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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 150 

To direct the Attorney General to create a special reward program for individuals providing information leading to the apprehension and conviction 

of persons committing offenses under section 1030 of title 18, United 

States Code, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To direct the Attorney General to create a special reward 

program for individuals providing information leading to 

the apprehension and conviction of persons committing 

offenses under section 1030 of title 18, United States 

Code, 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 ‘‘Providing Rewards for 

5 Outstanding Tips to Expose Crimes in Technology Act of 

6 2017’’ or the ‘‘PROTECT Act of 2017’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 150 IH

1 SEC. 2. CYBERCRIME REWARD PROGRAM. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall estab3 lish and publicize a special reward program for individuals 

4 providing information leading to the apprehension and 

5 conviction of persons committing offenses under section 

6 1030 of title 18, United States Code. 

7 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

8 are authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 for each of 

9 fiscal years 2017 through 2021 to carry out this section. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### In re THEATRE HOLDING CORP., Debtor-Appellant, v. Marcella Pincus MAURO, John E. Mauro and Paul Mauro, Landlords-Appellees.

No. 81 Civ. 5902(CES).

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

Jan. 18, 1982.

*431Jessel Rothman, Mineóla, N. Y., for debt- or-appellant.

Coral & Ortenberg, Suffern, N. Y., for landlords-appellees.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

STEWART, District Judge:

This case comes on appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, and raises the issues of whether the bankruptcy judge erred in (1) finding that thirty days was a reasonable time for the debtor Theatre Holding Corp. (“Theatre Holding”) to elect to assume or reject its unexpired lease pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(d) (1976), or (2) denying, upon Theatre Holding’s motion to renew, an extension of that thirty day period. In reviewing these issues, we are bound by the statutory mandate to accept the findings of fact below unless clearly erroneous. Rules Bankr.Proc. Rule 810. Under this standard, we affirm the judgments below.

Under Section 365(d)(2), a bankruptcy judge may order a trustee or debtor to determine within a specified time whether to assume or reject an executory contract or unexpired lease. The amount of time to be afforded the debtor is to be a “reasonable” one, as determined by the facts and circumstances of the particular case. *See*Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 365.03(1) at 365-20 (15th ed. 1981). The factors to be considered include the nature of the interests at stake, the balance of harm to the litigants, the good to be achieved and the safeguards afforded the litigants. *Matter of Midtown Skating Corp.,*3 B.R. 194, 198 (S.D.N.Y.1980).

The landlord-appellees in this case applied to the Bankruptcy Court on or about June 12,1981 for an order fixing the time within which the debtor-appellant would have to decide whether to adopt or reject its lease. On June 26, 1981, the court gave the debtor thirty (30) days, or until July 27, 1981, to make this decision. On July 15, 1981, the court extended that date to August 3, 1981. In selecting this relatively short period in which the debtor was to decide whether to accept or reject, the bankruptcy judge had before him the following facts: that various attempts to run the theatre had been unsuccessful since 1973, Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) Ex. D. at 35; that the most recent operator of the theatre had filed a bankruptcy petition in April of 1981, Aff. of William E. Dooley at 4; that “the landlord would lose if the [debtor didn’t] come up with a plan,” OSC Ex. D. at 45; that the debtor in fact had no plan and none appeared imminent, *id.*at 29; and that, because a bankrupt subtenant was in actual possession of the premises in ques*432tion, the debtor was paying the landlord neither rent nor use and occupation fees while it attempted to find new investors, *id.*at 4. Under these circumstances, the finding that 30 days (or actually 37 days in light of the July 15 extension) was a reasonable time was not clearly erroneous. We accordingly affirm the Bankruptcy Court’s orders of July 7, 1981 and July 15, 1981, and remand the case for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

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 Annual Report of Apple Hospitality Two, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: (1) the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly
represents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of
operations of the Company as of December 31, 2002, and for the period then
ended.





/s/ David S. McKenney
-----------------------
David S. McKenney
Chief Financial Officer


March 27, 2003
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 1068

_____________________________
K EION M ARQUISE J ONES , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Baker County

. James M. Colaw , Judge

. April 19, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , R OBERTS , and W ETHERELL , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney G eneral, and Robert Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
No. 90-6240.

#### Juvenile Action No. JV-115567 *v.*Arizona.

Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1997

# NRC Staff Issues Notice of Violation to Wisconsin Electric Co.; No Fine Proposed for Violations at Point Beach Nuclear Plant

----

----

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-75

August 11, 1997

**NRC STAFF ISSUES NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO WISCONSIN ELECTRIC CO.; NO FINE PROPOSED FOR VIOLATIONS AT POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a Notice of Violation to Wisconsin Electric Power Co. for violations found during inspections earlier this year at the Point Beach Nuclear Power Station. No fine was proposed for the violations.

The Point Beach plant is near Two Rivers, Wisconsin.

The NRC inspections were conducted between December of last year and March of this year. A predecisional enforcement conference was held April 9 between the NRC staff and the utility to discuss the violations identified in the inspections.

The Notice of Violation covers a total of 21 violations, including failure to promptly identify and correct problems at the plant; failure to perform adequate safety reviews of safety-related equipment problems; and failure to meet NRC license requirements for certain tests and to correct inaccuracies in the license requirements.

In issuing the Notice of Violation to the utility, NRC Regional Administrator A. Bill Beach said that a significant fine was considered in the case, but that the agency was exercising enforcement discretion and not proposing a fine.

This enforcement discretion was warranted because the NRC had issued a $325,000 fine last December on similar issues, and the utility had entered into the Confirmatory Action Letter with the NRC which provided the facility would not be operated until these violations and other performance problems were corrected.

Mr. Beach added, "...although the NRC identified a number of these issues as a result of its inspections, the NRC has determined, based on our continued inspection effort, that Wisconsin Electric Power Company dedicated significant resources to successfully address the performance issues and substantially improve Point Beach's conduct of operations."

He continued, "Nonetheless, the NRC must emphasize that failure to sustain this performance could lead to more significant regulatory sanctions."

Wisconsin Electric is required to respond to the Notice of Violation, including a description of its actions to correct the violations and prevent a recurrence of the violations.

Note: The letter to the utility forwarding the Notice of Violation is available from the NRC Region III Office of Public Affairs. It is also on the NRC's internet web site.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
#### In the Matter of Oneida County Department of Social Services, on Behalf of Karen L., Respondent, v Amadeo J. D., Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 967]

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner met its burden of establishing paternity by clear and convincing evidence, " 'evidence which is "entirely satisfactory” and creates a genuine belief that respondent is the father of the child’ ” *(Matter of Stone [Chilinski] v Ilardo,*191 AD2d 965, quoting *Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Patricia A ] v Philip De G.,*59 NY2d 137, 141-142). The blood genetic marker test, which indicates that there is a 99.9% probability that respondent is the child’s father, is entitled to great weight *(see, Matter of Stone [Chilinski] v Ilardo, supra).*That test also created a rebuttable presumption of paternity, which was not rebutted by respondent *(see,*Family Ct Act § 532 [a]). The court’s comments regarding the rebuttable presumption were appropriate and do not require reversal. Contrary to respondent’s argument, the oral decision of Family Court, which reviewed the mother’s testimony and set forth the blood test results, satisfies the requirement of CPLR 4213 (b) that the court state the facts it deems essential. (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Cook, J. — Paternity.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 6, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H25-H26]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              ADJOURNMENT

  Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 55 minutes 
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 
at 10 a.m.

                     EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

  Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from 
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
       1. A letter from the OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 
     DoD, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's 
     ``Major'' final rule -- TRICARE; Hospital Outpatient 
     Prospective Payment System (OPPS) [DOD-2007-HA-0048] (RIN: 
     0720-AB19) received January 5, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
       2. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional 
     Affairs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the 
     Commission's final rule -- Regulatory Changes to Implement 
     the Additional Protocol to the US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement 
     [NRC-2008-0543] (RIN: 3150-AH38) received January 5, 2009, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce.
       3. A letter from the Secretary to the Board, Railroad 
     Retirement Board, transmitting the Board's report for FY 2008 
     on competitive sourcing activities, in accordance with 
     Section 647(b) of Division F of the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2004, Pub. L. 108-199; to the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
       4. A letter from the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, 
     transmitting a list of reports pursuant to clause 2(b), Rule 
     II of the Rules of the House of Representatives; (H. Doc. No. 
     111-4); to the Committee on House Administration and ordered 
     to be printed.
       5. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of 
     Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule 
     -- Changes to Requirements Affecting H-2A Nonimmigrants 
     [Docket No.: USCIS-2007-0055;

[[Page H26]]

     CIS No. 2428-07] (RIN: 1615-AB65) received January 5, 2009, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary.

                          ____________________
```
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

Directorate Identifier: **2011 -**  **NM -**  **146 -**  **AD Costs:**  Inspection (1 work
- hour x $8 5 /hour) $ $85 Parts per airplane $ + 0 Cost per airplane $85 **On -**  **Condition Costs:** Hydraulic fairlead change (1 work
- hour x $85/hour) $85 ID G cable replacement (4 work
- hours x $85/hour) $340 Cost per airplane $ $425 Number of U.S.
- registered airplanes x 586 Total fleet cost $ 249 , 050 **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Av iation in Alaska:**  This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6651

KEITH JEROME WHITE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-01-382-2)

Submitted: July 18, 2002 Decided: July 24, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Jerome White, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith Jerome White seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. White v. Angelone, No. CA-01-382-

2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2002). 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
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.49
 May 5, 2005
    
    (PHOTON DYNAMICS LOGO)
 
   1. Separation.
 2. Transition Period.
  3. Stock Options.
 4. Accrued Salary And Vacation.




---



##### 



5. Other Compensation Or Benefits.
 6. Expense Reimbursements.
 7. Information Disclosure. [month]
 8. Cooperation. provided,
however,
 9. Return Of Company Property.




---



##### 



provided, however,
 10. Proprietary Information Obligations.
 11. Non-Competition.
 12. Non-Solicitation.
 13. Confidentiality. provided, however,




---



##### 



14. Nondisparagement. provided, however,
 15. Release.
 16. ADEA
Waiver.
 17. Waiver of Unknown Claims.
 A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor
does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of
executing the release, which if known by him must have
materially affected his settlement with the debtor.




---



##### 



18. Supplemental Release.
 19. Dispute Resolution.
 20. Miscellaneous.




---



##### 



Sincerely,Photon Dynamics Inc.By:  /s/ Jeff HawthorneName:
JEFF HAWTHORNETitle:

CEO
 I
have read, understand, and
agree fully to the foregoing agreement:
 /s/ Richard OkumotoRichard OkumotoDated: MAY 5, 2005




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 Proprietary
Information and Inventions Agreement




---



##### 



Exhibit B
 Supplemental Release
    A general release does not extend to claims which the
creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which
if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor.
  By:Richard OkumotoDate:
IB 

Union Calendar No. 144 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1541 

[Report No. 115–207] 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire certain property related 

to the Fort Scott National Historic Site in Fort Scott, Kansas, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2017 

Ms. JENKINS of Kansas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Natural Resources 

JULY 11, 2017 

Additional sponsor: Mr. MARSHALL

JULY 11, 2017 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1541 RH

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire certain 

property related to the Fort Scott National Historic Site 

in Fort Scott, Kansas, and for other purposes. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1541 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE LUNETTE BLAIR. 

4 The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize establishment 

5 of the Fort Scott National Historic Site, Kansas, and for 

6 other purposes.’’, approved October 19, 1978 (Public Law 

7 95–484) is amended— 

8 (1) in the first section— 

9 (A) by inserting ‘‘only’’ after ‘‘donation’’; 

10 and 

11 (B) by striking ‘‘: Provided, that the build12 ings so acquired shall not include the structure 

13 known as ‘Lunette Blair’ ’’; and 

14 (2) in section 2— 

15 (A) by striking ‘‘When the site of’’ and in16 serting ‘‘(a) When the site of’’; and 

17 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

18 ‘‘(b) The boundary of the Fort Scott National His19 toric Site established under subsection (a) is modified as 

20 generally depicted on the map referred to as ‘Fort Scott 

21 National Historic Site Proposed Boundary Modification’, 

22 numbered 471/80,057C, and dated February 2017.’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 144 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1541 

[Report No. 115–207] 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acand for other purposes. National Historic Site in Fort Scott, Kansas, quire certain property related to the Fort Scott 

JULY 11, 2017 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
No. 90-6151.

#### Brooks *v.*Attorney General of the State of Alabama.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-4063

___________________________

James Villa,

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant,

v.

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

 Submitted: November 1, 2017

Filed: November 14, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In 2013, James Villa pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute

marijuana and he was sentenced as a career offender to 164 months in prison. In

2015, Villa filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, claiming that his sentence violated his

rights under the Due Process Clause because he no longer qualified as a career

offender after Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Johnson held that
the “residual clause” ofthe ArmedCareer Criminal Actwas unconstitutionally vague. 

Villa argued by extension that an identically-worded provision of the Sentencing

Guidelines applied in his case, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) (2013), was also

unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied relief, and Villa appeals. 1

Assuming without deciding that Villa’s claim was not waived in his plea

agreement, Villa is not entitled to relief under § 2255 because the advisory Guidelines

are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause. Beckles v.

United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 895 (2017). 

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Nebraska. 

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STAR GAS
PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
INTERIM PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 1999 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001002590
<NAME> STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,910
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,808
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,781
<INVENTORY>                                     28,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,233
<PP&E>                                         195,173
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 581,394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          161,245
<BONDS>                                        262,130
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       151,271
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   581,394
<SALES>                                        160,540
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               186,886
<CGS>                                           86,546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  117,431
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                52,945
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   430
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,478
<INCOME-TAX>                                       113
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,365
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,365
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53


</TABLE>