alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Gilberto Silva, Appellant, v Charles Scully, as Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Gilberto Silva, Appellant, v Charles Scully, as Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.)

1) In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a Hearing Officer dated March 18, 1988, which, after a hearing, *inter alia,*found the petitioner guilty of "fighting” and imposed a penalty, *inter alia,*of two years’ confinement in a special housing unit (proceeding No. 1), the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (West, J.), entered November 1, 1988, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding and (2) in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a Hearing Officer dated May 25, 1988, which, after a rehearing, *inter alia,*found him guilty of "fighting” and imposed a penalty, *inter alia,*of 18 months’ confinement in a special housing unit (proceeding No. 2), the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), entered June 14, 1989, which dismissed the proceeding as time barred.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination dated March 18, 1988, was vacated based *453upon a procedural impropriety by the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, who directed a new hearing pursuant to 7 NYCRR 254.8 (d). Accordingly, the determination under review did not constitute a final order, and is not reviewable. In any event, we note that the Commissioner’s direction of a new hearing was within the proper exercise of his discretion.

After the new hearing, the petitioner was again found guilty of "fighting”, which determination the Commissioner confirmed on July 6, 1988. Because the petitioner did not commence a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 until on or about December 22, 1988, the Supreme Court properly dismissed it as time barred. Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, there is no basis to apply the tolling provision set forth in CPLR 205 (a). Lawrence, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL BONUS PROGRAM



 EXHIBIT 10.3 
  
 Summary of Annual Bonus Program 
 (Approved July 27, 2004) 
  
 Mercury’s Executive Bonus program provides additional cash compensation based on achieving personal, business unit and corporate goals. An executive’s individual bonus program is determined based on position, title,
responsibilities, and total target cash compensation, and is subject to change from year to year. 
  
 Target Award as % of Base Salary 
  
 The target award ranges from 35% to 70% of base salary depending upon position. 
  

				
	 Position

	  	 Target Award
 % of base

	 
	 CEO
	  	70	%
	 Senior VP
	  	45	%
	 Corporate VP
	  	35 to 45	%

  
 Bonus Components 
  
 Bonus opportunities are comprised of two components: 
  

	 	•	 	Individual (Management by Objectives—MBO) 

  

	 	•	 	Corporate Financial (Revenue, Profit, & Working Capital) 

  
 The target award % combines both MBO Bonus and the Corporate Financial Bonus and is weighted according to position. Financial based goals are established
as part of the annual operating budget at the start of the fiscal year. 
  

					
	 Position

	  	Corporate
(Revenue & Profit)

	  	Weightings%
Individual
(MBO)


	 CEO
	  	60	  	40
	 Senior VP
	  	55	  	45
	 Corporate VP
	  	0-50	  	50-100
## GUADALUPE COUNTY

211 W. 1Court: St.

. Seguin, TX 78155-5730

; ', ':.

### Debr~ 

## Crow, District Clerk. •· ·

Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station**~ustin,** Texas 78711 ".:"'-. ;' ,-r,.: '·-:**~** .-.

·**:~hone:** (830)**303~8873** ·· .. Fax: (S30)**3~9-1943**

. ,**~** . >. ·,



## · . . AIOOIA

. Re:

### 01-1045~CR The State of Texas VS. John David Kohlberg

### ~,CO~vtk We received the Order from the Court of Appeals on June .18t\ 2015 requiring a response as to why we'had not filed the defendant's application for wrh of habeas ' '**~** corp4s·.· ·upon further research, we '11ave**nofrec~ived -~iwrit**  of habeas**,coq)u~Jrom** : ' the defendant on this case. The lastknown filing from Mr. Kohlberg was dated January 8th, 2014 titled: "Motion**Re:4l.l;esti~g.Credit** for Back Time". This motion was submitted to the judge and was' re,tumea denied.

.. . ·.**~** Please contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns at (830) 303- 8879. Thank-you and have a great day! Debra Crow, District Clerk Guadalupe County Justice Center 211 West Court Street, Suite 209 Seguin, Texas 78155
#### In the Matter of Floyd A. Young, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Fourth Department,

June 7, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Gerard M. LaRusso*for petitioner.

*Floyd A. Young,*respondent *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this court on June 28, 1978. The petition in this matter was served on respondent by publication and by mailing a copy thereof to his last known address pursuant to an order of this court entered November 1, 1990. The order granted an application by the Grievance *27Committee for substitute service alleging that respondent has fled the jurisdiction of this court to escape a Federal warrant for his arrest.

The petition alleges that in three separate actions respondent forged his clients’ name to general releases, notarized the signatures, delivered the forged releases to the respective insurance companies, forged his clients’ name to the checks issued by the insurance companies in settlement of the individual claims, and converted the proceeds of those checks. Respondent’s failure to appear, answer or otherwise move against the petition constitutes an admission of those charges *(Matter of Supples,*102 AD2d 699; *Matter of Hunt,*40 AD2d 9; *Matter of Krieger,*38 AD2d 238). Accordingly, we find respondent guilty of violating DR 1-102 (A) (4); DR 1-102 (A) (6); DR 9-102 (A); DR 9-102 (B) (1) and DR 9-102 (B) (4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he should be disbarred.

Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ., concur.

Order of disbarment entered.
#### BAILEY v. STATE.

No. 21488.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 12, 1941.

Kelley & Prichard, of Odessa, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge. .

The conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol; the penalty assessed is a fine of $125.

*852No such notice of appeal appears in the record as will confer jurisdiction on this court. There is a notation which seems to have been made by the court on his docket that the defendant gave notice of appeal, but this is not sufficient. The notice of appeal must be entered upon the minutes of the court. See Art. 827, C.C.P.; Branch’s Ann.Tex.P.C., sec. 588; Neloms v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 146 S.W.2d 389, and cases cited.

The appeal is dismissed.

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.
N OTE : This o rder is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

MARK A. TROUTT, Claimant

- Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Se cretary of Ve ter ans A ffairs , Respondent

- Appellee.

______________________

2014

- 7001

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 13

- 441, Judge William Greenberg.

______________________

P ER C URIAM

O R D E R

Upon review of this recently docketed appeal, it a ppears that this court may lack jurisdiction over Mark A. Troutt’s appeal

. A March 2012 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”)
decision remanded Troutt’s claim of entitlement to a fee

basis outpatient identification card for further develo pment and adjudication. Troutt subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) , which dismissed his appeal because
the Board’s decision was not final. Case: 14-7001 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 10/30/2013TROUTT v. SHINSEKI 2

On July 15

, 2013, the Veterans Court entered its judgment in Troutt’s case. Troutt’s notice of appeal was
received on September 27, 2013, 74 days after the date of judgment. To be timely, a notice of appeal must be r eceiv ed by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims within 60 days of the entry of judgment. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) Troutt is directed to show cause, within 30 days of the date of filing of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may also respond within that time

. (2) The briefing schedule is stayed.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’ Toole Clerk

s26 Case: 14-7001 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 10/30/2013
IIA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1385

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 22 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 7), 1993

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets

Act of 1968 to allow formula grants to be used to prosecute persons driving while intoxicated.

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

3 SECTION 1. GRANT PROGRAM DESCRIPTION.

4 Section 501(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Con5 trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended—

6 (1) by striking the period at the end of para7 graph (21) and adding ‘‘; and’’; and

8 (2) by adding at the end the following:
2

•HR 1385 RFS

1 ‘‘(22) programs for the prosecution of driving

2 while intoxicated and the enforcement of other laws

3 relating to alcohol use and the operation of motor

4 vehicles.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 21,

1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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


I, David Lieberman, Chief Accounting Officer ofWorld Health Energy Holdings, Inc.,(the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
 
 (1) The  Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 operations of the Company.
 
  /s/David LiebermanDavid LiebermanChief Accounting Officer
 Date: November 12, 2010





_______________
 
 This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the  electronic  version 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ON SCHEDULE
             ----------------------------------------------------



We have audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the
consolidated financial statements of Information Management Associates, Inc.
included in this Form 10-K and have issued our report thereon dated March 3,
1999.  Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic
financial statements taken as a whole.  The schedule listed in the index to
consolidated financial statements is the responsibility of the Company's
management and is presented for purposes of complying with the Securities and
Exchange Commissions rules and is not part of the basic financial statements.
This schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit
of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, fairly states in all
material respects the financial data required to be set forth therein in
relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.


                                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Hartford, Connecticut
March 3, 1999
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for Special Committee 147 meeting to be held February 29-March 1, 2000, starting at 9 a.m. each day. The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC, 20036.

The agenda will include: February 29: (1) Requirements Working Group Meeting. March 1: 9 a.m.-1 p.m. (2) Requirements Working Group Meeting continues; 1 p.m.-5 p.m. (3) Plenary Session: (a) Welcome and Introductory Remarks: (b) Review and Approve Previous Meeting; (c) Report and Discuss Requirements Working Group Activities; (d) Discuss Future SC-147 Activities and Plans; (4) Other Business; (5) Date and Location of Next Meeting; (6) Closing.

Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC, 20036; (202) 833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org (web site). Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 4, 2000.

Janice L. Peters,

Designated Official.

[FR Doc. 00-3079 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 156 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 156

  To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide that, 
    under the national flood insurance program, payment for a flood 
 insurance claim for substantial damage incurred by a structure shall 
include amounts for 75 percent of the costs of elevating the structure 
 to the height necessary to comply with the requirements for continued 
                       flood insurance coverage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. Deutsch (for himself, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and Ms. Meek) introduced 
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Banking and 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide that, 
    under the national flood insurance program, payment for a flood 
 insurance claim for substantial damage incurred by a structure shall 
include amounts for 75 percent of the costs of elevating the structure 
 to the height necessary to comply with the requirements for continued 
                       flood insurance coverage.

    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 ``Flood Elevation Reimbursement Act of 
1993''.

SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF COSTS OF ELEVATING STRUCTURES.

    Section 1306 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
4013) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Coverage of Elevation Costs.--Pursuant to an approved claim 
in accordance with the regulations issued to carry out this title, if 
any structure covered by a contract for flood insurance incurs damage 
or loss arising from any flood that is equal to or exceeds 50 percent 
of the value of the structure before such damage or loss, the payment 
under the flood insurance contract for such claim shall include, to the 
extent of the coverage under such contract, amounts for the costs of 
elevating such structure to the height necessary for the structure to 
be eligible for a new contract for flood insurance under this title, 
except that in no case may such amounts exceed 75 percent of such 
costs.''.

SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by section 2 shall apply to any 
damage or loss incurred on or after August 24, 1992.
    (b) Retroactive Payments.--The Director of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency shall provide for making any additional payments 
required by such amendment under any claims for such damage that were 
approved before the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

November 6, 2013

h1105 

# Order

Clerk November 6, 2013

147171

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147171

COA: 308868

Wayne CC: 11

- 008924

- FJ

MENDO ROMAN LOVE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 25, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appear ing to this Court that the

case of People v Eliason (Docket No. 147428) is pending on appeal before this Court and

that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be h eld in ABEYANCE pending the

decision in that case.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 232 (Friday, December 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30627]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bureau of Labor Statistics


Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee; Notice of Open 
Meeting and Agenda

    The second meeting of the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory 
Committee will be held on December 14-15, 2000 in the Postal Square 
Building, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC.
    The Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee is a technical 
committee composed of economists, statisticians, and behavioral 
scientists who are recognized for their attainments and objectivity in 
their respective fields. Committee members are called upon to analyze 
issues involved in producing Federal economic statistics and recommend 
practices that will lead to optimum efficiency, effectiveness, and 
cooperation among the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 
and the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau 
of the Census.
    The meeting will be held in Meeting Rooms 1 and 2 of the Postal 
Square Building Conference Center. The schedule and agenda for the 
meeting are as follows:

Thursday, December 14

9:30 a.m.--Opening Session
    1. Introduction of new members and statements of their research 
interests
    2. Report of working group on establishment list project
10:00 a.m.--Business Surveys: The response task and quality of 
collected data
1:15 p.m.--Expert Practitioner: Employee stock options
2:45 p.m.--Related issues in compensation measurement
4:15 p.m.--Priorities for future meetings, Part I
4:45 p.m.--Conclude (approximate time)

Friday, December 15

9:00 a.m.--Service sector measurement
    1. Overview
    2. Service sector priorities
    3. Challenging cases for service sector price and output 
measurement
Noon--Priorities for future meetings, Part II
12:30 p.m.--Conclude (approximate time)
    The meeting is open to the public. It is suggested that persons 
planning to attend the meeting as observers contact Margaret 
Johnson, Federal Economic Research Advisory Committee, on Area Code 
(202) 691-5600. Persons needing special assistance such as sign 
language interpretation or other special accommodations in order to 
attend the meeting are asked to contact Ms. Johnson at least two 
days prior to the meeting date.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. the 27th day of November 2000.
Katharine G. Abraham,
Commissioner of Labor Statistics.
[FR Doc. 00-30627 Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-24-P
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1518

To repeal the Service Contract Act of 1965.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 30, 1993

Mr. BOEHNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To repeal the Service Contract Act of 1965.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SERVICE CONTRACT ACT OF 1965.

4 (a) REPEAL.—The Service Contract Act of 1965 (41

5 U.S.C. 351 et seq.) is repealed.

6 (b) SAVINGS.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), the

7 Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 351 et seq.), as

8 in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall

9 apply to a contract entered into before the date of the en10 actment of this Act as if this section were not enacted.

®
IC 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 167 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 22, 2017 

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

AN ACT 

To designate a National Memorial to Fallen Educators at 

the National Teachers Hall of Fame in Emporia, Kansas. 

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


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

S 167 RFH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Memorial to 

3 Fallen Educators Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The memorial to fallen educators 

6 located at the National Teachers Hall of Fame in Empo7 ria, Kansas, is designated as the ‘‘National Memorial to 

8 Fallen Educators’’. 

9 (b) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.—The national memo10 rial designated by this section is not a unit of the National 

11 Park System and the designation of the National Memo12 rial to Fallen Educators shall not require or permit Fed13 eral funds to be expended for any purpose related to that 

14 national memorial. 

Passed the Senate December 21, 2017. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS