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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2774 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2774

 To amend title II of the Social Security Act to prohibit recovery of 
  certain overpayments through tax refund offsets and to prohibit the 
  application of the earnings test with respect to child's insurance 
                   benefits, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2015

Mr. Buchanan (for himself and Mr. Blumenauer) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title II of the Social Security Act to prohibit recovery of 
  certain overpayments through tax refund offsets and to prohibit the 
  application of the earnings test with respect to child's insurance 
                   benefits, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Stop Punishing Innocent Taxpayers 
Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON RECOVERY OF CERTAIN OVERPAYMENTS.

    Section 204(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
404(a)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting after ``section 3720A of title 
31, United States Code'' the following: ``(except that recovery by such 
means of reduction in tax refunds or by any other means may not be used 
with respect to any payment to a person who had not attained the age of 
18 at the time such payment was made)''.

SEC. 3. RESTRICTION ON APPLICATION OF EARNINGS TEST WITH RESPECT TO 
              CHILD'S INSURANCE BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 203(f)(8) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
403(f)(8)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(F) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
                subsection, no deductions in benefits shall be made 
                under subsection (b) with respect to the earnings of 
                any individual in any month in which the individual is 
                entitled to a child's insurance benefit under section 
                202(d).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to taxable years ending after December 31, 2015.
                                 <all>
```
Saitta J. that the district court erred by denying his untimely petition. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.800(2); State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 231, 112 P.3d 1070, 1074 (2005) (application of the procedural bars is mandatory); Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 255, 71 P.3d 503, 506, 508 (2003) (explaining when "WTI impediment external to the defense" or counsel's failure to file a direct appeal can establish good cause to excuse an untimely petition); see generally Phelps v. Dir. Nev. Dep't of Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660, 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Haberstroh, 119 Nev. 173, 180-81, 69 P.3d 676, 681 (2003). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Keith C. Brower Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

...continued (requiring that copies of all necessary transcripts be included in the appendix).

2 Although we filed the fast track response submitted by the State, it does not comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4) because it is not double-spaced. We caution the State that future failure to comply with applicable rules may result in the imposition of sanctions. NRAP 3C(n).
Exhibit 32.1
**CERTIFICATION**
The undersigned officers of the registrant certify that, to their knowledge,the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)), and that informationcontained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operation of the registrant as of the datesand for the periods expressed in the report.   Date:August 9, 2004 /s/ Frederick D. Sancilio   Frederick D. Sancilio, Ph.D. Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer   Date: August 9, 2004 /s/ Gina Gutzeit   Gina Gutzeit Interim Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.18

LOGO

Thomas Caldecot Chubb III
President



Knowlton
J. O'Reilly
139 Riverside Avenue
Riverside, CT 06878

Dear
Kayo,

As
a follow up to our discussions, I am pleased to confirm that in connection with your anticipated retirement this year, the Nominating, Compensation & Governance Committee of
the Board of Directors of Oxford Industries, Inc. (the "Company") has approved certain amendments to outstanding
grants of restricted stock under the Company's Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan, as described below.

By
agreeing to the terms of this letter below, (1) the vesting date set forth in Section 3 of that certain Restricted Stock Agreement, entered into as of March 28,
2008, between you and the Company shall be amended and restated to read, "January 29, 2010", and (2) the vesting date set forth in Section 3 of that certain Restricted Stock
Agreement, entered into as of June 16, 2009, between you and the Company shall be amended and restated to read, "January 29, 2010". If you are in agreement with the terms of this letter,
I would appreciate you signing below and returning one copy to me.

The
Company and I very much appreciate all your contributions throughout the years.

Sincerely yours,/s/ THOMAS CALDECOT CHUBB III Thomas Caldecot Chubb III


I
hereby agree to the terms and conditions of this letter.

/s/ KNOWLTON J. O'REILLY Knowlton J. O'Reilly


---



QuickLinks
* 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

October 14, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40548

Summary Calendar

 

JORGE ALVAREZ

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

RON ENGLAND, Camp County Deputy Sheriff

Defendant - Appellee

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:02-CV-184

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Alvarez appeals from the district court’s summaryjudgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Ronald

England, a former deputy sheriff of Camp County, Texas. Alvarez

asserts that England violated the Fourth Amendment by applying

excessive, objectively unreasonable force against him, thereby

causing him injury. Alvarez further argues that England is not

protected by qualified immunity.
