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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2977 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2977

To assist in the establishment of an interpretive center and museum in 
   the vicinity of the Diamond Valley Lake in southern California to 
     ensure the protection and interpretation of the paleontology 
discoveries made at the lake and to develop a trail system for the lake 
           for use by pedestrians and nonmotorized vehicles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2000

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To assist in the establishment of an interpretive center and museum in 
   the vicinity of the Diamond Valley Lake in southern California to 
     ensure the protection and interpretation of the paleontology 
discoveries made at the lake and to develop a trail system for the lake 
           for use by pedestrians and nonmotorized vehicles.

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

SECTION 1. INTERPRETIVE CENTER AND MUSEUM, DIAMOND VALLEY LAKE, HEMET, 
              CALIFORNIA.

    (a) Assistant for Establishment of Center and Museum.--The 
Secretary of the Interior shall enter into an agreement with an 
appropriate entity for the purpose of sharing costs incurred to design, 
construct, furnish, and operate an interpretive center and museum, to 
be located on lands under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Water 
District of Southern California, intended to preserve, display, and 
interpret the paleontology discoveries made at and in the vicinity of 
the Diamond Valley Lake, near Hemet, California, and to promote other 
historical and cultural resources of the area.
    (b) Assistance for Nonmotorized Trails.--The Secretary shall enter 
into an agreement with the State of California, a political subdivision 
of the State, or a combination of State and local public agencies for 
the purpose of sharing costs incurred to design, construct, and 
maintain a system of trails around the perimeter of the Diamond Valley 
Lake for use by pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles.
    (c) Matching Requirement.--The Secretary shall require the other 
parties to an agreement under this section to secure an amount of funds 
from non-Federal sources that is at least equal to the amount provided 
by the Secretary.
    (d) Time for Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into the 
agreements required by this section not later than 180 days after the 
date on which funds are first made available to carry out this section.
    (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated not more than $14,000,000 to carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
Retirement Coverage Error Correction Provisions of FERCCA  

TYPE OF ERROR 

Erroneously Put In: 

Correct Coverage Is: 

RETIREMENT BENEFIT OPTIONS WHAT HAPPENS TO SOCIAL SECURITY WHAT HAPPENS TO THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN 

CSRS FERS Choice between FERS and CSRS 

Offset coverage.1 Erroneous CSRS contributions are 

reallocated to Social Security. 

CSRS Offset FERS Choice between CSRS Offset and 

FERS. 1 No change. 

If you choose FERS, you may make make-up contributions.  Lost earnings are paid on 

make-up contributions. 

CSRS Offset CSRS None.  Correction to CSRS. Social Security coverage terminates. 

CSRS CSRS Offset None.  Correction to CSRS Offset. Erroneous CSRS contributions are reallocated to Social Security. 

No change. 

FERS CSRS Choice between FERS and CSRS 

coverage. 1,2 If you choose CSRS, Social Security 

coverage terminates. 

If you choose CSRS, your contributions and earnings remain in your account.  

Government contributions and earnings are removed from your account. 

FERS CSRS Offset Choice between FERS and CSRS 

Offset coverage. 1,2 No change. 

If you choose CSRS Offset, your contributions and earnings remain in your account. Government contributions and 

earnings are removed from your account. 

CSRS Social Security Choice between CSRS Offset and 

Social Security. 1 Erroneous CSRS contributions are 

reallocated to Social Security. 

FERS Social Security Choice between FERS and Social 

Security coverage. 1 

CSRS Offset Social Security Choice between CSRS Offset and 

Social Security. 1 

No change. 

If you choose Social Security, you may keep your contributions and earnings.  

Government contributions and earnings are removed from your account. 

Social Security CSRS None. Correction to CSRS. Social Security coverage terminates. 

Social Security CSRS Offset None. Correction to CSRS Offset. 

Social Security FERS None. Correction to FERS. No change. 

You may make make-up contributions.  Lost earnings are paid on make-up contributions. 

 1   Retirement benefit options involving choice require that you were in the wrong retirement plan for at least 3 years. 2  If you are covered by FERS as a result of a deemed FERS election, FERCCA does not give you a new election.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 13, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 13, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0294. JAMES GARCIA v. LARAMAR GROUP LLC. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 15A11429
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Your Digital Memories, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Aaron Bard, principal executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 the
          operation of the Company.


