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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2377 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2377

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ``Walter H. Rice Federal 
                Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 6, 2018

Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Portman) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ``Walter H. Rice Federal 
                Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. WALTER H. RICE FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) In General.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Walter H. Rice Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``Walter H. Rice Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-7679

CURT N. PRICE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge.

(CR-91-1-K, CA-96-645-K)

Submitted: January 9, 1997

Decided: January 29, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Curt N. Price, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132,

110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error.

Specifically, we find that Appellant's conviction, on a guilty plea,

under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994), is proper under the "carry" prong of

that statute. See Bailey v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W.

4039 (U.S. Dec. 6, 1995) (94-7448, 94-7492). In addition, the record

does not support Appellant's claim that he was promised a Fed. R.

Crim. P. 35 motion by the Government. We also find that because

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1(b)

(Nov. 1992), did not become effective until after the date of Appellant's sentencing, and because the amendment is not retroactive under

USSG § 1B1.10, Appellant's claim that he is entitled to a third level

of reduction for acceptance of responsibility is without merit. Finally,

because none of the issues Appellant raised have merit, we find that

Appellant has not demonstrated any attorney error required by

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984), and

therefore cannot meet his burden under Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52,

58-59 (1985), necessary to obtain relief from his guilty plea based on

ineffective assistance.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

 2
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SUSA Partnership, L.P. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Len
Kosar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

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

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



/s/ Len Kosar

Len Kosar
President & CEO
August 13, 2002
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-50119 

Summary Calendar

__________________

BENJAMIN EDWIN FORSYTHE,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THOMAS JAMES McKINNEY;

ROBBIE J. PROCTOR,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-95-CV-264

- - - - - - - - - -

May 30, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benjamin Forsythe moves this court for in forma pauperis

(IFP) status to appeal the district court's order dismissing his

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Forsythe's

allegation that prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment

rights by failing to place him in protective custody is without

merit. Forsythe's assertions do not establish that the
No. 96-50119

-2-

defendants could have reasonably inferred from his

unsubstantiated complaints that he faced a substantial risk of

harm from other inmates. See Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 

1979 (1994). As Forsythe fails to state a nonfrivolous issue on

appeal, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. Because

the appeal is frivolous, the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.

R. 42.2.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                           ONYX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

                                  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. Section 1350),
Hollings C. Renton, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
of Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the
best of his knowledge:

1.    The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
      2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the
      "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

2.    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of
      the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the
      Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated: August 9, 2004

                                    /s/ Hollings C. Renton
                                    ------------------------
                                     Hollings C. Renton
                                     Chairman of the Board,
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer
                                     (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13(a)-14(b) of the
Exchange Act and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) has been provided to Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and will be retained by Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       30
Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed August 14, 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 17

- 00708

- CV

____________ FORUM US, INC. , Appellant

V. JEFFREY MUSSELWHITE, AUDIE ROMERO, ANTEL OPE OIL TOOL &

MFG. CO., LLC, INTER VALE CAPITAL, LLC, H KM CONSULTING, LLC AND WEARSOX, L.P. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 60075



### ABATEMENT ORDER
This is an appeal in which both parties have filed notices of appeal

. The brief for appellant Forum US was filed May 18, 2018. The opening brief of appellees Jeffrey Musselwhite, Audie Romero, Antelope Oil Tool & Mfg. Co., LLC, Intervale Capital, LLC, HKM Consulting, LLC and WearSox, L.P., was originally due June 13, 2018. On August 9, 2018, appellees filed a third motion to extend time to filetheir opening brief , requesting an additional 30 days. Appellees’ motion is granted,

and we issue the following or der.

To facilitate the submission of this double appeal, the appeal is abated for all
purposes except the filing of the parties’ briefs . Appellees’ opening brief is due on
or before September 12 , 2018

. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active
d ocket when full briefing is complete . The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by any party, or the court may reinstate the appeal
on its own motion.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.6

                     AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 OF
               THE BYLAWS OF PACIFIC SUNWEAR OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,
                            A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

        SECTION 2. NUMBER AND QUALIFICATION OF DIRECTORS. The authorized number
of directors shall be not less than five nor more than nine until changed by
Amendment of the Articles of Incorporation or by a Bylaw duly adopted by
approval of the outstanding shares. The exact number of directors shall be
fixed, within the limits specified, by amendment of the next sentence duly
adopted either by the Board of Directors or the shareholders. The exact number
of directors shall be seven until changed as provided in this Section 2.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**RASHEEN ARMAND GRAYSON,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 84 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 31st day of May, 2016, the Petition for Allowa nce of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
FIRST AMENDMENT
                               TO LEASE AGREEMENT

     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT made and entered into this 24th day
of JAN 01, by and between Brobel GP,  successor in interest to Belz Investco GP,
as Landlord, and Riddell Sports, Inc. as Tenant.

     WHEREAS,  Tenant has  previously  executed a Lease  Agreement  for  205,277
square feet of space located at 3131 Appling Road,  Bartlett,  Tennessee,  which
Lease Agreement was dated August 22. 2000,  which Lease Agreement is hereinafter
referred to as the "Lease;" and

     WHEREAS,  the parties  desire to amend the Lease in order to reflect  their
agreement as to certain provisions contained therein.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  IN CONSIDERATION of mutual covenants contained herein the
parties hereto Agree as follows:

     1.   As of January 1, 2001, Part 3 of the Lease, Rent, Taxes and Insurance,
is hereby  amended to reflect,  that the Base Rental for the  Premises  shall be
increased by $13,685.13  monthly such that Me total monthly Base Rental shall be
$82,110.80.  The Base  Rental  for  years 5  through  10 shall be  increased  by
$13,685.13 per month such that the total monthly Base Rental for years 5 through
10 shall be $86,216.33.

     2.   Part 7 of this Lease Agreement, "Option to Renew", shall be amended to
increase the Base Rental to $5.29 per square foot for the additional term,

     3.   Except as expressly  modified hereby,  all terms and conditions of the
Lease are ratified and shall remain in effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the above named Landlord and Tenant have executed this
and three (3) other  original  instruments  of identical  tenure and date on the
date and year set forth hereinabove.

LANDLORD: BROBEL GP
By: Belz Investco GP, its Managing Partner
By: URCO, Inc., Its Managing Partner



By: /s/ Irvin S. Skopp, Vice President
    ----------------------------------
    Irvin S. Skopp, Vice President


By: /s/ Morris I. Thomas
    ----------------------------------
    Morris I. Thomas, Vice President

TENANT: RIDDELL SPORTS INC.


By: /s/  Jeff Webb
    ----------------------------------
    Jeff Webb, Chief Operating Officer
#### RAMIREZ et al. v. CASTRO et al.

No. 10377.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 23, 1938.

*653Roy H. Walford and T. Gilbert Sharpe, both of San Antonio, for appellants.

F. B. Guerra, Jr., of Laredo, for ap-pellees.

MURRAY, Justice.

Onecimo Castro, Delfina Castro, Sofia Castro, Rosenda Castro, Felipa Castro, and Virginia Saenz de Castro, instituted this suit against Alonzo Ramirez and Alonzo Taylor, the latter being sued in his official capacity as Sheriff of Jim Hogg County, seeking to enjoin the sale of certain real estate owned by the Castros.

Alonzo Ramirez had secured a judgment against the above named Castros in the sum of $452.44, had caused an execution to issue on the judgment, and the sheriff had levied upon 437 acres of land alleged to be owned by the Castros, who are the appellees herein. The injunction was sought on the theory that Onecimo Castro and his four sisters lived together as a family and were entitled to a homestead of 200 acres, which would be exempt from forced sale.

No evidence was introduced at the trial, but it was agreed that the witnesses would testify as alleged in the petition. We cannot lend our approval to this method of agreeing upon the facts in a case. The stipulation is not that the allegations in the petition are true, but only that the witnesses would testify to such facts. Such stipulation was hardly sufficient to justify the issuing of the writ of injunction.

After reading the petition we are left somewhat in confusion as to what the facts are which were alleged in the petition. However, this fact does appear: that there were more than 200 acres of land owned by Onecimo Castro and his four sisters. As Onecimo Castro and his four sisters composed but one family there could not be more than a 200 acre exemption in the land. It is therefore apparent that the trial judge erred in enjoining the sale of all the land. Furthermore, the injunction went farther than the prayer in the petition. The prayer was only that the sale be enjoined until the amount of the exempt property could be ascertained, while the injunction as issued permanently enjoins the sale of all the land.

