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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2295 

To increase the rates of pay under the General Schedule and other statutory 

pay systems and for prevailing rate employees by 3.0 percent, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 11, 2018 

Mr. SCHATZ (for himself, Mr. BROWN, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. WARNER, Mr. MERKLEY, Mrs. MURRAY, and Mr. VAN HOLLEN) introduced 

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

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To increase the rates of pay under the General Schedule 

and other statutory pay systems and for prevailing rate 

employees by 3.0 percent, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Adjustment 

5 of Income Rates Act of 2018’’ or the ‘‘FAIR Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT TO RATES OF PAY. 

7 (a) STATUTORY PAY SYSTEMS.—The adjustment in 

8 rates of basic pay for employees under the statutory pay 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2295 IS

1 systems (as defined in section 5302 of title 5, United 

2 States Code) that takes effect in fiscal year 2019 under 

3 section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be an 

4 increase of 3.0 percent, and such adjustments shall be ef5 fective as of the first day of the first applicable pay period 

6 beginning on or after January 1, 2019. 

7 (b) PREVAILING RATE EMPLOYEES.—The adjust8 ment in rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems 

9 that take place in fiscal year 2019 under sections 5344 

10 and 5348 of title 5, United States Code, shall be equal 

11 to the percentage adjustment received by employees in the 

12 same location whose rates of basic pay are adjusted pursu13 ant to the statutory pay systems under subsection (a) of 

14 this section and 5304 of title 5, United States Code. Pre15 vailing rate employees at locations where there are no em16 ployees whose pay is increased pursuant to sections 5303 

17 and 5304 of title 5 and prevailing rate employees de18 scribed in section 5343(a)(5) of title 5, United States 

19 Code, shall be considered to be located in the pay locality 

20 designated as ‘‘Rest of US’’ pursuant to section 5304 of 

21 title 5, United States Code, for purposes of this sub22 section. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Howard H. Pien, Chief Executive Officer of Medarex, Inc. (the
"Company"), and Christian S. Schade, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 27th day of February 2009.

/s/ HOWARD H. PIEN Howard H. Pien,
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ CHRISTIAN S. SCHADE Christian S. Schade,
Chief Financial Officer


This
certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of Medarex, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
A01A0469.

#### PEREZ v. THE STATE.

(546 SE2d 564)

Blackburn, Chief Judge.

Following a jury trial, Eduardo Perez appeals his conviction for trafficking amphetamines, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

> On appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to support the verdict, and [Perez] no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. The verdict must be upheld if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

(Punctuation omitted.) *Barber v. State*
      *1*
      **See *Jackson v.*Virginia. 2

*29Decided March 8, 2001

Reconsideration dismissed April 5, 2001.

*Rodney L. Mathis,*for appellant.

Eduardo Perez, *pro se.*

*T. Joseph Campbell, District Attorney, Sharon M. Fox, Rebecca B. Paris, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

Viewed in this light, the record shows that members of the Gordon County Police Department set up a drug buy from Andres Carranza. Carranza, who was Perez’s roommate at the time, then asked Perez if he would deliver a package for him in return for $500. Perez agreed to make the delivery, and, although he apparently did not discuss the contents of the package with Carranza, Perez stated that he knew that the package contained illegal drugs. Perez also testified that he was present when Carranza hid the package behind the stereo of the car he drove to the place of delivery.

At the delivery point, Gordon County police officers apprehended Perez and, with his permission, searched his car. The police discovered more than 400 grams of methamphetamine. Later, Perez admitted to his agreement with Carranza to deliver this package.

This evidence amply supports the jury’s verdict in this case. See *Jackson,*supra. And, Perez’s argument that he was just an innocent delivery man does not change this result. Perez’s own testimony makes it clear that he knew the nature of the contraband contained in the package. As such, he had the intent to deliver illegal drugs, and his conviction must stand.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope, P. J., and Mikell, J., concur.*

*Barber v. State,*235 Ga. App. 170 (509 SE2d 93) (1998).

*Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 73699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20445]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3608-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]


North Carolina; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of North Carolina (FEMA-3608-EM), dated August 6, 2024, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 8, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of North Carolina is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of 
August 6, 2024.

    Allegheny, Cabarrus, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Stanly, Union, 
and Wilkes Counties for emergency protective measures (Category B), 
limited to direct federal assistance and reimbursement for mass 
care, including evacuation and shelter support, under the Public 
Assistance program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-20445 Filed 9-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
exv10w9







Exhibit 10.9




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

BAY VALLEY FOODS

2008 INCENTIVE PLAN




     WHEREAS, Bay Valley Foods (the “Company”), maintains the Bay Valley Foods 2008 Incentive Plan
(the “Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 of the Plan, the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. now desires to amend the Plan for documentary compliance with
Internal Revenue Code Section 409A.



     NOW, THEREFORE, Section 6F of the Plan is amended, effective January 1, 2008, to read as
follows:




	 	“F. 	 	 Payment Form and Timing
	 
	 	 	 	All payments under the Plan shall be made in the form of a single
lump sum and shall be paid no later than May 31 following the close
of the Plan Year for which the Performance Goals relate.
	 
	 	 	 	Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, any payments made following
a Participant’s return to Active Employment after a leave of
absence, which ends after May 31 following the close of the Plan
Year for which the Performance Goals relate, shall be due and
payable within 30 days of such return to Active Employment, but in
no event later than March 15 following the close of the Plan Year in
which the Participant returns from such leave of absence.





Payment of incentive awards shall be made in accordance with
accepted Company payroll practices. All required taxes, income
withholding, and other deductions shall be withheld.”



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of TreeHouse Foods,
Inc., acting by and through the General Counsel and Chief Administrative Officer of TreeHouse
Foods, Inc., has caused this First Amendment to be executed as of the 7 day of November,
2008.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Bay Valley Foods.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	/s/ Thomas E. O’Neill
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	General Counsel and Chief Administrative Officer,
TreeHouse Foods, Inc.
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 1, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00679

- CR

Benjamin Alley MOORE

, Appellant

v.

Th e STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR4943

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

A Trial Court = s Certification of Defendant = s Right of Appeal has been filed in this appeal

in which the trial court judge certifies that the underlying criminal case A is a plea

- bargain case,

and the defendant has NO right of appeal. @ It is therefore ORDERED that the trial court clerk

file a n electronic clerk = s record within ten days from the date of this order containing the

following documents:

1. All pre

- trial orders and the related pre

- trial motions;

2. The Court Admonishments, the Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of Testimony and

Stipulations, and all other documents relating to the defendant = s plea bargain;

3. The judgment;

4. All post

- judgment motions and orders;

5. The notice of appeal;

6. The Trial Court = s Certification of Defendant = s Right of Appeal; and

7. The criminal docket sheet.All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court. The clerk

of this court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court

clerk, and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the reporter = s record in this appeal.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 1st day of October, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 5, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-11277 Summary Calendar

JOHN T. ESPINOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ARLINGTON NATIONAL BANK, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CV-574-Y

-------------------- Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * John T. Espinoza has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal following the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for failure to comply with a court order requiring him to file an amended complaint. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Espinoza is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP should not be granted on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).No. 03-11277 -2- Espinoza has not made a meritorious challenge to the district court’s denial of IFP and has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Espinoza’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. All of Espinoza’s other outstanding motions are likewise DENIED. Espinoza is also cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Espinoza should review any newly filed appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous.
IFP MOTION AND ALL OTHER OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTIONS WARNING GIVEN.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAHRELL ARRINGTON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 354 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### SCOTT v. STATE.

No. 15959.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 12, 1933.

Earl M. Greer, of Wills Point, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is transporting intoxicating liquor; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,559,773               2,559,773
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  893,489                 893,489
<ALLOWANCES>                                    39,826                  39,826
<INVENTORY>                                    190,209                 190,209
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,915,512               3,915,512
<PP&E>                                       1,141,266               1,141,266
<DEPRECIATION>                                 288,713                 288,713
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,871,728               4,871,728
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          640,822                 640,822
<BONDS>                                          6,196                   6,196
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     7,912,535               7,912,535
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,687,843)             (3,687,843)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,871,728               4,871,728
<SALES>                                        249,261                 538,224
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               730,677               1,895,846
<CGS>                                          217,564                 461,619
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  485,701               1,265,330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (39,969)               (149,562)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (758,669)             (2,051,365)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (758,669)             (2,051,365)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (758,669)             (2,051,365)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.24)                  (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)                  (0.64)
        

</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2270 

To make improvements to the account for the State response to the opioid 

abuse crisis to improve tribal health. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 21, 2017 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Ms. HARRIS, Mr. MERKLEY, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Ms. 