                                /s/ Aaron Bard
                                --------------------------------------
                                Aaron Bard
                                Principal Executive Officer
                                October 31, 2007

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification
shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing 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 this Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by ss.906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Civil Service 

Retirement 

System 

Federal Employees’ 

Group Life 

Insurance Program 

Federal Employees 

Health Benefits 

Program 

Federal Employees 

Retirement 

System 

Federal Long 

Term Care 

 Insurance 

Program 

United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Retirement and Insurance Service 

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 02-905 Date: April 17, 2002 

Subject: Satellite Broadcast on Long Term Care Insurance: May 15

Hold this date! On Wednesday, May 15, from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, 

OPM will sponsor the second of three live satellite broadcasts sponsored by the Federal Long Term 

Care Insurance Program. Our first broadcast on March 6th focused on long term care and the odds 

of needing such care. Since long term care insurance is unfamiliar to many people, the May 15th

broadcast will give an overview of it and offer tips on making an informed decision about whether 

it’s right for you. Specifically, we’ll feature a panel of experts who will discuss: 

Who should purchase long term care insurance—and who should not; 

What you should look for in a long term care insurance policy; 

How to decide how much insurance you should buy; and 

How the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program fits into this picture 

And, of course, we’ll take questions from viewers during the last portion of the broadcast. 

Please note that this broadcast is aimed at enhancing understanding about long term care insurance 

generally. While we’ll provide some information about the Federal Long Term Care Insurance 

Program, that will not be the primary focus of the program. But what you’ll learn in this broadcast 

will prepare you to make wise choices about the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program during 

open season, which begins July 1. And, on July 17 from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. EDT, we’ll host 

our third satellite broadcast, which will focus exclusively on the Federal Long Term Care Insurance 

Program. 

We encourage you, if possible, to make this broadcast widely available within your agency. 

Attached are the answers to some Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about OPM satellite 
2

broadcasts. If you have questions about the broadcast that are not addressed in the FAQs, please 

contact Holly Schumann at (202) 606-0399 or hbschuma@opm.gov. 

We will issue another Benefits Administration Letter with the satellite coordinates and additional 

information as soon as they are available. Thanks for your help. We hope you’ll tune in on May 

15! 

 

 Frank D. Titus 

 Assistant Director 

 for Long Term Care 

Attachment
#### GUERRERO v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO.

No. 1474.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Jan. 21, 1937.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1937.

W. L. Eason, of Waco, for appellant.

Ñaman & Howell, of Waco, for appel-lee.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

This is a workmen’s compensation case in which the trial court gave an instructed verdict in favor of the insurance company. The only material question is whether or not the employer was a farmer or nurseryman engaged in raising plants for sale, in which event he was not subject to the terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St. art. 8306 et seq.), or whether he was a dealer engaged in buying and selling nursery stock, none of which was grown by him, in which event he was subject to the Workmen’s Compensation Law. We certified that question to the Supreme Court and that court held that the answer in this particular case depended on the terms of the policy, and that if the policy insured the employees of the employer in the latter capacity as a florist, there would be - no liability; whereas, if the policy covered the employer in his capacity as a dealer in buying and selling nursery stock, then there was liability. See Guerrero v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (Tex.Com.App.) 98 S.W.(2d) 796. The compensation policy in question was not introduced in evidence. The statement of facts recites that the office copy of the policy, as retained by the local agent of the insurance company, was introduced in evidence, but it does not appear to have been copied in the statement of facts nor otherwise brought up to this court. It is therefore apparent that the trial court had the benefit of the terms of the policy, but we do not. The terms of the policy might have been such a.s to require an instructed verdict for the insurance company. We cannot say that the contrary is true. We can set aside the judgment of a trial court only upon a showing that the judgment appealed from is wrong. 3 Tex.Jur. 1143; Harris v. Shafer, 86 Tex. 314, 23 S.W. 979, 24 S.W. 263. Since the record does not disclose the terms of the policy, we *593cannot say whether or not the trial court erred in giving an instructed verdict in favor of the insurance company. In the absence of such showing, we must presume in favor of the validity and correctness of the judgment appealed from. 3 Tex.Jur. 1125; Harris v. Monroe Cattle Co., 84 Tex. 674, 19 S.W. 869, par. 2.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-82369), Form S-8 (No. 333-82381), Form S-8 (No.
333-82383) and Form S-4 (No. 333-82711) of S1 Corporation of our report dated
February 21, 2000, except as to Note 14 which is as of March 6, 2000, relating
to the financial statements of S1 Corporation as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1999 and the related financial statement schedule for the year
ended December 31, 1999, which appear in this Form 10-K.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
March 29, 2000
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6515

WILLIAM G. FISHER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES,

INCORPORATED; DAUNA BERTRAM; JAMES B. FRENCH;

CENTRAL PRISON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CA-97-1000-5-CT-F)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William G. Fisher, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his

civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) as

frivolous under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) (West Supp. 1998). We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Appellant’s motion seeking

in forma pauperis status and affirm on the reasoning of the district court, Fisher v. North Carolina Prisoner Legal Servs., Inc.,

No. CA-97-1000-5-CT-F (E.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 1998), but modify the dismissal of his claim of medical indifference against prison

authorities to be without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1994).

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.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
___________

No. 95-3095

___________

Cloverleaf Properties, Inc., *

now Leonard O'Brien, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

McDonald's Corporation, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 15, 1996

 Filed: March 12, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1973, a McDonald's Corporation franchisee leased property in St.

Charles, Missouri, from Cloverleaf Properties, Inc., to operate a

McDonald's restaurant. The twenty-year lease gave the lessee options (i)

to extend the lease for four five-year extension periods, at escalating

rents; and (ii) to purchase the property for $235,000 "after exten[s]ion

of initial term of this lease or any exten[s]ion thereafter." The original

parties to the lease later assigned the lessee's interest to McDonald's and

the lessor's interest to Leonard O'Brien, Cloverleaf's owner. 

At the end of the initial twenty-year term, McDonald's gave notice

it was exercising the option to purchase. O'Brien then commenced this

action in state court seeking a declaratory judgment that the option to

purchase may not be exercised until the end of
 The HONORABLE JEAN C. HAMILTON, Chief Judge of the United

1

States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-

the first five-year lease extension period. After McDonald's removed, the

district court held that the lease agreement is ambiguous concerning when 1

the option to purchase may be exercised and heard parol evidence on that

question at a bench trial. The court then credited the testimony of the

lease negotiator for McDonald's, found that the parties intended "to grant

McDonald's the option to purchase the property immediately after the

expiration of the initial [twenty-year] term," and entered judgment

affording McDonald's declaratory and specific performance relief.

On appeal, O'Brien argues that the district court erred in holding

the lease agreement ambiguous and in admitting parol evidence as to the

parties' intent in providing a purchase option. Instead, the court should

have held that the lease grants McDonald's an option to purchase only after

the expiration of the first five-year lease extension period. After

carefully reviewing the record and considering the parties' contentions on

appeal, we conclude that the district court correctly held that the lease

agreement is ambiguous on the question at issue -- whether "after extension

of the initial period" means after the start of, or after the end of, the

first five-year lease extension period. Thus, the court properly heard

parol evidence on this issue, and its findings of fact regarding the

parties' intent are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm. See

8th Cir. Rule 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2722 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2722

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                                 An Act

 
To authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to Ed W. Freeman, James K. 
                       Okubo, and Andrew J. Smith.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO AWARD MEDAL OF HONOR TO ED W. FREEMAN, JAMES K. 
OKUBO, AND ANDREW J. SMITH.
    (a) Inapplicability of Time Limitations.--Notwithstanding the time 
limitations in section 3744(b) of title 10, United States Code, or any 
other time limitation, the President may award the Medal of Honor under 
section 3741 of such title to the persons specified in subsection (b) 
for the acts specified in that subsection, the award of the Medal of 
Honor to such persons having been determined by the Secretary of the 
Army to be warranted in accordance with section 1130 of such title.
    (b) Persons Eligible To Receive the Medal of Honor.--The persons 
referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
        (1) Ed W. Freeman, for conspicuous acts of gallantry and 
    intrepidity at the risk of his life and beyond the call of duty on 
    November 14, 1965, as flight leader and second-in-command of a 
    helicopter lift unit at landing zone X-Ray in the Battle of the Ia 
    Drang Valley, Republic of Vietnam, during the Vietnam War, while 
    serving in the grade of Captain in Alpha Company, 229th Assault 
    Helicopter Battalion, 101st Cavalry Division (Airmobile).
        (2) James K. Okubo, for conspicuous acts of gallantry and 
    intrepidity at the risk of his life and beyond the call of duty on 
    October 28 and 29, and November 4, 1944, at Foret Domaniale de 
    Champ, near Biffontaine, France, during World War II, while serving 
    as an Army medic in the grade of Technician Fifth Grade in the 
    medical detachment, 442d Regimental Combat Team.
        (3) Andrew J. Smith, for conspicuous acts of gallantry and 
    intrepidity at the risk of his life and beyond the call of duty on 
    November 30, 1864, in the Battle of Honey Hill, South Carolina, 
    during the Civil War, while serving as a corporal in the 55th 
    Massachusetts Voluntary Infantry Regiment.
    (c) Posthumous Award.--The Medal of Honor may be awarded under this 
section posthumously, as provided in section 3752 of title 10, United 
States Code.
    (d) Prior Award.--The Medal of Honor may be awarded under this 
section for service for which a Silver Star, or other award, has been 
awarded.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```