The order granting the injunction will be reversed and the cause remanded.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74202-74203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20718]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Proposed Recreation Fee Site

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice

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

SUMMARY: The Bridger-Teton National Forest is proposing to establish a 
special recreation permit and special recreation permit fees along the 
Congressionally designated Wild and Scenic Snake River. Proposed 
special recreation permit fees would be used for operation, 
maintenance, and improvements to prevent degradation, enhance 
recreation opportunities, and preserve the outstandingly remarkable 
values described in the comprehensive river management plan for the 
Snake River. An analysis of nearby specialized recreation uses with 
similar amenities and services shows the proposed special recreation 
permit fees that would be charged are reasonable and typical of similar 
specialized recreation uses in the area.

DATES: If approved, the proposed special recreation permit and proposed 
special recreation permit fees would be established no earlier than six 
months following the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register.

ADDRESSES: Bridger-Teton National Forest, Attention: Recreation Fees, 
340 North Cache, P.O. Box 1888, Jackson, WY 83001.

[[Page 74203]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Connolly, Forest Recreation 
Program Manager, (406) 544-4734 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#700318111e1e1f1e5e131f1e1e1f1c1c0930050314115e171f06"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e5968d848b8b8a8bcb868a8b8b8a89899ca590968184cb828a93">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act 
(16 U.S.C. 6803(b)) requires the Forest Service to publish a six-month 
advance notice in the Federal Register of establishment of proposed 
special recreation permits and proposed special recreation permit fees. 
Most of the proposed special recreation permit fees would be spent 
where they are collected to enhance the visitor experience in 
connection with the specialized recreation use covered by the proposed 
special recreation permit.
    A proposed special recreation permit would be required and a 
proposed special recreation permit fee would be charged of $5 per 
vehicle per day, $40 per vehicle per year, $20 per additional vehicle 
per year, $3 per outfitted customer, or $3 per noncommercial group 
member along the Snake River. Expenditures of special recreation permit 
fees collected would enhance recreation opportunities, improve customer 
service, and address maintenance needs along the Snake River.

    Dated: September 9, 2024.
Jacqueline Emanuel,
Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
[FR Doc. 2024-20718 Filed 9-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.6.5 

THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE ANNTAYLOR STORES CORPORATION 

2002 STOCK OPTION AND RESTRICTED STOCK AND UNIT AWARDPLAN 

The AnnTaylor Stores Corporation 2002 Stock Option and Restricted Stock and Unit Award Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended effective as ofJanuary 26, 2006 (the “Effective Date”) with respect to all Options (as defined in the Plan) granted pursuant to the Plan, including grants outstanding before the Effective Date, as set forth below. 

1. The last two sentences of Section 6(i)(2) of the Plan are hereby amended and restated in their entirety to read as follows: 

“Following the Acceleration Event, the Committee may provide for the cancellation of all Options then outstanding. Upon such cancellation, theCorporation shall make, in exchange for each such Option, a payment either in (i) cash; (ii) shares of the successor entity; or (iii) some combination of cash or shares thereof, at the discretion of the Committee, and in each case inan amount per share subject to such Option equal to the difference between the per share exercise price of such Option and the Fair Market Value of a share of Common Stock on the date during the prior sixty-day period that produces the highest FairMarket Value.” 

Except as set forth above, the Plan is hereby ratified and affirmed in all respects.
Order entered December 2 3 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01108

- CR

ROBERT LEE MENYWEATH ER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. F12

- 55747

- Y



### O RDER

We GRANT Official Court Reporter Sharon Hazlewood’s December 19, 2013 request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record shall be due
THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

T he c lerk’s record has not been filed and is now overdue.

We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record within THIRTY
DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to transmit a copy of this order, by electronic

transmi ssion, to the following: Official Court Reporter Sharon Hazlewood Dallas County District Clerk Gary Fitzsimmons The Dallas County District Clerk, Criminal Records DivisionCounsel for all parties

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE