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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 452 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 259
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 452

                  For the relief of Belinda McGregor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 24, 1999

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                             August 5, 1999

                Reported by Mr. Hatch, with an amendment
  [Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  For the relief of Belinda McGregor.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Belinda 
McGregor shall be held and considered to have been selected for a 
diversity immigrant visa for fiscal year <DELETED>1999 </DELETED>2000 
as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon payment of the 
required visa fee.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Belinda McGregor, or any child (as 
defined in section 101(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) of 
Belinda McGregor, enters the United States before the date of the 
enactment of this Act, he or she shall be considered to have entered 
and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for 
adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Belinda McGregor as 
provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
officer to reduce by one number during the current fiscal year the 
total number of immigrant visas available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(c) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)).
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 259

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 452

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

                  For the relief of Belinda McGregor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 5, 1999

                       Reported with an amendment
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                              INVESTMENT AGREEMENT

         This Amendment No. 1 to Investment Agreement (the "Amendment") is
entered into as of September 20, 2001, by and between eMerge Interactive, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation ("eMerge") and Allflex Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Allflex").

                                    RECITALS

         A.       eMerge and Allflex entered into that certain Investment
Agreement, dated as of August 29, 2001 (the "Investment Agreement"), whereby
eMerge agreed to issue and sell, and Allflex agreed to purchase from eMerge,
certain shares of eMerge Class A common stock, par value $0.008 per share.

         B.       Section 14(f) of the Investment Agreement allows the
Investment Agreement to be amended by a writing executed by authorized
representatives of both parties.

         C.       eMerge and Allflex desire to amend the Investment Agreement as
set forth below.

                                    AGREEMENT

         1.       Amendment of Section 1(b). Section 1(b) of the Investment
Agreement is hereby amended to replace the date of September 20, 2001 as it
appears in the first and second sentences of Section 1(b) with the date of
September 27, 2001.

         2.       Ratification of Investment Agreement. Except as specified
above, all other terms of the Investment Agreement remain unchanged and are
ratified and confirmed. All references to "this Agreement" or "the Agreement"
appearing in the Investment Agreement shall be deemed to refer to the Investment
Agreement as amended by this Amendment.

         3.       Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by, and
construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, excluding those
laws that direct the application of the laws of another jurisdiction.

         4.       Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of
counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute but are agreement,
and any of the parties hereby may execute this Amendment by signing any such
counterpart.

         5.       Effective Date. This Amendment shall be effective as of the
date first above written.


<PAGE>   2

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Amendment have executed this
Amendment as of the as of the date first set forth above.

                                    EMERGE INTERACTIVE, INC.


                                    By:    /s/ David C. Warren
                                           ---------------------------
                                    Name:  David C. Warren
                                    Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                    ALLFLEX HOLDINGS, INC.


                                    By:    /s/ Gilles de Vienne
                                           ---------------------------
                                    Name:  Gilles de Vienne
                                    Title: Chief Executive Officer


                                       2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JAVIER ALFREDO VILLELA, Appellant,
vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

This is an appeal from No. 68314



# FILED
JAN 2 6 2016

TRACE K. LINDEMAN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY CEPuTv CLE K a Judgment of conviction. Eighth 

### ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Judicial District Court, Clark County; Douglas Smith, Judge.

Appellant's counsel has filed a notice of voluntary withdrawal of this appeal. Counsel advises this court that he has informed appellant of the legal effects and consequences of voluntarily withdrawing this appeal, including that appellant cannot hereafter seek to reinstate this appeal, and that any issues that were or could have been brought in this appeal are forever waived. Having been so informed, appellant consents to a voluntary dismissal of this appeal. Cause appearing, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.'

'Because no remittitur will issue in this matter, see NRAP 42(b), the one-year period for filing a post-conviction habeas corpus petition under NRS 34.726(1) shall commence to run from the date of this order.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A -02(9cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge Mario D. Valencia Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk Javier Alfredo Villela

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 tO) 1947A .41paa
#### The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. W. D. Hogan, Appellant.

Appeal: assignment of errors not controverted.

*Appeal from Plymouth District Court.*— Hon. Scott M. Ladd, Judge.

Friday, December 18, 1891.

Indictment for seduction. Verdict and judgment of conviction, and the defendant *appeals.-*

Reversed.

*Argo $■ McDuffie*and *A. S. Blair,*for appellant.

*John T. Stone,*Attorney General, for the state.

Granger, J.-

The judgment in this ease was affirmed in this court at the May term, 1890 (81 Iowa, —), and was then beforo us without brief or argument, and with an imperfect abstract. Upon a showing that the submission was through inadvertence, and without the preparation intended, a rehearing was granted, and the case is again submitted. It is now urged “that the verdict is contrary to and against the evidence,” because of which appellant asks a reversal. The claim is not controverted by the prosecution, and we are led to infer that its correctness is not questioned. In this view of the situation we may readily concur, and, without any discussion of the evidence or facts, the judgment will be REVERSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN TELE-COMMUNICATIONS, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. PRIMARY AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
REPRESENT EARNINGS PER SHARE OF THE COMPANY'S TCI GROUP STOCK. SEE THE 
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             505
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      455
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          11,963
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,275
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,676
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         15,049
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              655
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,050
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,372
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,676
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,827
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      696
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   374
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 289
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (96)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (38)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (58)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (58)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



List of Subsidiary Corporations
AMERIGROUP Corporation
  Entity
    
    State of Incorporation
    
    Incorporation DateAMGP Georgia Managed Care Company
    
    Georgia
    
    6/11/2003AMERIGROUP New Jersey, Inc.
    
    New Jersey
    
    4/3/1995AMERIGROUP Michigan, Inc.
    
    Michigan*
    
    4/1/2002AMERIGROUP Massachusetts, Inc.
    
    Massachusetts*
    
    3/5/2002AMERIGROUP Maryland, Inc.
    
    District of Columbia
    
    1/7/2003AMERIGROUP New Mexico, Inc.
    
    New Mexico*
    
    12/6/2004AMERIGROUP Illinois, Inc.
    
    Illinois
    
    6/14/1995AMERIGROUP Ohio, Inc.
    
    Ohio
    
    3/8/2002AMERIGROUP Florida, Inc.
    
    Florida
    
    12/31/2002AMERIGROUP Delaware, Inc.
    
    Delaware*
    
    3/1/2002AMERIGROUP Connecticut, Inc.
    
    Connecticut*
    
    3/5/2002AMERIGROUP Colorado, Inc.
    
    Colorado*
    
    1/13/2005AMERIGROUP California, Inc.
    
    California*
    
    3/5/2002AMGP Arizona, Inc.
    
    Arizona*
    
    8/7/2002AMERIGROUP Nevada, Inc.
    
    Nevada*
    
    8/11/2005Careplus LLC
    
    New York
    
    10/10/1995AMERIGROUP Indiana, Inc.
    
    Indiana*
    
    3/4/2002AMERIGROUP Acquisition Corporation
    
    New York
    
    10/25/2004AMERIGROUP New York, Inc.
    
    New York*
    
    9/14/2001Intelli-dent IPA, Inc.
    
    New York
    
    3/26/1999AMERIGROUP Tennessee, Inc.
    
    Tennessee
    
    4/23/2006PHP Holdings, Inc.
    
    Florida
    
    3/30/1995AMERIGROUP Wisconsin, Inc.
    
    Wisconsin*
    
    4/2/2002AMERIGROUP Virginia, Inc.
    
    Virginia
    
    8/30/2004AMERIGROUP Texas, Inc.
    
    Texas
    
    6/19/1995AMERIGROUP South Carolina, Inc.
    
    South Carolina*
    
    10/24/2003AMERIGROUP Puerto Rico, Inc.
    
    Puerto Rico*
    
    3/13/2002AMERIGROUP Pennsylvania, Inc.
    
    Pennsylvania*
    
    3/5/2002AMERIVANTAGE, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    1/16/2004
 
 *
    
    non-active
#### Rehfuss, Appellant, vs. City of La Crosse, Respondent.

*May 5*

June *1, 1942.*

*620For the appellant there was a brief by *Baldwin & Bosshard*of La Crosse, and oral argument by *Otto Bosshard.*

*Fred E. Steele,*city attorney, for the respondent.

Rosenberry, C. J.

We shall consider the principal contention made by the plaintiff without deciding whether the action was begun in the proper form. The contention of the plaintiff here is that the city of La Crosse may not condemn lands for the benefit of the La Crosse Public Library for the reason that the La Crosse Public Library is a private corporation; that the power conferred upon the city by sec. 62.22, Stats., cannot be exercised for the benefit of a private corporation. This argument is based upon the fact that the city of La Crosse has no control or authority over the library which is managed and conducted by the trustees of the La Crosse Public Library. The real question for decision is whether the lands in question were acquired by the defendant city for a public purpose. The mere fact that the legal title of the property owned by the La Crosse Public Library is in a private corporation does not prevent it from being devoted to a public use. Ch. 32, Stats., expressly authorizes the exercise of the power of eminent domain for the benefit of private *621corporations, among which are telegraph and telephone corporations, corporations formed for the improvement of any stream, for log-driving purposes, railroad corporations, and many others. It is not doubted that the power of eminent domain may be exercised by such corporations where the use to which property is to be devoted is a public use. It has been so held in many cases.

It is stated in the complaint that the La Crosse Public Library is as its name implies a public and not a private library. That the maintenance and operation of a library by a nonprofit corporation for the use of the general public is a public purpose cannot be questioned. It was so held in *State ex rel. La Crosse Public Library v. Bentley*(1916), 163 Wis. 632, 158 N. W. 306. The mere fact that the city of La Crosse has no voice in the election of trustees of the La Crosse Public Library has no bearing upon the question for decision. Public authorities have no choice in the election of the board of directors of railroads, telegraph, telephone, and many other corporations for whose benefit the power of eminent domain is exercised. The use of lands upon which public-library buildings are to be constructed and operated is likewise a use for the benefit of the public and therefore a public use. The condemnation of such lands is expressly authorized by sec. 62.22, Stats. The case of *State ex rel. La Crosse Public Library v. Bentley, supra,*is decisive of the questions raised in this case.

*By the Court.*— Order appealed from is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.21



ADDENDUM TO THE

CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

CEDAR MANAGEMENT LIMITED (CEDAR)

USA RISK GROUP (BERMUDA), LTD. (USABDA)

(and their affiliated companies) (hereafter collectively
MANAGER)

AND

AMERINST INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. (COMPANY)

EFFECTIVE: January 1, 2009



The original agreement between COMPANY and MANAGER is hereby renewed for one year beginning
January 1, 2009 and ending December, 31, 2009.



The Management Agreement
Addendum is amended to read as follows:



Management Agreement Addendum



|1) | It is hereby agreed that, the Company will compensate MANAGER at a rate of $335,000 per annum beginning 1/1/09 and ending 12/31/09, which shall be inclusive of all work by MANAGER
on CAMICO, PDIC and the CNA audits.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2) | Cause the above fee to be paid in quarterly installments in advance at the beginning of each calendar quarter.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|3) | Reimburse MANAGER for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the management of the COMPANY including; courier and express mail service; long distance telephone calls;
travel and meeting expenses incurred at the request of the COMPANY; costs of COMPANY stationery; filing fees; and similar expenses.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



COMPANY agrees that special projects will be invoiced separately at agreed upon fees or rates.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Addendum this 11th day of December, 2008.



By:

/S/    THOMAS
MCMAHONCedar Management Limited (itself and on behalf of its affiliated companies)By:

/S/    STUART H. GRAYSTONUSA Risk Group (Bermuda), Ltd. (itself and on behalf of its affiliated companies)By:

/S/    RONALD S. KATCHAmerInst Insurance Company, Ltd.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT NO. 11


                STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Six Months Ended              Three Months Ended
                                                 June 30, 1999                  June 30, 1999
                                            --------------------------    --------------------------
                                                            Earnings                      Earnings
                                             Shares         Per Share      Shares         Per Share
                                            --------       -----------    --------       -----------
                                                 (in Thousands)                (in Thousands)
<S>                                         <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Basic Weighted Average
  Shares Outstanding                          3,341            $ 0.48       3,341            $ 0.24
                                            ========         =========    ========         =========

Diluted
  Average Shares Outstanding                  3,341                         3,341
  Common Stock Equivalents                       32                            32
                                            --------                      --------

                                              3,373            $ 0.47       3,373            $ 0.23
                                            ========         =========    ========         =========
</TABLE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Six Months Ended              Three Months Ended
                                                 June 30, 1999                  June 30, 1999
                                            --------------------------    --------------------------
                                                            Earnings                      Earnings
                                             Shares         Per Share      Shares         Per Share
                                            --------       -----------    --------       -----------
                                                 (in Thousands)                (in Thousands)
<S>                                         <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Basic Weighted Average
  Shares Outstanding                          3,124            $ 0.45       3,144            $ 0.23
                                            ========         =========    ========         =========

Diluted
  Average Shares Outstanding                  3,124                         3,144
  Common Stock Equivalents                      219                           209
                                            --------                      --------

                                              3,343            $ 0.42       3,353            $ 0.21
                                            ========         =========    ========         =========
</TABLE>
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JODY DEMAR FONTENOT,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10368

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00778-RS-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 13, 2012** 

San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Jody Fontenot appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for

suppression of evidence and his subsequent conviction, following a bench trial, for

having violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons’ possession of

FILED

JUN 15 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

firearms. The parties are familiar with the facts underlying the appeal and thus we

do not include them save as necessary. We affirm.

A police officer may detain an individual to conduct an investigatory frisk

consistent with the Fourth Amendment if the officer has “a reasonable articulable

suspicion that [the individual] pose[s] a threat to his safety or the safety of

others . . . .” United States v. Terry-Crespo, 356 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir. 2004)

(citing United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392

U.S. 1 (1968). Here, the police had a reasonable articulable suspicion that

Fontenot posed a threat to the safety of others. The police had received a high

priority 9-1-1 dispatch that, in the parking lot of a liquor store on the corner of

Geneva Avenue and Santos Street in San Francisco, there was a group of “guys” in

front of the store and one of them was pulling out a gun. On arrival four minutes

after the 9-1-1 call was made, the police saw only one group in the parking lot, a

group of three males, one of whom was Fontenot. This met the requirement of

“‘some minimal level of objective justification’ for making the stop.” United

States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989) (quoting INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210,

217 (1984)). Further, as discussed by the district court in its opinion below, the 9-

1-1 dispatch and the police had received an emergency call from a cell phone with

the phone number identified; this “provided the police with sufficient indicia of
3

reliability prior to the Terry stop to justify reliance on [the call.]” Terry-Crespo,

356 F.3d at 1174 (referring to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), because it removed a

good deal of the anonymity of the call.

AFFIRMED.