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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 120

To provide that funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may not

be used to purchase articles of packaged food not packaged in the

United States or its possessions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To provide that funds appropriated to the Department of

Defense may not be used to purchase articles of

packaged food not packaged in the United States or

its possessions.

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

3 That funds appropriated to the Department of Defense

4 may not be used by the Secretary of Defense or the Sec5 retary of a military department to purchase an article of

6 packaged food that was not packaged in the United

7 States or its possessions.

Æ
H. J. Res. 38 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine 

Joint Resolution 

Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2009, and for other 

purposes. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (division A of Public Law 

110–329) is amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3) 

and inserting ‘‘March 11, 2009’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND VICECHAIR OF THE MINOR COURT RULES 

COMMITTEE

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 530

MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2023, Magisterial District Judge Daniel E. Butler 

is hereby designated as Chair, and Magisterial District Judge James R. Edgcomb is hereby 

designated as Vice-Chair, of the Minor Court Rules Committee, commencing April 1, 2023.
Exhibit 10.1


 


VENAXIS, INC.

AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED 2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN,

 AS AMENDED


EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2015


This Amendment No. 8, dated and effective September 1, 2015 (the "Amendment") is an amendment to the 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and restated on June 1, 2007, as amended (the "Plan"), of Venaxis, Inc., formerly known as AspenBio Pharma, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the "Company").  All capitalized terms used in this Amendment without definition have the meanings set forth in the Plan.


WHEREAS, Section 20(a) of the Plan authorizes the Board of Directors of the Company to make amendments to the Plan, subject to shareholder approval as required by law or agreement.


WHEREAS, on June 1, 2015, the Board approved an amendment to the Plan to increase the number of shares available for awards under the Plan from by 2,000,000 shares from 3,673,127 to 5,673,127 shares, and submitted the amendment to the Company's shareholders for approval at the annual meeting of shareholders held on September 1, 2015.


WHEREAS, on September 1, 2015, the shareholders approved the foregoing amendment to the Plan.


NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound, and in accordance with the approvals set forth in the WHEREAS clauses, which are incorporated by reference into this Amendment, the Company amends the Plan as follows:


1.            Section 4 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and is replaced by the following:


"4.            The Common Stock. The Board is authorized to appropriate, issue and sell for the purposes of the Plan, and the Option Committee is authorized to grant Options and Rights to Purchase with respect to, a total number, not in excess of 5,673,127 shares of Common Stock, either treasury or authorized but unissued or the number and kind of shares of stock or other securities which in accordance with Section 16 of this Plan shall be substituted for the 5,673,127 shares or into which such 5,673,127 shares shall be adjusted. All or any unsold shares subject to an Option or Right to Purchase that for any reason expires or otherwise terminates may again be made subject to Options or Rights to Purchase under the Plan. No person may be granted Options or Rights to Purchase under this Plan covering in excess of an aggregate of 500,000 Option Shares and shares of Restricted Stock in any calendar year, subject to adjustments in connection with Section 16 of this Plan."


2.            Except as amended by this Amendment, the Plan continues in full force and effect.


3.            In the event of a conflict between this Amendment and the Plan, this Amendment shall govern.
#### Diane Sullivan, Respondent, v Kevin Sullivan, Appellant.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), entered June 30, 1989, as directed him to pay the plaintiff wife the sum of $230 per week child support ($115 per week per child), directed him to provide and maintain at his own expense, a life insurance policy with unencumbered benefits of not less than $100,000 for the benefit of the plaintiff until her death or remarriage and thereafter for the children, unless emancipated, directed him to maintain medical insurance for the benefit of the children until they reach the age of 21 years or are otherwise emancipated, and awarded the plaintiff $44,920 due under the terms of a separation agreement between the parties.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Inasmuch as the defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a downward modification of his contractual obliga*614tions, the Supreme Court properly enforced the terms of the parties’ separation agreement. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
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 on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund V L.P., Series 3 (the "Partnership") for the quarters ended December
31, 2004,  September 30 2004 and June 30, 2004 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  and  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.,  section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of
WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  except to the extent
          that  such  provisions  require  the  audit  report  of Local  Limited
          Partnership financial statements to refer to the auditing standards of
          the Public Company  Accounting  Oversight Board for the  Partnership's
          annual financial statements and except that the Report is a cumulative
          report  covering each of the quarters ended December 31,  September 30
          and June 30, 2004; and

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




/s/Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
October 5, 2009
#### In the Matter of the Town of Hamburg, Respondent, v Louis Vergos, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: The order on appeal declared premises at 3246 and 3252 Lakeshore Road in the Town of Hamburg a public nuisance and authorized the town to advertise for bids to demolish structures thereon. That order is characterized by the parties on appeal as a grant of summary judgment to the town. It was based on a notice of motion, an affidavit and an unsworn report by the town, designated "petitioner”, and an opposing affidavit by the property owner, designated "respondent”, but there was no underlying petition. The town’s submission failed to establish by evidence in admissible form its entitlement as a matter of law to the relief demanded *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562). Thus, to the extent that it could be viewed as a motion for summary judgment, such motion should have been denied. If this matter is to proceed further, conversion to a special proceeding or an action is required *(see,*CPLR 103). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — public nuisance.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
EXHIBIT
      32.2





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 Advanced Plant Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
      (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
      hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
      knowledge:





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





2.
      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.





3.
      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.




Date:
                  November 19, 2007
                By:
                /s/ David
                  LiebermanDAVID
                      LIEBERMAN
                    Chief
                      Financial Officer
Employment Agreement between Registrant and Jeffery A. Bryson



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 Employment Agreement Addendum 
  

ScanSource, Inc. (the “Company”) entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) effective January 1, 2004 with Jeffery A.
Bryson (the “Employee”). The Company and the Employee seek to amend the Agreement through this Employment Agreement Addendum (the “Addendum”) as permitted under paragraph 13 subsection (g) of the Agreement. 
  
 Specifically, the parties agree to replace Exhibit A as attached to the
original Agreement and referenced in paragraph 4 in its entirety and substitute the new Exhibit A attached hereto. 
  
 The new Exhibit A acknowledged and agreed to in this Addendum are the only modifications to the Agreement. This Addendum shall not otherwise effect any
rights or obligations of the parties. Except as provided herein the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 Acknowledged and Agreed 
  
 Effective January 1, 2005 
  

							
	On Behalf Of	  	On Behalf Of
		
	ScanSource, Inc.	  	Employee
				
	By:	 	 Mike Baur

	  	By:	 	 Jeffery A. Bryson


	Its:	 	CEO	  	Title:	 	VP of Admin & Inv. Relations








 EXHIBIT A to EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 Executive: Jeff Bryson 
  
 Title: VP of Administration and Investor Relations 
  
 Employment period date: to December 31, 2005 
  

Base Salary: $185,000 annually 
  
 Incentive Compensation A cash bonus will be paid with respect to the Company’s Operating Income determined at the end of each quarter calculated by using the
table below. 
  
 For purposes of this Agreement, “Operating
Income” shall mean the amount reflected for the line item identified as Operating Income on the Employer’s audited consolidated financial statements for each respective fiscal year ending during the term of this Agreement and “Return
on Invested Capital” means an amount expressed as a percentage of: the Company’s annual (or annualized) EBITDA (net income plus interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) divided by average shareholder’s equity and interest
bearing debt (defined as the sum of shareholder’s equity plus interest bearing debt at the beginning of the period added to the sum of shareholder’s equity plus interest bearing debt at the end of the period, divided by 2). The
employer’s calculation of Operating Income, Return on Invested Capital, and the incentive bonus amount shall be conclusive and binding absent fraud or manifest and material error. 
  
 The amount of the incentive bonus will be calculated by multiplying operating income by a factor of .00072 and by a
percentage, as specified below: 
  

	 	•	 	100% if Return on Invested Capital is 30% or less and greater than 20% 

  

	 	•	 	115% if Return on Invested Capital exceeds 30% 

  

	 	•	 	90% if Return on Invested Capital is 20% or less and greater than 10% 

  

	 	•	 	70% if Return on Invested Capital is 10% or less 

  

			
	 Days of Paid Vacation per Fiscal Year:

	  	 Approving Person:


	 20
	  	CEO

  
 Executive Notice Address:

  
 102 Robin Road 
 Greenville, SC 29609
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7357

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICO LAMONT SPURLOCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District

Judge. (CR-95-29, CA-99-22)

Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: February 1, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rico Lamont Spurlock, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Rico Lamont Spurlock seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Spurlock, Nos. CR-95-29;

CA-99-22 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 30, 1999). 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
#### UNIVERSITY INTERSCHOLASTIC LEAGUE v. SIMS et al.

No. 2264—7383.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

July 26, 1939.

M. L. Lefler and E. B. Votaw, both of Beaumont, for plaintiff in error.

C. S. Pipkin, of Beaumont, and A. A. Gunter and A. V. Watson, II, both of Port Arthur, for defendants in error.

HICKMAN, Commissioner.

The nature of this case is reflected by the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. Ill S.W.2d 814. That court entered its order reversing the judgment of the trial cou.rt and remanding the cause thereto for, another trial. Admittedly the case is moot. In order to give this court jurisdiction to enter the correct order in a moot case, this writ was granted. The correct order to enter is one dismissing the case. McWhorter v. Northcutt, 94 Tex. 86, 58 S.W. 720; Thomason v. Seale, 122 Tex. 160, 53 S.W.2d 764; Sterling v. Ferguson, 122 Tex. 122, 53 S.W.2d 753; Taylor v. Nealon et al., Tex. Sup., 120 S.W.2d 586; Iles v. Walker, Tex.Sup., 120 S.W.2d 418; Cisco Independent School District v. Dudley, Tex.Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 639; International Ass’n of Machinists Union No. 1486, et al. v. Federated Association of Accessory Workers et al., Tex.Com.App., 130 S.W.2d 282, not yet reported [in State Reports].

It is therefore ordered that the judgments below be vacated, the case be dismissed, and all costs in ail courts be assessed. against defendants in error, who were plaintiffs in the trial court.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
# LTC Kevin Stringer, USA, a recent AJPME graduate, Published

/ Published April 29, 2016

LTC Kevin Stringer, USA, a recent AJPME graduate, published: *The Missing Lever: A Joint Military Advisory Command for Partner-Nation Engagement*in Joint Forces Quarterly, 2nd Quarter 2016.  The article can be found at: http://ndupress.ndu.edu/JFQ/JointForceQuarterly81/tabid/20903/Article/702041/the-missing-lever-a-joint-military-advisory-command-for-partner-nation-engageme.aspx
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 330 

Recognizing and honoring the commitment and sacrifices of military families 

of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2010 

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia (for himself and Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Recognizing and honoring the commitment and sacrifices 

of military families of the United States. 

Whereas November marks Military Family Month; 

Whereas the freedom and security the citizens of the United 

States enjoy today are a result of the continued dedication and vigilance of the Armed Forces throughout the 

history of the United States; 

Whereas the security of the United States depends on the 

readiness and retention of the men and women of the 

Armed Forces, a force comprised of active, National 

Guard, and Reserve personnel; 

Whereas military families are an integral source of strength 

for the soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and coastguardsmen of the United States, and have continually 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 330 IH 

proven their dedication, service, and willingness to make 

great sacrifices in support of servicemembers of the 

United States; 

Whereas military families often endure unique circumstances 

that are central to military life, including long separations from their loved ones, the uncertainty and demands 

of multiple deployments, school and job transfers, and 

frequent moves from communities where they have established roots and relationships; 

Whereas military family members have become the central 

support system for each other as they reinforce units 

through family readiness efforts and initiatives, support 

servicemembers within the units, and reach out to the 

families whose loved ones have been deployed; and 

Whereas it is important to recognize the sacrifices, support, 

and dedication of the families of the men and women who 

serve in the Armed Forces: Now, therefore be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) recognizes the commitment and ever-in4 creasing sacrifices military families make every day 

5 during the current era of protracted conflict; 

6 (2) honors the families of the Armed Forces 

7 and thanks the families for their dedication and 

8 service to the United States; and 

9 (3) encourages the citizens of the United States 

10 to recognize, commemorate, and honor the role and 

11 contribution of the military family, including selfless 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HCON 330 IH 

1 service that ensures freedom and preserves the qual2 ity of life in the United States. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 130 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 130

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require State medicaid 
programs to provide coverage of screening mammography and screening pap 
                                smears.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mrs. Collins of Illinois (for herself, Mrs. Schroeder, Mrs. Unsoeld, 
and Mrs. Vucanovich) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require State medicaid 
programs to provide coverage of screening mammography and screening pap 
                                smears.

    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 ``Medicaid Women's Basic Health 
Coverage Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRING MEDICAID COVERAGE OF SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY AND 
              SCREENING PAP SMEARS.

    (a) Requirement.--Section 1905(a)(17) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(17)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(17)'', and
            (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
        following: ``, (B) screening mammography (as defined in section 
        1861(jj)) conducted consistent with the frequency specified 
        under section 1834(c)(2), and (C) screening pap smears (as 
        defined in section 1861(nn))''.
    (b) Effective Date.--(1) The amendments made by subsection (a) 
apply (except as provided under paragraph (2)) to payments under title 
XIX of the Social Security Act for calendar quarters beginning on or 
after April 1, 1994, without regard to whether or not final regulations 
to carry out such amendments have been promulgated by such date.
    (2) In the case of a State plan for medical assistance under title 
XIX of the Social Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services determines requires State legislation (other than legislation 
authorizing or appropriating funds) in order for the plan to meet the 
additional requirement imposed by the amendments made by subsection 
(a), the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to comply with the 
requirements of such title solely on the basis of its failure to meet 
this additional requirement before the first day of the first calendar 
quarter beginning after the close of the first regular session of the 
State legislature that begins after the date of the enactment of this 
Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a State that 
has a 2-year legislative session, each year of such session shall be 
deemed to be a separate regular session of the State legislature.

                                 <all>
```