No. 03-40548

-2-

Alvarez was a passenger in a vehicle that was frequently

driven by Valentin Aguirre, an individual with an extensive

criminal history which included assault and weapons violations. 

The police believed that Aguirre might be in possession of

firearms and illegal narcotics. Alvarez did not comply with the

police officers’ orders to remain in the vehicle, and once he was

out of the car, to get on the ground. England could recognize

Aguirre and knew that Alvarez was not Aguirre. However, because

the windows of the vehicle were tinted, the police could not see

if Aguirre was hidden in the car or if the occupants of the car

possessed weapons. Under those circumstances, it was objectively

reasonable for a police officer to believe that Alvarez posed a

serious danger to the officers and the public when he appeared to

head back into the car and it was objectively reasonable for a

police officer to apply non-deadly force to gain control over the

situation. This court is not to employ “the 20/20 vision of

hindsight,” but must consider “the fact that police officers are

often forced to make split second judgments--in circumstances

that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving--about the amount

of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” See

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989). Because no

reasonable fact-finder could conclude that England’s use of force

was unreasonable and excessive, this court need not decide

whether England is entitled to qualified immunity. 
No. 03-40548

-3-

The district court did not err in awarding summary judgment

to England. 

AFFIRMED.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022385EN.01002501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 385/25 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10904 – CVC / MATICMIND / SIO)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 385/07)

1.

On 27 September 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022385EN.01002501-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS S.A. (‘CVC’, Luxembourg), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Maticmind S.p.A. (‘Maticmind’, Italy), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | SIO S.p.A. (‘SIO’, Italy), currently controlled by EDA S.r.l. (‘EDA’, Italy). |

CVC will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Maticmind and SIO.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | CVC: a manager of investment funds and platforms, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Maticmind: a systems integrator and value-added reseller operating in the IT sector in Italy, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | SIO: a supplier of products and solutions designed for intelligence operations and lawful interception in Italy and other European countries, currently solely controlled by EDA, whose sole activity is holding shares in SIO. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2022385EN.01002501-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10904 – CVC / MATICMIND / SIO

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2022385EN.01002501-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2022385EN.01002501-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
<PAGE>

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Board of Directors
Riddell Sports Inc.

We have issued our reports dated February 21, 2000, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of
Riddell Sports Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 1999. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in
the Registration Statements of Riddell Sports Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8
(File No. 333-34355), effective August 25, 1997, on Form S-4 (File No.
333-31525), effective August 7, 1997, and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-43247),
effective February 13, 1998.

                                           /s/ Grant Thornton LLP
                                           ----------------------
                                             Grant Thornton LLP


Chicago, Illinois
March 30, 1999
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT 11.1
                           ASPECT DEVELOPMENT, INC.
                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
               (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA; UNAUDITED)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             Three months ended     Six months ended
                                                  June 30,              June 30,
                                             ------------------    -----------------
                                              1997       1996       1997       1996
                                             ------     ------     ------     ------
<S>                                          <C>        <C>        <C>        <C> 
Common Stock:
      Weighted average common stock
       outstanding during the period ...     12,531     10,321     12,443      7,866

Common Stock Equivalents:
      Net effect of dilutive options and
      warrants based upon treasury stock
       method ..........................      1,433      2,086      1,513      1,509

Convertible preferred stock ............                    --                 1,843

Stock related to SAB No. 64 and 83 .....                    --                   411
                                             ------     ------     ------     ------
Shares used in per share computations ..     13,964     12,407     13,956     11,629
                                             ======     ======     ======     ======

Net income .............................     $1,389     $  364     $2,313     $  552
                                             ======     ======     ======     ======

Net income per share ...................     $ 0.10     $ 0.03     $ 0.17     $ 0.05
                                             ======     ======     ======     ======

</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Rose Air, LLC v. Brazoria County Appraisal District and Cheryl Evans in Her Capacity as Chief Appraiser

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 3

- 0108 5

- CV

Trial court case number: 7 11 72

Trial court: 4 12th District Court of Brazoria County

Appell ant

, Rose Air, LLC

, has filed a M otion for Extension of Time “for filing the clerk’s record, payment of fees in connection with the clerk’s record, and payment of the appellate filing fee.” We grant the motion in part and dismiss the motion in part.

On January 16, 2014, t he Clerk of this Court notified appellant that, unless it provide d proof of having paid or made payment arrangements for preparation of the clerk’s record , or an explanation of why appellant was exempt from payment by February 5, 201 3, the Court might dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b), 42.3. On January 21,

2014 , t he Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the records show that appellant had neither established indigence nor paid the $195.00 appellate filing fee and, unless appellant paid the required fee by Feb r uary 20, 2014, the Court might dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5,

42.3. Appellant responded with its motion for extensions of time to pay this Court’s filing fee and fee for preparation of the clerk’s record.

We dismiss appellant’s request for an extension of time to file the clerk’s record. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c) (providing that appellate court may extend time to file clerk’s record if trial court clerk requests). We grant appellant’s request to extend the deadlines to respond to the January 14, 2014 notice regarding payment of fees for preparati on of the clerk’s record and to pay the appellate filing fee of $195.00

. Accordingly, unless appellant (1) provides proof of having paid or made payment arrangements for preparation of the clerk’s reco rd, or an explanation of why appellant was exempt from payment

, and (2) pays the filing fee of $195 .00 within 30 days of the date of this order , the Court may dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(b), 42.3.It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Jim Sharp

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: March 25, 2014
#### The State v. Chyo Goom, *Appellant.*

Criminal Practice: co-defendant’s evidence. Under Revised Statutes, section *1918,*co-defendants jointly indicted with the defendant, but not put upon their trial, are competent witnesses to testify in his behalf.

*Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.*— Hon. G. S. Yan Wagoner, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

*Martin*<6 *Fauntleroy*and *H. I). Laughlin*for appellant.

*B. G.*Boone, Attorney General, *A. C. Clover*and *C. O. Bishop*for the state.

Sherwood, J.

The defendant, with others, was indicted for the murder of Lou Johnson, in the city of St. Louis, on June 1, 1885. The facts in this case are identical with those of *State v.*Chiagk, *ante,*p. 395, the defendant being jointly indicted with Goom and others. The result of the trial, in this case, was the conviction and sentence of the defendant, and he has appealed to this court.

I. The circuit attorney, in this case, obviated the *419error which occurred on the trial of the case already referred to, by entering a *nolle prosequi*as to Cong Seng, a co-defendant and alleged accomplice of the present and other defendants, thus rendering Cong Seng a competent witness against defendant.

II. But error of the same nature was committed in this, as in the former case, by refusing permission to the defendant’s counsel to call his co-defendants, not on trial, to testify in his behalf.

III. And errors of a similar nature, except as aforesaid, were committed on the trial of this case, as in *Chiagk’s*case, *supra.*

For the errors mentioned and referred to, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur, but Norton, C. J., who dissents.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification

I, Robert J. Krist, hereby certify pursuant to Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report of Endologix, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 (the Quarterly Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: October 30, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert J. Krist    
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Robert J. Krist        
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

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
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-30330 Summary Calendar

_____________________

DONALD ROSS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary; RICHARD P.

IEYOUB, Attorney General, State of Louisiana,

Respondents-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(97-CV-227-H)

_________________________________________________________________ April 2, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Donald Ross, Louisiana prisoner # 125986, appeals the denial

of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, ma intaining that he was

denied due process of law by the jury instruction on the law of

principals and denied the effective assistance of c ounsel by his

counsel’s failure to object to the instructions.

The state habeas court held that the jury instructions, taken

as a whole, complied wi th the law. That holding was neither

contrary to, nor unreasonably applied, clearly established Federal

law as determined by the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).- 2 -

Ross’ counsel was not ineffective for failing to object. C lark v.

Collins , 19 F.3d 959, 968 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32



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 on Form 10-Q of Boston Communications Group, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, E.Y. Snowden, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Karen A. Walker, Vice President, Finance and
Administration and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                                                                       
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date November 9, 2004  |  | /s/ E.Y. Snowden                                                      
|                       |  | E.Y. Snowden                                                          
|                       |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                                 
|                       | 
|Date: November 9, 2004 |  | /s/ Karen A. Walker                                                   
|                       |  | Karen A. Walker                                                       
|                       |  | Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Boston Communications Group, Inc., and will be retained by Boston Communications Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.