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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 646 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 646

 Recognizing the 70th Anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Thailand.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 2, 2020

   Mr. Gardner (for himself and Mr. Cardin) submitted the following 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the 70th Anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Thailand.

Whereas the Kingdom of Thailand and the United States of America first 
        established relations in 1818 and entered into the Treaty of Amity and 
        Commerce in 1833;
Whereas the Fulbright Program is sponsored by the Bureau of Educational and 
        Cultural Affairs of the Department of State;
Whereas the Fulbright Program currently operates in over 150 countries;
Whereas the Thailand-United States Educational Foundation (TUSEF) was 
        established by a formal agreement in 1950;
Whereas 2020 is the 70th anniversary of the Fulbright Program partnership with 
        the Kingdom of Thailand;
Whereas, recognizing the value of bilateral exchange, the Government of Thailand 
        has financially contributed to the binational TUSEF annually since 1989;
Whereas nearly 2,000 Fulbright students and scholars from Thailand have studied, 
        conducted research, or lectured in the United States since TUSEF's 
        founding;
Whereas over 1,300 Fulbright grantees from the United States conducted research 
        or gave lectures in Thailand since TUSEF's founding; and
Whereas the United States Government supports additional programs in Thailand in 
        the areas of education, rule of law, and internationally recognized 
        human rights: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes and commends the 70th anniversary of the 
        Fulbright Program in Thailand; and
            (2) encourages the President to maintain and expand 
        interaction with the Kingdom of Thailand in ways that 
        facilitate close coordination and partnership in the areas of 
        education and cultural exchange throughout all of Thailand and 
        the United States.
                                 <all>
```
UNLIMITED GUARANTY

For good and valuable consideration, and as an inducement for Covol
Technologies, Inc., ("Creditor"), to release Michael McEwan as guarantor of the
promissory note in the amount of five million dollars dated "August ___ 1996,"
signed by Creditor, Guarantor and Michael McEwan, (the "Note"), Gerald Larson
("Guarantor") unconditionally guarantees to the Creditor the prompt and full
payment of all sums due from Guarantor to Creditor under the Note.

The Guarantor agrees to remain fully bound on this guaranty notwithstanding any
extension, modification, waiver, or substitution of any collateral or security
for the debt. In addition, the Guarantor consents to and waives all notice of
the same. All suretyship defenses are waived by the Guarantor.

In the event of default, the Guarantor shall be responsible to pay attorney
fees, collection costs, and other fees associated with collection of the Note.

The guaranty is unlimited as to amount or duration, until the Note is completely
discharged by the Guarantor.

This guaranty is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the parties, their
successors, assigns, and personal representatives.

Signed under seal this 29th day of April 1998.

Guarantor

/s/ Gerald M. Larson
--------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM
10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                 417,966
<SECURITIES>                         4,773,378
<RECEIVABLES>                          645,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                            786,184
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     6,899,909
<PP&E>                               4,644,026
<DEPRECIATION>                       3,084,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      12,310,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                3,664,194
<BONDS>                              2,777,633
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                678
<COMMON>                                 5,752
<OTHER-SE>                           5,868,730
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        12,310,557
<SALES>                              2,634,546
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     2,693,770
<CGS>                                1,608,914
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        5,852,855
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    (176,397)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              0
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                        (3,556,268)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (0.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0
        


</TABLE>
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed

November 22, 2022
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00829

- CV No. 14

- 22

- 00830

- CV

IN RE MARK A LEPPARD , INDIVIDUALLY, AIR TECHNICS , AND ATI

ADVANTAGE LLC , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 506th Judicial District Court Waller County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 16

- 04

- 23701 & 16

- 04

- 23701

- A



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 9, 2022 , relator s Mark A Leppard, Individually, Air Technics , and ATI Advantage LLC filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this court

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator s2

ask this court to compel the presiding judge of the 506th Jud icial District Court of Waller County , to vacate the October 12, 2017 sanctions order and the October 12, 2017 final judgment

. Relators have not established that they are entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of m andamus.
PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.2






Description of STERIS Corporation Non-Employee Director Compensation Program




The current Director compensation program for STERIS Corporation (“STERIS”) Directors is summarized below.


A retainer of $300,000 is payable to the Chairman of the Board and a retainer of $200,000 is payable to each other non-employee Director.  The retainer fees are payable in full at the beginning of each Director’s term.  Retainer fees are fully vested immediately, regardless of the form in which paid.  


The retainer fee is payable as follows:  $65,000 in cash ($105,000 for the Chairman), $67,500 in stock options ($97,500 for the Chairman) and $67,500 in career restricted stock units (“CRSUs”) ($97,500 for the Chairman).  Each Director may elect to receive all or a part of the cash or option portions of the fee in STERIS shares or CRSUs and may elect to receive all or part of the CRSU portion of the fee in STERIS shares.  The elections for incumbent Directors are required to be made on or before the December 31 that immediately precedes the beginning of the term for which the compensation will be paid.


Each new non-employee Director will receive the same amount of retainer fees as an incumbent Director, but the available forms of payment will be limited until such time as the Director has satisfied the Company’s Non-Employee Director Stock Ownership Guidelines.  The new Director will receive a retainer fee of $65,000 in cash, but may elect to receive payment in CRSUs in lieu of all or a portion of the cash.  The remaining $135,000 of such Director’s retainer fee will be payable in CRSUs.


The number of CRSUs or STERIS shares a Director is entitled to receive is determined based upon the dollar amount of the retainer fees elected to be received in CRSUs or STERIS shares, and the NYSE STERIS per share closing price on the effective date of grant.  The number of options a Director is entitled to receive is determined based upon the same factors and a Black-Scholes calculation, and the option price is the NYSE per share closing price on the effective date of grant.  


A Director’s CRSU’s will be settled in STERIS common shares six months after the cessation of the Director’s Board service.  Directors will be paid cash dividend equivalents on their CRSUs as dividends are paid on STERIS common shares.


Annual Committee Chair fees are payable in the following amounts at the beginning of each term:  $15,000 for the Audit Committee Chair,  $10,000 for the Compensation Committee Chair, and $7,500 for the other Committee Chairs.  Meeting fees are $1,000 per meeting for Board meetings and assigned Committee meetings attended in excess of 20 during the annual term.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS KIMBERLIN T. EDWARDS NO. 

### 2022 KW 0107



### MAY 

### 9, 2022

In Re: Kimberlin T. Edwards, 

### applying 

### for supervisory writs,



### 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. 

### Tammany, No. 458, 

### 662.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. The 

### district court 

### did not err 

### in 

## denying relator' s motion to correct an 

### illegal sentence. Relator' s arguments 

### in the motion to correct an 

### illegal sentence 

### do not relate to the 

## legality of the sentence under the applicable statutes; and thus, the 

## issues may not be raised in a motion to correct an 

### illegal sentence. 

### See State v. Parker, 

### 98-0256 ( La. 

### 5/8/ 98), 711 

### So.2d 694, 

### 695 ( per curiam); State v. Gedric, 

### 99- 1213 ( La. 

## App. lst Cir. 

### 6/3/ 99), 741 

### So.2d 849, 

### 851-52 ( per curiam), 

### writ denied, 

### 99-1830 ( La. 

### 11/5/ 99), 751 So.2d 239. If relator 

## is making a complaint with regard to the computation of 

### her sentence, La. R.S. 

### 15: 1171(B) grants authority to the Department of Public 

## Safety and Corrections to adopt administrative remedy procedures to receive, 

### hear, and dispose of complaints of time computations of sentences. 

## Any complaint pertaining to the time computations, 

## including alleged parole 

### eligibility and credit 

### for time served 

### issues, must be made under the Corrections 

### Administrative 

## Remedy Procedure ( CARP) as 

### provided in La. R.S. 

## 15:1171-79 before seeking a remedyfromthe district court. See Briscoe v. Department of Public 

## Safety and Corrections, 2017-0470 ( La. 

### App. 1st Cir. 

### 7/24/ 17), 2017 WL 

### 3124096. JMG GH WRC



### COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT



### DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
EXHIBIT 32.1
CERTIFICATION OF MEMBER OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
I, Alfred R. Rudolph, Member of the Office of the President of SciClonePharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, based on my knowledge:
 (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to whichthis certification is attached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Registrant.   Date: November 8, 2004 /s/ Alfred R. Rudolph   Alfred R. Rudolph Member of the Office of the President
*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to SciClonePharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.*
#### EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION OF ARKANSAS *v.*Chris HUBBARD

79-209

587 S.W. 2d 835

Opinion delivered October 22, 1979

(In Banc)

*Thelma M. Lorenzo,*for appellant.

No brief for appellee.

*726George Rose Smith, Justice.

After the appellee had received unemployment benefits measured by the wages he was actually paid during a base year that ended March 31, 1977, he applied for a redetermination of the amount of benefits. His proof showed that in November, 1977, after the expiration of the base year, his employer paid him $800.55 in back pay for work performed during the last quarter of the base year, his wages having originally been miscalculated under the Davis-Bacon Act. The Appeal Tribunal and the Board of Review refused to redetermine the benefits, holding that the computation must be based upon wages actually paid during the base year rather than upon wages merely payable. The circuit court took the opposite position and reversed the administrative decision. We agree with the Board of Review.

