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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1959 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the exclusion 

for employer-provided dependent care assistance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2017 

Ms. SINEMA (for herself and Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the exclusion for employer-provided dependent care assistance. 

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 ‘‘Child and Dependent 

5 Care FSA Enhancement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYER-PRO7 VIDED DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 129(a)(2)(A) of the Inter9 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘$5,000 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1959 IH

1 ($2,500’’ and inserting ‘‘$7,500 (half such dollar 

2 amount’’. 

3 (b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Section 129(a)(2) of 

4 such Code is amended by redesignating subparagraph (C) 

5 as subparagraph (D) and by inserting after subparagraph 

6 (B) the following new subparagraph: 

7 ‘‘(C) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the 

8 case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar 

9 year after 2016, the $7,500 amount in subpara10 graph (A) shall be increased by an amount 

11 equal to— 

12 ‘‘(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

13 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de14 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal15 endar year in which the taxable year be16 gins, determined by substituting ‘calendar 

17 year 2015’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in sub18 paragraph (B) thereof. 

19 Any increase determined under the preceding 

20 sentence shall be rounded to the nearest mul21 tiple of $100.’’. 

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

23 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

24 December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1170 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1170

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen

                                 An Act

 
 To amend title 39, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 
 United States Postal Service to issue a semipostal to raise funds for 
             breast cancer research, 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 ``Breast Cancer Research Stamp 
Reauthorization Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH.
    Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2015'' and inserting ``2019''.
SEC. 3. ENSURING THAT FUNDS GENERATED BY SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMP SALES 
ARE USED FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH.
    Section 414(c)(1) of title 39, United States Code, is amended in 
the matter following subparagraph (B) by adding at the end the 
following: ``An agency that receives amounts from the Postal Service 
under this paragraph shall use the amounts for breast cancer 
research.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
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 Annual Report of Pacifica Bancorp, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Kennedy, the President and Chief 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:



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



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the period certified.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This certification is being furnished solely to comply with the
requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any of the Companys filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise be deemed to be filed as part of the
Report or under such Acts.



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 17, 2005 |  | /s/ John A. Kennedy                  
|                     |  | John A. Kennedy                      
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2005143EN.01001401.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 28 April 2005

in Case C-375/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/58/EC - Electronic communications - Processing of personal data - Protection of privacy - Protection of natural persons - Failure to tranpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 143/19)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-375/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Shotter) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 1 September 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 April 2005, in which it:

Commission of the European Communities

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.

1

---
#### HIRAM CARLAND AND WIFE AND OTHERS *against*JAS. W. JONES.

This cause was beard at last term with that of *Jones*v. *Oar-Icmd,*(concerning the same matter); and this was retained for further directions.

Instead of a sale, the Court at last term decreed a partition by metes and bounds, with a suggestion that the part as contended for by Jones the plaintiff in the other suit might be assigned by *the*commissioners to him, which would ¡out an end to the controversy as to the mode of division. Commissioners were appointed who did lay off the part contended for by Jones in the locality agreed on in their bond, yet, as the surveyor had made a mistake and allowed him several acres more than his proportionate share, the commissioners, by aline running parallel with the one formerly run, limited him to his proper number of acres; for this, Jones filed an interlocutory petition, stating that this curtailment of his lot, deprived him of valuable improvements, which he had made by cutting a ditch and making a fence on the part taken from him, and prayed the Court to have it made good to him by a decree against Garland. They also laid off to the children and heirs of Mrs. Lance their portion by a line parallel to that of the plaintiffs, and the remainder was allotted by them to Garland. There were exceptions to the report of the commissioners, but they need not be particularly noticed, as no point of law arises out of them.

The cause was heard on a motion for further directions, and upon exceptions to the report of the commissioners.

*JV.*IF". *Woodfin,*for plaintiffs.

*Baxter,*for defendant.

Pearson, J.

*We*see no ground upon which the exceptions can be sustained ; they are, therefore, overruled.

*507The petition of Jones in regard to his improvements, &c., has been considered by ns; but we can see no ground upon which to base an equity in his favor. It was his folly or misfortune to cut the ditch, and mate the fence, before he had received title to the land.

The report is in all things confirmed, and the commissioners are allowed $2,00 per day while doing the business, to be taxed by the clerk, &c.

Pee CueiaM. Decree accordingly
Exhibit 10.07
 TELETECH HOLDINGS, INC.
NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 Agreement TeleTech   Optionee   Grant Date
 Grant of Option Plan Option  Shares Common Stock $  Option Price Committee last sale price
 Code
 Term: Option Rights Expiration
Date
 Rights Upon Termination of Employment Subsidiaries Disability
 Rights Upon Termination For Cause
 Rights Upon Optionees Death or Disability
 Vesting Vesting Date
 CumulativePercentage of
 -1-




---



##### 



Vesting Date
    
    Option Vested,
    
    
    25
    %,
    
    
    50
    %,
    
    
    75
    %,
    
    
    100
    %
  Vesting Following a Change in Control
 Accelerated Vesting
  accelerated vesting provisions of this Section 3A
 provided however
 Definition of Change in Control Change in
Control
  Disposition provided however
 -2-




---



##### 



provided however provided further
 Continuing Directors
 Other Definitions
 Cause provided however provided further
 Termination Date
 Good Reason provided that provided however
 Procedure for Exercise
 Payment for Shares
 -3-




---



##### 



Options Not Transferable and Subject to Certain Restrictions
 Acceptance of Plan
 No Right to Employment
 Compliance with Securities Laws Securities
Act
 Adjustments
 No Other Rights
 Confidentiality OPTIONEE AGREES NOT TO DISCLOSE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO ANY
OTHER EMPLOYEE OF TELETECH AND TO KEEP CONFIDENTIAL ALL INFORMATION RELATING TO ANY OPTIONS OR
OTHER AWARDS GRANTED TO OPTIONEE, PURSUANT TO THE PLAN OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF ANY
SUCH AWARD, THE EXERCISE PRICE AND THE RATE OF VESTING THEREOF; PROVIDED THAT OPTIONEE SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO
 -4-




---



##### 



DISCLOSE SUCH INFORMATION TO SUCH OF OPTIONEES ADVISORS, REPRESENTATIVES OR AGENTS, OR TO SUCH OF
TELETECHS OFFICERS, ADVISORS, REPRESENTATIVES OR AGENTS (INCLUDING LEGAL AND ACCOUNTING ADVISORS),
WHO HAVE A NEED TO KNOW SUCH INFORMATION FOR LEGITIMATE TAX, FINANCIAL PLANNING OR OTHER SUCH
PURPOSES
 Severability
 References
 Entire Agreement
 Amendment
 No Third Party Beneficiary
 Governing Law
  -5-




---



##### 



TELETECH HOLDINGS, INC.By:NameTitleSignature of  (Optionee)Optionees Social Security Number
 -6-
# C_2005082EN.01004501.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/45

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-131/03 (1)

1

(2005/C 82/79)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 13 January 2005, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-131/03, Sinziger Mineralbrunnen GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

---

(1)  OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.

1

---
#### JOSEPH P. PRAIRIE and THOS. G. JENKINS v. DAVID A. JENKINS, Public Treasurer.

(Por the Syllabus, see the next preceding case, page 545.)

Civil ActioN, praying an *Injunction*against the Public Treasurer, restraining the collection of a certain judgment, theretofore obtained, heard before Watts, J., at Chambers in the County of Wake, 15th April, 1875.

Upon the hearing of the complaint and affidavit, no answer being filed, his Honor continued the Injunction until the final hearing.

The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court, and also in the report of the next preceding case between the same parties.

Prom the order of his Honor in the Court below, continuing the Injunction, the defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Hargrove*and *Smith & Strong,*for appellant.

*Badger & Devereuz*and *Batchelor & Son,*contra.

RodmaN, J.

On 16th December, 1874, the State obtained a further judgment on the same bond on which a judgment *550had been taken in the January previous, which was considered and decided' on in a case between nearly the same plaintiffs and the same defendant at this term. See ante, p. 545. The only grounds alleged in this complaint are that the judgment was taken before the Clerk, and without notice. These points were considered and decided adversely to the plaintiff. No objection to the judgment in the case mentioned is set forth in this case, founded on the Act of the General Assembly giving time to the principal.

Probably as that is a Public Act, we are required to take judicial notice of it. But we cannot take notice that the sheriff had brought himself within the conditions of that Act, by paying three-fourths of the taxes and all that had been collected by him, when it is not alleged in the pleadings in this case. Herein this case differs from the one above cited.

There is error. Injunction dissolved. Case remanded. Let this opinion be certified.

Per Curiam. Injunction dissolved.
# Herbaceous Wind Barriers (Ft.) (603) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Herbaceous Wind Barriers (Ft.) (603) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Herbaceous Wind Barriers (Ft.) (603).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

603 NHCP CPS Herbaceous Wind Barriers 2023(96.77 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Herbaceous Wind Barriers (Ft.) (603) Overview(324.54 KB)

Herbaceous Wind Barriers (Ft.) (603) CPPE(25.29 KB)

603 NHCP NED Herbaceous Wind Barriers 2023(70.99 KB)

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
Exhibit 32.1


                  WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Colonial Properties Trust, our
general partner, hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

     (a)   The Form 10-K of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership for the period
           ended December 31, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities
           and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the
           requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
           of 1934; and

     (b)   Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
           respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
           Colonial Realty Limited Partnership.



Date: March 15, 2004                  By:   /s/ Thomas H. Lowder
                                         ----------------------------
                                                Thomas H. Lowder
                                                Chief Executive Officer









<PAGE>



                                                                  Exhibit 32.2


                  WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned, as acting Chief Financial Officer of Colonial Properties Trust,
our general partner, hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

     (a)   The Form 10-K of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership for the period
           ended December 31, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities
           and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the
           requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
           of 1934; and

     (b)   Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
           respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
           Colonial Realty Limited Partnership.


Date: March 15, 2004               By:  /s/ John P. Rigrish
                                       -------------------------
                                            John P. Rigrish
                                            Chief Administrative Officer
                                           (as acting Chief Financial Officer)
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANTHONY P. ORRICO,

Appellant,

v.

MORTGAGE GUARANTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-891

[February 17, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502015CA000422XXXXMB.

Millie Orrico of Orrico Law, P.A., Tequesta, for appellant.

David M. Snyder of David M. Snyder, Professional Association, 

Tampa, and Joshua D. Moore of Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, 

Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00283-CR

CHARLES BITTICK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 297th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1601392D)

November 16, 2023

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgments. It is ordered that the judgments of the 

trial court are affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2269 

To require the Administrator of General Services to issue guidance relating 

to the procurement of reclaimed refrigerants. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2017 

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois (for himself and Mr. PETERS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of General Services to issue 

guidance relating to the procurement of reclaimed refrigerants. 

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 ‘‘Federal Refrigerant 

5 Management and Stewardship Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROMOTING USE OF RECLAIMED REFRIGERANTS IN 

7 PUBLIC BUILDINGS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

9 date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2269 IH

1 General Services shall issue guidance relating to the pro2 curement of reclaimed refrigerants to service existing 

3 equipment in public buildings. 

4 (b) PREFERENCE.—The guidance issued under sub5 section (a) shall give preference to the use of reclaimed 

6 refrigerants if— 

7 (1) the refrigerant has been reclaimed by an in8 dividual or entity that is certified under the labora9 tory certification program of the Air Conditioning, 

10 Heating, and Refrigeration Institute; and 

11 (2) the price of the reclaimed refrigerant does 

12 not exceed the price of a newly manufactured refrig13 erant. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2005106EN.01002106.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/21

---

Removal from the register of Case C-247/03 (1)

1

(2005/C 106/46)

(Language of the case: Greek)

(Language of the case: Greek)

By order of 19 November 2004, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-247/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.

1

---
Order entered January 23, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 01413

- CR

ERIK JAMAL JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. F 11

- 63319

- H



### O RDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On November 14, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the

r eporter’s record had not been filed. On January 22, 2014, we received the reporter’s record.

Therefo re, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the November 14, 2013 order

requiring findings.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE