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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 207 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 207

To amend the Controlled Substances Act relating to controlled substance 
                               analogues.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2017

 Ms. Klobuchar (for herself, Mr. Graham, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Grassley, 
Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Tillis, and Mr. Warner) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Controlled Substances Act relating to controlled substance 
                               analogues.

    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 ``Synthetic Abuse and Labeling of 
Toxic Substances Act of 2017'' or the ``SALTS Act''.

SEC. 2. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALOGUES.

    Section 203 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 813) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``A controlled'' and inserting ``(a) In 
        General.--A controlled''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Determination.--In determining whether a controlled substance 
analogue was intended for human consumption under subsection (a), 
evidence related to the following factors may be considered, along with 
all other relevant evidence:
            ``(1) The marketing, advertising, and labeling of the 
        substance.
            ``(2) The known efficacy or usefulness of the substance for 
        the marketed, advertised, or labeled purpose.
            ``(3) The difference between the price at which the 
        substance is sold and the price at which the substance it is 
        purported to be or advertised as is normally sold.
            ``(4) The diversion of the substance from legitimate 
        channels and the clandestine importation, manufacture, or 
        distribution of the substance.
            ``(5) Whether the defendant knew or should have known the 
        substance was intended to be consumed by injection, inhalation, 
        ingestion, or any other immediate means.
    ``(c) Limitation.--For purposes of this section, the existence of 
evidence that a substance was not marketed, advertised, or labeled for 
human consumption shall not preclude the Government from establishing, 
based on all the evidence, that the substance was intended for human 
consumption.''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1820 

To provide for the retention and service of transgender members of the 

Armed Forces. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself, Mr. MCCAIN, Ms. COLLINS, and Mr. REED) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide for the retention and service of transgender 

members of the Armed Forces. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RETENTION AND SERVICE OF TRANSGENDER 

4 MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

5 (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con6 gress that individuals who are qualified and can meet the 

7 standards to serve in the military should be eligible to 

8 serve. 

9 (b) CERTAIN ACTIONS RELATING TO CURRENTLY

10 SERVING MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.—A curVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:02 Sep 19, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1820.IS S1820

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1820 IS

1 rently serving member of the Armed Forces may not be 

2 involuntarily separated from the Armed Forces, or denied 

3 reenlistment or continuation in service in the Armed 

4 Forces, solely on the basis of the member’s gender iden5 tity. Nothing in this subsection relieves a member from 

6 meeting applicable military and medical standards, includ7 ing deployability, or requires retention of the member in 

8 service if the member fails to meet such standards. 

9 (c) REVIEW OF ACCESSION OF TRANSGENDER INDI10 VIDUALS INTO THE ARMED FORCES.— 

11 (1) DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF REVIEW.— 

12 The Secretary of Defense shall complete the review 

13 of policy on the accession of transgender individuals 

14 into the Armed Forces announced by the Secretary 

15 on June 30, 2017, by not later than December 31, 

16 2017. 

17 (2) REPORT.—Not later than February 21, 

18 2018, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a com19 prehensive report on the results of the review of pol20 icy described in paragraph (1). 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

LEROY HARDEN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-2085

December 6, 2023

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for

Hillsborough County; Michael S. Williams, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, SMITH, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Exhibit 10


Exhibit 10.3




Sent via email to Probe’s Board of Directors on September 9/25/2008




Reza Zarif wrote:




I'm the biggest shareholder in the company, why would I resign from BOD because my contract was not renewed.  I resigned because of what I stated in my letters to BOD, and the consequence of being part of a board that does not exercises its fiduciary responsibilities.

 

All the best,

 

Reza
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC16

- 899

____________ TROY MERCK, JR., Appellant,

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [May 4, 2017]

PER CURIAM. Troy Merck, Jr., a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the circuit court’s order striking his motion to substitute Linda McDermott for the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel for the Middle Region (CCRC

- MR) as his counsel, as well as the successive postconviction mot ion that Ms. McDermott simultaneously filed on his behalf pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Ms. McDermott previously substituted for CCRC

- MR as Merck’s counsel in
federal court following the federal court’s determination that a conflict of interest- 2

-

precludes CCRC

- MR’s continued representation. Merck v. Sec’ y, Dep ’ t of Corr

. , 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152243, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2014). CCRC

- MR conceded below that the same conf lict of interest precludes its continued representation of Merck in state court. However, the circuit court struck the motions at issue as unauthorized after construing our decision in Suggs v. State , 152 So. 3d 471 (Fla. 2014), to condition the terminati on of an attorney’s representation upon the filing of a motion to withdraw, which CCRC

- MR has not filed. In so ruling, the circuit court erred. As we explained in Suggs , Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.505(f)(1)

- (3) “outlin[es] modes by which a n attorney’s appearance for a party terminates.” Suggs , 152 So. 3d at 472. Rule 2.505(f)(2) authorizes the termination of an attorney’s appearance through substitution of counsel, which is the method that Ms. McDermott sought in this case after we specif

ically directed her to do so in Merck v. State , No. SC15

- 1439, 2016 WL 104164, at *1 (Fla. Jan. 8, 2016) (dismissing a prior notice of appeal that Ms. McDermott filed on Merck’s behalf “without prejudice for [her] to seek
substitution of counsel in the cir cuit court pursuant to Suggs ”). Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s order and remand with instructions for the circuit court to enter an order substituting Ms. McDermott as Merck’s counsel upon the filing of Merck’s written consent to the substitut ion with the circuit court. Once Ms. McDermott has been substituted as counsel, we further- 3

-

direct the circuit court to address the successive rule 3.851 motion that she filed on Merck’s behalf.
It is so ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE , CANADY, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF FILED, DETERMINED. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Cynthia Joan Newton, Judge

- Case No. 521991CF016659XXXXNO Linda M cDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida; and Stephen D. Ake, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EL PASO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

DISTRICT, DR. LORENZO GARCIA,

AND MARK MENDOZA,

Appellants,

v.

MICHAEL McINTYRE AND

LAURA McINTYRE, INDIVIDUALLY

AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR

CHILDREN, K.M., L.M., C.M., M.M.,

AND L.M.,

Appellees. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 11

- 00329

- CV

Appeal from

327th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2007

- 3210)

J U D G M E N T

This Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes that there was error in

the judgment. We therefore (1) reverse all three disputed orders of the trial court; (2) render

judg ment dismissing all of the McIntyres’ state law claims against the District ; (3) dismiss all

c laims of any nature against Dr. Garcia and Mendoza with prejudice; ( 4 ) award Appellants their

costs and fees incurred herein and any such further relief to which they may be entitled; and (4)

remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings regarding the claims and counterclaims

that remain pending there, in accordance with this Court = s opinion. We further order that

Appellant s recover from Appellee s al l costs , both in this Court and the court below , for which let

execution issue, and this decision be certified below for observance.2

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 6 TH DAY OF AUGUST

, 2014.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
EX-10.1









EXHIBIT
10.1




ARCADIA RESOURCES, INC.

BOARD OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 

FOR OCTOBER 1, 2008 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2009




Approved on November 5, 2008




	 	 	 	 	 
	Annual Board Retainer (Per Director):
	 	$	25,000	 
	Board Meeting Fee (Per Director Per Meeting)
	 	$	1,500	 
	Annual Committee Chair Retainers:
	 	 	 	 
	— Audit Committee Chair
	 	$	15,000	 
	— Compensation Committee Chair
	 	$	10,000	 
	— Nominating & Governance Committee Chair
	 	$	10,000	 
	Annual Audit Committee Member Retainer (Per Member):
	 	$	5,000	 
	Committee Meeting Fee (Per Director Per Meeting)
	 	$	1,000	 
	Compensation for Meetings on Special Matters (One Time Payment Per Director)
	 	$	5,000	 
	Reimbursement for Travel Expenses:
	 	As Incurred	 






     The above-referenced compensation arrangements are for outside non-employed directors only.
The total annual fee for Board and Committee meeting attendance may be lower or higher for certain
Board members depending on committee assignments.




	 	•	 	Forty percent (40%) of the compensation will be payable in options to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock, with the number of options to be granted
determined by the Black-Sholes or other modeling technique. Options will vest
quarterly and are subject to forfeiture per existing director compensation
agreements.
	 
	 	•	 	Sixty percent (60%) of the compensation will be payable in cash. The cash will
be paid in two equal installments on March 31, 2009 and September 30, 2009.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 236 (Thursday, December 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 76705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30943]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33964]


V and S Railway, Inc.--Acquisition and Operation Exemption--
Central Kansas Railway, L.L.C.

    V and S Railway, Inc. (V&S), a noncarrier, has filed a verified 
notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire and to operate the 
Medicine Lodge Subdivision (line) of Central Kansas Railway, L.L.C. The 
line extends between milepost 0+1016', in Attica, and the end of the 
line at milepost 41.0, in Sun City, serving the intermediate points of 
Sharon, Medicine Lodge, and Lake City, a distance of approximately 41 
miles in Harper and Barber Counties, KS.
    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or after 
November 28, 2000.
    This transaction is related to STB Finance Docket No. 33965, Kern 
W. Schumacher and Morris H. Kulmer--Continuance in Control Exemption--V 
and S Railway, Inc., wherein Kern W. Schumacher and Morris H. Kulmer 
have concurrently filed a verified notice to continue in control of V&S 
upon its becoming a Class III rail carrier.
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the proceeding to 
revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. 
The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the 
transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33964, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on Fritz R. Kahn, Esq., 1920 N Street, NW., 8th Floor, 
Washington, DC 20036-1601.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: November 29, 2000.
    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30943 Filed 12-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40303

c/w No. 16-40313

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE DAVID BALDERAS-BUENO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-623-1

USDC No. 5:15-CR-1052-1

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose David 

Balderas-Bueno has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

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

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Balderas-Bueno has not filed a 

 

* 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

December 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40303 Document: 00513804766 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
No. 16-40303

c/w No. 16-40313

2

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

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

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

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

responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40303 Document: 00513804766 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
exv10w4






EXHIBIT 10.4




     On May 8, 2008, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Matrixx Initiatives,
Inc. (the “Company”) approved a cash bonus plan for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009
(the “2009 Plan”). The 2009 Plan is based on the Company’s achievement of specified
revenue and earnings levels for fiscal 2009. The 2009 Plan cash incentive award opportunity
afforded the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, William Hemelt, was as follows (expressed as a
percentage of his base salary of $270,800 (“Base Salary”)): 0% if the Company did not
achieve target levels; 40% if the Company achieved target levels; and up to 80% if the Company
exceeded target levels (see Item 5.02 of the Company’s Form 8-K, filed May 13, 2008).



     Effective October 21, 2008, Mr. Hemelt assumed the additional roles of Acting President and
Chief Operating Officer of the Company. In connection with Mr. Hemelt’s assumption of these
additional roles, the Compensation Committee, by action taken on October 21, 2008, approved
supplemental compensation payments to Mr. Hemelt in the amount of approximately $10,800 per month
(the total amount of supplemental compensation paid to Mr. Hemelt in fiscal 2009 shall be referred
to herein as the “Supplemental Compensation”) (see Item 5.02 of the Company’s Form 8-K,
filed October 22, 2008).



     By further action taken on October 23, 2008, the Compensation Committee also approved an
increase in Mr. Hemelt’s fiscal year 2009 cash bonus plan opportunity for the pro rata portion of
the Company’s fiscal year in which Mr. Hemelt will serve in such additional capacities.
Accordingly, Mr. Hemelt’s cash bonus opportunity for fiscal year 2009 is as follows:




	 	•	 	If the Company does not achieve its plan criteria, Mr. Hemelt will receive a
bonus of 0% of his Base Salary and 0% of his Supplemental Compensation.
	 
	 	•	 	If the Company achieves its plan criteria, Mr. Hemelt will receive 40% of his
Base Salary; and 45% of his Supplemental Compensation.
	 
	 	•	 	If the Company exceeds its plan criteria, Mr. Hemelt will receive up to 80% of
his Base Salary; and up to 90% of his Supplemental Compensation.
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of Brandmakers, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for three months ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/___________________
Timothy Minard
CEO
(Chief Executive Officer)

Dated: June 13, 2003

THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION IS BEING FURNISHED SOLELY PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 AND IS NOT BEING FILED AS PART OF THE REPORT OR AS A SEPARATE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20058

Conference Calendar

 

IVO NABELEK,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DENISE COLLINS, Judge,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CV-4083

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

August 20, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ivo Nabelek (“Nabelek”), Texas state prisoner #669748,

appeals the district court’s dismissal of his writ of mandamus

petition for lack of jurisdiction. Because his claims are not

cognizable for habeas review, Nabelek’s request for a certificate

of appealability (COA) is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. 

Nabelek argues that under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the district

court has jurisdiction to order a Texas state court judge to rule
No. 02-20058

-2-

on his pending motions. Federal courts are empowered to "issue

all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective

jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The relief requested by Nabelek would

not be in aid of the jurisdiction of a federal court. 

The district court did not err in dismissing Nabelek’s

mandamus petition because the court lacked authority to issue a

writ of mandamus directing the state court to rule on Nabelek’s

pending motions. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior

Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973).

Nabelek’s appeal presents no issue of arguable merit and is,

therefore, dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

DENY COA AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
*OPINION ISSUED NOVEMBER 19, 2008*

#### SANDRA L. HALL, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jamie Hall VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-03-563)

Daniel R. James, Attorney at Law, for claimant.

Andrew F. Tarr and Jason C. Workman, Attorneys at Law, for respondent.

*158PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted to the Court for decision upon a Stipulation entered into by claimant and respondent wherein certain facts and circumstances of the claim were agreed to as follows:

1. Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of Route 28, Hampshire County.

2. Jamie Hall was operating a motor vehicle northbound on Route 28 near the town of Romney on October 11,2002, at 7:15 a.m. At that time, the conditions were the following: raining, wet roadway surface, and dark without artificial lighting.

3. The vehicle driven by Ms. Hall veered into a yaw rotation and struck a Sycamore tree located on the east side of the roadway, located partially in Respondent’s right-of-way.

4. Other motorists have struck the Sycamore tree.

5. The incident resulted in the death of Ms. Hall.

6. For the purpose of settlement, Respondent acknowledges culpability for the preceding incident.

7. Claimant and respondent believe that in this particular incident and under these particular circumstances that an award of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) would be a fair and reasonable amount to settle this claim.

8. The parties to this claim agree that the total sum of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) to be paid by respondent to the claimant in Claim No. CC-03-563 will be a full and complete settlement, compromise and resolution of all matters in controversy in said claim and full and complete satisfaction of any and all past and future claims claimant may have against respondent arising from the matters described in said claim.

The Court has reviewed the facts of the claim and finds that respondent was negligent in its maintenance of Route 28 on the date of this incident; that the negligence of respondent was the proximate cause of the damages sustained to Jamie Hall’s vehicle; and that the amount of the damages agreed to by the parties is fair and reasonable. Thus, claimant may make a recovery for her loss.

Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award in the amount of $40,000.00.

Award of $40,000.00.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2156 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2156

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for fairness 
            in hospital payments under the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2017

  Mrs. McCaskill (for herself and Mr. Burr) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for fairness 
            in hospital payments under the Medicare program.

    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 ``Hospital Payment Fairness Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. SUNSET OF MEDICARE HOSPITAL PAYMENT PROVISION.

    Section 3141 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395ww note) is amended by inserting ``and before April 1, 
2018,'' after ``October 1, 2010,''.
                                 <all>
```