The legislative history of the Employment Security Act leaves no doubt about the correct rule to be followed. The original 1941 statute based the determination of benefits upon wages “earned” by the employee and upon wages “payable” to him during the base period. Act 391 of 1941, § 2(c) and (n). But a 1943 amendment changed both references to wages “paid” to the employee. Act 138 of 1943, §§ 23(c) and 24(n). The word “paid” has been retained ever since in the definition of “wages.” Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1103(n) (Repl. 1976).

In Connecticut and Maryland, where the statutes were amended in substantially the same way, the courts hold that the issue depends upon the wages actually paid. *Giammattei*v. *Egan,*135 Conn. 666, 68 A. 2d 129 (1949); *Maryland Dept. of Employment Security*v. *Werner,*231 Md. 474, 190 A. 2d 786 (1963). In the Maryland case the court explained the reason for the amendments to the statute:

> As a matter of administrative feasibility, if the Department were to credit wages when earned, it would be necessary in every instance where the claimant qualified for less than the maximum amount of benefits to contact his employer to determine from his payroll records when each dollar of wages was actually earned. Needless to say, this would not only delay the payment of benefits, *727but it would also impose a great, if not impossible burden on the Department and on every employer.

> This was the very reason that impelled the amendments of 1941.

The legislative history of the Arkansas act leads to the same conclusion.

Reversed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                                    State of Formation
----                                                    ------------------
<S>                                                     <C>
Eltrax Technology Services Group, Inc.                     Georgia
Eltrax Customer Care Group, Inc.                           Georgia
Cereus Technology Partners, Inc.                           Delaware
Eltrax ASP Group, LLC                                      Georgia
Eltrax Group, Inc.                                         Pennsylvania
Cereus Technology, Inc                                     Delaware
American Internet Media, Inc.                              Delaware
Cereus Bandwidth Limited Liability Company                 Georgia
MessageClick, Inc.                                         Delaware
</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM

June 23, 2011

TO: Air Docket

FROM: Nancy Ketcham-Colwill

SUBJECT: Meeting Summary

On February 17, 2011, representatives from EPA and the ethanol industry met to discuss issues 

associated with labeling pumps dispensing gasoline containing more than 15% ethanol and with 

educating consumers about the appropriate and inappropriate uses of E15 and higher ethanol blends. 

Attendees are shown below. The EPA and ethanol industry representatives discussed how labels for 

higher ethanol blends might be coordinated with a label for E15 in view of proposed FTC labeling of such 

blends. They also discussed the need for a consumer education and outreach effort to accompany the 

first introduction of E15 into the market. The ethanol industry representatives indicated they would 

help initiate such an effort.

Attendees:

Margo Oge, EPA

Karl Simon, EPA

Paul Argyropoulous, EPA

Nancy Ketcham-Colwill, EPA 

Tom Buis, Growth Energy

Chris Bliley, Growth Energy
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Friedhelm Blobel, Chief
Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer, of SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, based on my knowledge:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  |  | 
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: August 1, 2008 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Friedhelm Blobel, Ph.D.                               
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Friedhelm Blobel, Ph.D.                                   
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)                             

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be
retained by SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of HF Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, CurtisL. Hage, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Curtis L. Hage                  |
|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   | Curtis L. Hage, Chairman, President |
|   | and Chief Executive Officer         |
|   |                                |
|   | Date:                               |   November 14,  2008 |

 

----

*                                         A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to HF Financial Corp. and willbe retained by HF Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4518 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny a deduction for 

image advertising expenses for any trade or business the gross receipts 

of which exceed $100 million. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 26, 2010 

Mr. HALL of New York 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 deny a 

deduction for image advertising expenses for any trade 

or business the gross receipts of which exceed $100 

million. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN ADVER4 TISING. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part IX of subchapter B of chap6 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 

7 items not deductible) is amended by adding at the end 

8 the following new section: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4518 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 280I. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN ADVER2 TISING. 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a person who is 

4 not a qualified small business, no deduction shall be al5 lowed under this chapter for any amount paid or incurred 

6 for advertising anything other than a service or product. 

7 ‘‘(b) QUALIFIED SMALL BUSINESS.—For purposes of 

8 this section, the term ‘qualified small business’ means any 

9 person engaged in a trade or business the gross receipts 

10 of which for the preceding taxable year did not exceed 

11 $100,000,000. 

12 ‘‘(c) COMMON CONTROL.—All members of the same 

13 controlled group of corporations (within the meaning of 

14 section 52(a)) and all persons under common control 

15 (within the meaning of section 52(b)) shall be treated as 

16 1 person for purposes of this section.’’. 

17 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

18 for part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code 

19 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 

20 item: 

‘‘Sec. 280I. Denial of deduction for certain advertising expenses.’’. 

21 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

22 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

23 the date of the enactment of this Act in taxable years end24 ing after such date. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS