 
    	
Very truly yours,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
GARDEN RIDGE   CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Valerie Davisson
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Valerie Davisson
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Chief People Officer
    


 

Accepted and Agreed to as an amendment to the Employment Agreement between Garden Ridge Corporation and the undersigned to be effective as of the date of this letter:

 

	
/s/ Judd Nystrom
    	
 
    
	
Judd Nystrom
Exhibit 10.2




Exhibit
10.2

 

Summary
of Management Incentive Compensation Plan

 

The
Company’s Management Incentive Compensation Plan establishes each participant’s
incentive target as a percentage of the participant’s base salary. The amount of
the actual bonus payment could range from zero to double the incentive target,
based upon the extent to which the pre-established annual financial goals are
met or exceeded. The financial goals for 2005 are based on the net income of the
Company during fiscal 2005. 

 

Each
participant will receive 30%, and has the right to elect to receive up to 100%,
of his or her bonus payment in restricted shares of the Company’s common stock
in lieu of cash. If such an election is made to receive additional restricted
stock, then the amount of the bonus will be grossed up by a “risk premium” of
150% with respect to that portion in excess of 30% thereof elected to be
received in restricted stock. All shares of restricted stock will vest 25% on
each of the first and second anniversaries of the grant date and 50% on the
third anniversary of the grant date. The number of shares of restricted stock
that a participant receives will be determined by the average closing price of
the Company’s common stock during December and January immediately preceding the
grant date.

 

Up to 30%
of a participant’s bonus may be determined by such participant’s individual
performance.

 

The
Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of the
Company has the discretion to adjust the net income targets for acquisitions or
major capital expenditures or any other exogenous shocks that the Committee
determines to be important, or to pay or not pay the bonuses for 2005 for any
reason.
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                             
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|West Coast (PADD 5) Natural Gas Consumed at Refineries (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|West Coast (PADD 5) Natural Gas Consumed at Refineries (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         | 58,917  | 80,334  | 85,947  | 80,392  | 85,518 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 100,709 | 95,021  | 88,250  | 87,060  | 81,475  | NA      | 103,477 | NA      | 116,654 | 122,733
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 135,141 | 123,133 | 136,783 | 132,350 | 124,784 | 123,271 | 126,190 | 133,713 | 139,950 | 136,221
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 151,808 | 156,599 | 159,849 | 177,103 | 186,011 | 177,513 | 184,740 | 182,852 | 184,214 | 187,889
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 192,734 | 182,277 | 200,651 | 184,769 |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 21319.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 23, 1940.

*946B. A. Hamilton, of Jasper, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for murder. The punishment assessed is confinement in the st.ate penitentiary for a period of four years.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment and all matters of procedure appear regular.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22

- 0561

________________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF
L .B. , Youth in need of Care.

__________________________________________________ ___________ ORDER

Upon consideration of Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellant in this matter shall file a response to this motion within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The response must be served upon all counsel of record, including the Attorney General, the County Attorney, and the Appellate Defender’s Office. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court give notice of this Order by mail to all counsel of record and to the Appellant at his last known address.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 29 2022

12/29/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0561
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1043 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1043

    To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds for constructing, 
 positioning, or modifying highway signs that are expressed in metric 
                          system measurements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1993

  Mrs. Byrne introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds for constructing, 
 positioning, or modifying highway signs that are expressed in metric 
                          system measurements.

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

SECTION 1. METRIC SYSTEM SIGNING.

    (a) No Federal funds may be expended to construct, erect, or 
otherwise place any sign relating to any speed limit, any distance, or 
any other measurement, on any highway if such sign establishes such 
speed limit, distance, or other measurement using the metric system.
    (b) No Federal funds may be expended to modify any sign relating to 
any speed limit, any distance, or any other measurement on any highway 
for the conversion of such sign to the metric system.
    (c) For purposes of subsections (a) and (b)--
            (1) the term ``highway'' means a highway as defined in 
        section 101 of title 23, United States Code; and
            (2) the term ``metric system'' means metric system of 
        measurement as defined in section 4 of the Metric Conversion 
        Act of 1975 (15 U.S.C. 205c).

                                 <all>
```