alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Geigel, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered on January 23, 1984, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree and sentencing him to 5 to 15 years in prison, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was charged with kidnapping his 16-year-old cousin on the evening of July 4, 1982 and repeatedly pistol whipping, raping, and sodomizing her through the night and into the early morning of the following day. At his arraignment on March 7, 1983, a prepleading investigation was ordered. As a result of the investigation, a report was submitted to the court on April 28, 1983, at which time the court *sua sponte*ordered the Department of Probation to supplement the report with a psychiatric evaluation. On May 10, 1983, the Department updated the report but informed the court that the psychiatric evaluation had not yet been conducted. The evaluation was, in fact, never made. After numerous intervening court appearances, on January 23, 1984, defendant pleaded guilty to rape in the first degree in satisfaction of the indictment. His attorney agreed to proceed to sentence on the basis of the prepleading report, noting that defendant had been in continuous custody since his arrest and there were no new circumstances requiring an updated report.

While the court had originally requested a psychiatric evaluation as part of the prepleading investigation, on appeal defendant does not argue that his plea should not have been accepted without the evaluation but only that he should not have been sentenced without it. In any case, contrary to defendant’s argument, we find that the court was within its discretion in reconsidering its prior request for an evaluation. *(People v Buchicchio,*116 AD2d 729; CPL 390.30 [2].) Indeed, there is no evidence that a psychiatric evaluation was necessary to a fair sentencing decision in this case, and we find *230that, under the circumstances herein, the prepleading report was sufficiently current and complete to satisfy the requirements of CPL 390.20 (1). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 3.6


                       FOURTH CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO THE
                 AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                         OF
                           FURR'S/BISHOP'S, INCORPORATED

                      _______________________________________

                      PURSUANT TO SECTION 103 AND SECTION 242
                         OF THE GENERAL CORPORATION LAW OF
                               THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                       _______________________________________

     The undersigned, Phillip Ratner, certifies that he is the President of
Furr's/Bishop's, Incorporated, a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), and does hereby further
certify as follows:


     FIRST: The name of the Corporation is Furr's/Bishop's, Incorporated.

     SECOND: This Certificate of Amendment to the Corporation's Amended and
Restated Certificate of Incorporation was unanimously approved by the Board of
Directors of the Corporation and thereafter duly adopted by the stockholders of
the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     THIRD: Article FOURTH of the Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended as follows:

     Section 4.01 of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of
the Corporation entitled "Authorized Shares" is hereby amended to read in its
entirety as follows:

     "SECTION 4.01 AUTHORIZED SHARES.  The aggregate number of shares of all
classes of capital stock which the Corporation is authorized to issue is 20
million shares, consisting of 15.0 million shares of Common Stock, par value
$.01 per share ("Common Stock") and 5 million shares of preferred stock, par
value $.01 per share ("Preferred Stock").  Each outstanding share of Common
Stock as of the effectiveness of this amendment shall be converted into and
reconstituted as one-tenth of a share of Common Stock.  No fractional shares
shall be issued in the conversion and reconstitution and stockholders shall
receive cash in lieu of such fractional shares."

     FOURTH: This amendment shall become effective at 5:00 p.m. on the date of
filing.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Third Certificate of
Amendment to its Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to be signed
by Phillip Ratner, its President and Chief Executive Officer, this 8th day of
December 1999.

                              Furr's/Bishop's, Incorporated

                              By:  /s/ PHILLIP RATNER
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                 Phillip Ratner
                                 President and
                                 Chief Executive Officer


                                      27
Exhibit 4.0

                           CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION
                           SERIES "B" PREFERRED STOCK

         The Series "B" Preferred Stock ("Series "A" Stock") shall consist of
100,000 shares, par value $0.001 per share. The preferences, rights and
privileges of the Series "B" Stock shall be as follows:

         o        Dividends shall be declared and set aside for any shares of
                  the Series" B" Stock in the same manner as the Common Stock;

         o        Each holder of Series "B" Stock shall be entitled to vote on
                  all matters for which the shareholder of the corporation have
                  the right to vote and shall be entitled to 250 votes per
                  share. Except as otherwise expressly provided by the Nevada
                  Business Corporation Act, the holders of shares of Series "B"
                  Stock and Common Stock shall vote together as a single class
                  on all matters;

         o        In the event of any liquidation, dissolution or winding up of
                  the corporation, the holders of the Series "B" Stock shall be
                  entitled to be paid out of the assets of the corporation
                  available for distribution to its shareholders in the same
                  manner as, and without preference over, the holders of Common
                  Stock.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1946 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1946

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow unpopulated census 
 tracts that are contiguous to low-income communities to be treated as 
        low-income communities under the new markets tax credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 5, 2017

 Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow unpopulated census 
 tracts that are contiguous to low-income communities to be treated as 
        low-income communities under the new markets tax credit.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN UNPOPULATED CENSUS TRACTS UNDER NEW 
              MARKETS TAX CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Section 45D(e)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``is within'' and inserting ``is--
                            ``(i) within'';
            (2) by striking ``and'' at the end and inserting ``or''; 
        and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
                            ``(ii) a census tract with a population of 
                        zero, and''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to investments made after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Director Compensation Summary



 Exhibit 10.3 
  
 PACER INTERNATIONAL, INC. 
  
 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION SUMMARY 
  
 The members of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Pacer International, Inc. (the “Company”) who are employees of the Company do
not receive compensation for their service on the Board or any committee of the Board but are reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses. Directors who are not employees of the Company receive a monthly retainer of $4,000, and $3,000 for each
meeting of the Board that they attend. In addition, non-employee directors are granted options to purchase 12,000 shares of the Company’s common stock under its 2002 stock option plan.
**Exhibit 32: Section 1350 Certifications**

I, Barbara A. Manzolillo, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, certify this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Medical Information Technology, Inc. (MEDITECH) for the period ended June 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MEDITECH.

July 31, 2008(Date)

Barbara A. Manzolillo, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Signature)

I, A. Neil Pappalardo, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, certify this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Medical Information Technology, Inc. (MEDITECH) for the period ended June 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MEDITECH.

July 31, 2008(Date)

A. Neil Pappalardo, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman(Signature)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Heavy-Duty Hybrid Onboard Diagnostics

FROM: Amy Kopin

TO: The Docket

DATE: July 15, 2011

On May 16th, 2011 we held a conference call with Azure to discuss concerns raised by

hybrid manufacturers regarding heavy-duty onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirements and timing. 

Concerns were raised during the comment period for the heavy-duty greenhouse gas notice of 

proposed rulemaking that heavy-duty hybrid applications may not be able to meet the 2013 

heavy-duty OBD regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD Final Rulemaking.

1,2

 

Attendees from this meeting are shown in the table below.

Attendee Affiliation 

Cleophas Jackson EPA – Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division 

Anthony Neam EPA – Assessment and Standards Division 

Amy Kopin EPA – Assessment and Standards Division 

Jim Mancuso Azure

Mike Kiers Azure

Nicolas Bouchon Azure

 

1 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Mediumand Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,” republished December 29, 2010. Available here: 

http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/html/2010-32726.htm

2 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule 

Regulations Requiring Onboard Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines Used in Highway 

Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty 

Vehicles Under 14,000 Pounds,” published February 24, 2009. Available here: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obd-frm-02-24-09-notice-74-fr-8310.pdf

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1272 

To provide for the conversion of a temporary judgeship for the district 

of Hawaii to a permanent judgeship. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 3, 2009 

Ms. HIRONO (for herself and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for the conversion of a temporary judgeship for 

the district of Hawaii to a permanent judgeship. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONVERSION OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP TO 

4 PERMANENT JUDGESHIP FOR THE DISTRICT 

5 OF HAWAII. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The existing judgeship for the dis7 trict of Hawaii authorized by section 203(c) of the Judicial 

8 Improvements Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 133 note; Public 

9 Law 101–650; 104 Stat. 5089) shall, as of the date of 

10 enactment of this Act, be authorized under section 133 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1272 IH

1 of title 28, United States Code, and the incumbent in that 

2 office shall hold the office under section 133 of title 28, 

3 United States Code, as amended by this Act. 

4 (b) TABLES.—In order that the table contained in 

5 section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, will reflect 

6 the change in the total number of permanent district 

7 judgeships authorized as a result of subsection (a) of this 

8 section, the item relating to Hawaii is amended to read 

9 as follows: 

‘‘Hawaii .............................................................................................. 4’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20650 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MOISES LUNA, also known as Luna Moises, also known as Moses Luna, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-53-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Moises Luna appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after previous deportation. Luna contends that the district court erred in treating his Texas burglary of a habitation conviction as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). As Luna concedes, his argument has been rejected by this court. See United States v. ValdezMaltos , 443 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied ,No. 05-20650 -2- 2006 WL 2094539 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2006) (No. 06-5473); United States v. Garcia-Mendez , 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006). Luna also challenges, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than as elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Luna contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Luna properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30298]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[OMB Control No. 2900-0154]


Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans 
Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 
(44 U.S.C., 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Veterans 
Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has 
submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA 
submission describes the nature of the information collection and its 
expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection 
instrument.

DATE: Comments must be submitted on or before December 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY OF THE SUBMISSION CONTACT: Denise 
McLamb, Information Management Service (045A4), Department of Veterans 
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8030 
or FAX (202) 273-5981. Please refer to ``OMB Control No. 2900-0154.''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Application for VA Education Benefits, VA Form 22-1990.
    OMB Control Number: 2900-0154.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Abstract: Veterans and members of the selected reserve must 
complete VA Form 22-1990, Application for Education Benefits, in order 
to receive VA educational assistance allowance. The information on the 
application is used to determine the applicant's eligibility to 
education benefits.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The Federal Register Notice with a 
60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of 
information was published on August 17, 2000, at pages 50275 and 50276.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 73,554 hours.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent: 35 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Only once.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 126,093.
    Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the 
information collection to VA's Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and 
Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, 
DC 20503 (202) 395-7316. Please refer to ``OMB Control No. 2900-0154'' 
in any correspondence.

    Dated: October 31, 2000.
    By direction of the Secretary.
Donald L. Neilson,
Director, Information Management Service.
[FR Doc. 00-30298 Filed 11-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001011449
<NAME> SUBURBAN LODGES OF AMERICA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           6,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                       235
<INVENTORY>                                      2,279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,463
<PP&E>                                         296,010
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,911
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 322,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,584
<BONDS>                                        101,040
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                     210,823
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   322,978
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,095
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,416
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    888
<INCOME-TAX>                                       333
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                555
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       555
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1802 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend the maximum time a 

person may serve as an acting officer. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 

Mr. GARDNER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend the 

maximum time a person may serve as an acting officer. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TIME LIMITATION. 

4 Section 3346 of title 5, United States Code, is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘210’’ each place that term appears 

6 and inserting ‘‘365’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Calvin Smith, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: None of defendant’s contentions requires reversal of his convictions for first degree rape and second degree robbery. The victim’s pretrial identification of defendant was not impermissibly suggestive and, in any event, the victim had an independent basis to support her trial testimony, given the lengthy face to face conversation she had with the defendant in the bar prior to the incident. Moreover, on this record, the victim’s testimony was not impermissibly bolstered and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant’s sentence is not harsh and excessive. His remaining contentions addressed to the court’s charge were not preserved for review and do not require reversal in any event. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.—rape, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.