MURKOWSKI, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions 

A BILL 

To make improvements to the account for the State response 

to the opioid abuse crisis to improve tribal health. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mitigating the Meth5 amphetamine Epidemic and Promoting Tribal Health 

6 Act’’ or the ‘‘Mitigating METH Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2270 IS

1 SEC. 2. ACCOUNT FOR THE STATE RESPONSE TO THE 

2 OPIOID ABUSE CRISIS. 

3 Section 1003 of the 21st Century Cures Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 290ee–3 note) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (b)— 

6 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘and 

7 Tribal’’ after ‘‘State’’; 

8 (B) in paragraph (2)(A)(ii), by striking 

9 ‘‘$500,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$525,000,000’’; 

10 and 

11 (C) in paragraph (3)(B), by inserting ‘‘and 

12 Tribal’’ after ‘‘State’’; 

13 (2) in subsection (c)— 

14 (A) in paragraph (1)— 

15 (i) in the paragraph heading, by strik16 ing ‘‘STATE RESPONSE TO THE OPIOID’’ 

17 and inserting ‘‘STATE AND TRIBAL RE18 SPONSE TO THE OPIOID’’; 

19 (ii) in the first sentence, by inserting 

20 ‘‘and Indian tribes and Tribal organiza21 tions (as the terms ‘Indian tribes’ and 

22 ‘tribal organizations’ are defined in the In23 dian Self-Determination and Education 

24 Assistance Act)’’ after ‘‘grants to States’’; 

25 and 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2270 IS

1 (iii) in the second sentence, by insert2 ing ‘‘and Tribes’’ after ‘‘States’’ each place 

3 that such term appears; 

4 (B) in paragraph (2)— 

5 (i) in the matter preceding subpara6 graph (A)— 

7 (I) by inserting ‘‘, Tribe, or Trib8 al organization’’ after ‘‘to a State’’; 

9 (II) by inserting ‘‘or Tribal’’ 

10 after ‘‘by the State’’; and 

11 (III) by inserting ‘‘or by a Tribe 

12 or Tribal organization’’ after ‘‘et 

13 seq.)’’; 

14 (ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting 

15 ‘‘and Tribal’’ after ‘‘State’’; 

16 (iii) in subparagraph (E), by inserting 

17 ‘‘or Tribe’’ after ‘‘as the State’’; and 

18 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(3) OTHER SUBSTANCES.—A State or Indian 

20 tribe may use grants awarded under this section for 

21 prevention and treatment of the use of other sub22 stances such as methamphetamine, if the use of such 

23 other substances is determined by the State or tribe 

24 to have a substantial public health impact on the 

25 State or tribe.’’; and 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
4 

•S 2270 IS

1 (3) in subsection (d), by inserting ‘‘, Tribe, or 

2 tribal organization’’ after ‘‘A State’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136847 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136847 

 COA: 284917 

Wayne CC: 07-010962

BRIAN JAMES HOSFELT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 16, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

1020 

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

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

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
Sanitized – Attachment 018 

Page 1 of 2
Sanitized – Attachment 018 

Page 2 of 2
#### PARKER v. FERGUSON.

No. 2521.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

March 16, 1934.

Rehearing Denied March 21, 1934.

Edgar H. Phelps, of Houston, for plaintiff in error.

A. T. Carleton, of Houston, for defendant in error.

COMBS, Justice.

This suit was brought by appellee, as plaintiff, against appellant and John McKnight, as defendants, on a stated account for $115.02 for meats and meat products sold and delivered to the Port City Market in Houston, Tex.; it being alleged that the defendants owned and operated said Port City Market as partners. Appellant filed a general demurrer, general denial, and a sworn plea denying that he was a partner in the Port City Market. A trial to the court resulted in a judgment in favor of appellee and against appellant and his codefendant, John McKnight, for the amount of the account sued on. McKnight has not appealed.

Appellant first complains that the trial court should have sustained his general demurrer because the account sued on was not sworn to. This contention is overruled. Ap-pellee did not predicate his suit upon an open account. The pleadings alleged a stated account for the merchandise furnished at agreed prices.

The defendant McKnight who was in charge of the market testified to making the purchases and admitted the correctness of the account. The trial court was correct in overruling the demurrer and in entering the judgment on the account. Peurifoy et al. v. Hood Rubber Products Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 59 S.W.(2d) 428; Scofield v. Lilienthal (Tex. Civ. App.) 268 S. W. 1047.

Nor is there any merit in appellant’s contention that the evidence does not establish that he was a partner in the business. True, appellant testified that $1,000 advanced by him to McKnight for carrying on the business was a mere loan. But other evidence, including the testimony of McKnight, was ample to support the finding that appellant advanced the money to. McKnight against the latter’s time and labor in conducting the business under an agreement to share equally in the profits. The court did not err in entering judgment against appellant on the ground that he was a partner in the business.

Finding no error in the judgment, the case is affirmed.