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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1013 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1013

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide that a 
member of the Armed Forces and the spouse of that member shall have the 
 same rights regarding the receipt of firearms at the location of any 
                      duty station of the member.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2021

Mr. Murphy of North Carolina (for himself and Mr. Young) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide that a 
member of the Armed Forces and the spouse of that member shall have the 
 same rights regarding the receipt of firearms at the location of any 
                      duty station of the member.

    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 ``Protect Our Military Families' 2nd 
Amendment Rights Act''.

SEC. 2. RECEIPT OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION BY SPOUSE OF MEMBER OF THE 
              ARMED FORCES AT A DUTY STATION OF THE MEMBER OUTSIDE THE 
              UNITED STATES.

    Section 925(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or to the spouse of such a member'' 
        before ``or to'';
            (2) by striking ``members,'' and inserting ``members and 
        spouses,'';
            (3) by striking ``members or'' and inserting ``members, 
        spouses, or''; and
            (4) by striking ``member or'' and inserting ``member, 
        spouse, or''.

SEC. 3. RESIDENCY OF SPOUSES OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES TO BE 
              DETERMINED ON THE SAME BASIS AS THE RESIDENCY OF SUCH 
              MEMBERS FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS.

    Section 921(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read 
as follows:
    ``(b) For purposes of this chapter, a member of the Armed Forces on 
active duty, or a spouse of such a member, is a resident of--
            ``(1) the State in which the member or spouse maintains 
        legal residence;
            ``(2) the State in which the permanent duty station of the 
        member is located; and
            ``(3) the State in which the member maintains a place of 
        abode from which the member commutes each day to the permanent 
        duty station of the member.''.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply to conduct engaged in 
after the 6-month period that begins with the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Johnathan Paul WEBER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, O/B/O Kirstie Lee HORNE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4820

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 25, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for failure of the Appellant to comply with this court's December 8, 2017 order to show cause and December 8, 2017 fee order.

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Arith WILLIAMS v. Osbien WILLIAMS

2160106

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1108 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include child development 

and early learning as community services under the Federal work-study 

program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 18, 2021 

Mr. CASTRO of Texas (for himself, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Ms. SPANBERGER, and 

Mr. COLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include 

child development and early learning as community services under the Federal work-study program. 

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 ‘‘Head Start for Our 

5 Future Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND EARLY LEARNING COM7 MUNITY SERVICES. 

8 Section 441(c)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 

9 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087–51(c)(1)) is amended by striking 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1108 IH

1 ‘‘literacy training’’ and inserting ‘‘child development and 

2 early learning (including Head Start programs and Early 

3 Head Start programs carried out under the Head Start 

4 Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.)), literacy training’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
SOUTHCOM (301

) 

Argentina GA 2016

Belize LA 1996

Bolivia * MS 1999

Brazil NY 2018

Chile TX 2008

Colombia SC 2012

Costa Rica NM 2006

Dominican Republic PR 2003

Ecuador KY 1996

El Salvador NH 2000

Guatemala AR 2002

Guyana FL 2003

Haiti LA 2011

Honduras PR 1998

Jamaica DC 1999

Nicaragua * WI 2003

Panama MO 1996

Paraguay MA 2001

Peru WV 1996

Regional Security System FL/VI 2006

Suriname SD 2006

Trinidad and Tobago DE 2004

Uruguay CT 2000

Venezuela * FL 1998

NATIONAL GUARD 

CENTCOM (10) 

Egypt TX 2020

Jordan CO 2004

Kazakhstan AZ 1993

Kyrgyzstan MT 1996

Oman AZ 2022

Qatar WV 2018

Saudi Arabia TBA 2024

Tajikistan VA 2003

Turkmenistan MT 2021

Uzbekistan MS 2012

EUCOM (27) 

Albania NJ 2001

Armenia KS 2002

Austria VT 2021

Azerbaijan OK 2002

Bosnia Herzegovina MD 2003

Bulgaria TN 1993

Croatia MN 1996

Cyprus NJ 2022

Czech Republic TX/NE 1993

Estonia MD 1993

Finland TBA 2024

Georgia GA 1994

Hungary OH 1993

Kosovo IA 2011

Latvia MI 1993

Lithuania PA 1993

Moldova NC 1996

Montenegro ME 2006

North Macedonia VT 1993

Norway MN 2023

Poland IL 1993

Romania AL 1993

Serbia OH 2005

Slovakia IN 1993

Slovenia CO 1993

Sweden TBA 2024

Ukraine CA 1993

AFRICOM (21) 

Benin ND 2014

Botswana NC 2008

Burkina Faso DC 2018

Caba Verde NH 2021

Djibouti KY 2015

Gabon WV 2024

Ghana ND 2004

Kenya MA 2015

Liberia MI 2009

Malawi/Zambia NC 2023

Morocco UT 2003

Niger IN 2017

Nigeria CA 2006

Rwanda NE 2019

Senegal VT 2008

Sierra Leone TBA 2024

South Africa NY 2003

Tanzania TBA 2024

Togo ND 2014

Tunisia WY 2004

INDOPACOM (17) 

Bangladesh OR 2008

Cambodia* ID 2008

Indonesia HI 2006

Malaysia WA 2017

Mongolia AK 2003

Nepal* 2019

Palau GU 2024

Papua New Guinea WI 2020

Philippines GU/HI 2000

Sri Lanka / Maldives MT 2020 / 21

Thailand WA 2002

Timor-Leste RI 2020

Tonga / Fiji / Samoa NV 2014 / 18 / 23

Vietnam OR 2012

NORTHCOM (1) 

Bahamas RI 2005

NOTES:

1. Regional Security System (RSS} 

listed as one partnership, but the RSS 

comprises seven member nations: 1) 

Antigua and Barbuda, 2) Barbados, 3) 

Dominica, 4) Grenada, 5) Saint Kitts 

and Nevis, 6) Saint Lucia, 7) Saint 

Vincent and Grenadines

*=dormant relationship

APR 2024

89 PARTNERSHIPS WITH 106 PARTNER NATIONS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SECOND QUARTER 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,076,849
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,609,999
<PP&E>                                         731,888
<DEPRECIATION>                                 372,721
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,605,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          287,790
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       119,420
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,198,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,605,554
<SALES>                                          3,525
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,665
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,043,805
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,021,979)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,021,979)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,021,979)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,021,979)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
exh1011123108.htm


    
      Exhibit
10.11 Amendment No. 1 to 2003 Non-Employee Stock Option Plan of Citizens
First Corporation

      


    

     

    CITIZENS
FIRST CORPORATION

    2003
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION PLAN

    


    RECITALS

     

    WHEREAS, Citizens First
Corporation, a Kentucky corporation (the “Company”), has adopted the
2003 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan (the “Option Plan”);

     

    WHEREAS, the Company desires
to amend the Option Plan to provide for the discretionary grant of stock options
to directors thereunder.

     

    NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing premises, the Option Plan is amended as set forth
herein:

     

    1.           Amendments.  Sections
5.A. and 5.B. of the Option Plan are hereby amended and restated in their
entirety as follows:

     

    “A.           Awards.  Non-Employee
Directors shall be awarded a grant or grants of Stock Options to purchase shares
of Stock at such times and in such amounts as shall be determined by the
Governance Committee, and thereafter approved by the full Board, from time to
time.

     

    B.           Intentionally
Omitted.”

     

    2.           No Other
Amendments.  Except as otherwise amended herein, the Option
Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

     

    3.           Capitalized
Terms.  Capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning
given to them in the Option Plan, unless otherwise expressly defined
herein.

     

    4.           Effective Date of the
Amendment.  This Amendment No. 1 to the Option Plan shall be
become effective on the date it is adopted and approved by the Board of
Directors of the Company.

     

    Executed
effective as of January 1, 2009.

     

    CITIZENS
FIRST CORPORATION

     

    


     

    


     

    By:  
/s/Mary D. Cohron

     

                
Mary  D. Cohron, President
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20

-0616

_________________ BENJAMIN M. DARROW,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v. THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE MISSOULA COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE, and DAVID KENDALL, individually, and in his position as Chair of the MISSOULA COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE,

Defendants and Appellees. O R D E R

_________________ Appellant Benjamin M. Darrow was granted an extension of time to file and serve his opening brief on or before April 8 , 2021

. The opening brief is now overdue. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file and serve the opening brief on appeal no later than June 2, 2021

. Failure to file the brief within that time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Appellant Benjamin M. Darrow and to all counsel of record.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 5 2021

05/05/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0616
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of Nabors Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 (Registration Numbers
333-57129, 333-11313, 33-87322, 33-87324, 33-47521, 33-45097, 33-36229, 33-56000
and 33-54858), on Form S-4 (Registration Number 333-72397) and on Form S-3
(Registration Number 333-25233) of our report dated February 2, 1999 on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of Nabors Industries, Inc. and
Subsidiaries at December 31, 1998 and 1997 and for the year in the period ended
December 31, 1998, the three months in the period ended December 31, 1997 and
the year in the period ended September 30, 1997, which reports are included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                                                      PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


Houston, Texas
March 31, 1999
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION,
INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-K of Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.
for the period ending December 31, 2010, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/S/    MICHAEL J.
HOLMES                 
|Michael J. Holmes Chief Financial Officer

February 28, 2011

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided
to Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. and will be retained by Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
Courtney J. PRESTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4032

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>




                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26


                               AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO

                          INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT


        This Amendment to the January 1, 1987 Investment  Advisory  Agreement as
amended  effective  January 1, 1987 and November 1, 1989, by and between PHOENIX
INVESTMENT COUNSEL,  INC., a Massachusetts  corporation (the "Adviser") and PXRE
REINSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation (the "Client") (the "Agreement"),
is hereby effective as of the 1st day of June, 1995.

1.      Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:

        In consideration of the services performed  hereunder,  the Client shall
        pay the Adviser an annual fee in 1995 equal to  $200,000.  Beginning  on
        January 1, 1996,  the Client shall pay a fee to the Adviser  equal to an
        annual rate of 0.15% of the average  net assets of the  Portfolio.  Such
        fees shall be paid in quarterly  installments,  each due within  fifteen
        (15) days of the last day of the  calendar  quarter.  In  addition,  the
        Client  shall  reimburse  the  Advisor  for any  and  all  out-of-pocket
        expenses incurred in managing the Portfolio  including,  but not limited
        to,  custodian  fees,  clearing agent fees,  brokerage  costs and sales,
        service or similar taxes, if any.

2.      Any sums heretofore paid for services  rendered in 1995 shall be applied
        to the sum owed under Section 3 of the Agreement as revised herein.

        IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties hereto have duly caused this Amendment
No. 3 to the  Investment  Advisory  Agreement to be executed on this 25th day of
July, 1995.


PHOENIX INVESTMENT COUNSEL, INC.           PXRE REINSURANCE COMPANY



By:  /s/ Michael Haylon                    By:   /s/ Sanford M. Kimmel
    ------------------------------             ---------------------------
Its: President                             Its: Senior Vice President, Treasurer
                                                  & Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
June 3, 2015 

Mr. Tim Ryan 

TRYAN Incorporated 

PO Box 283 

Lawrence, MA 01842 

Dear Mr. Ryan: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 8, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1530), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

In the Matter of the Detention of No. 54986-7-II

BRIAN TAYLOR-ROSE, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Petitioner.

MAXA, J. – Brian Taylor-Rose, who was being detained as a sexually violent predator 

(SVP), appealed an order denying his petition for conditional release to a less restrictive 

alternative (LRA). He filed this petition even though he had a pending petition for unconditional 

release, which suspended the obligation of the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) 

to conduct an annual review of his mental condition. The trial court dismissed Taylor-Rose’s 

petition as untimely, reasoning that an SVP can make an LRA petition only in conjunction with 

an annual review. Taylor-Rose argued on appeal that under RCW 71.09.090(2) he has the right 

to petition for an LRA release at any time without waiting for a DSHS annual review.

However, while this appeal was pending, the trial court entered an agreed order directing 

Taylor-Rose’s conditional release to a less restrictive alternative. As a result, both parties agree 

that this appeal is moot. Nevertheless, Taylor-Rose argues that we should address his appeal 

because the issues raised involve continuing and substantial public interest.

An appeal is moot if we no longer can provide effective relief. In re Det. of M.W., 185 

Wn.2d 633, 648, 374 P.3d 1123 (2016). However, we have discretion to decide a moot appeal if 

the case involves a matter of continuing and substantial public interest. Id. In determining 

Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

September 28, 2021
No. 54986-7-II

2

whether a moot appeal falls within this exception, we consider the public or private nature of the 

issue presented, the need for an authoritative determination that will provide future guidance to 

public officers, and the likelihood that the issue will recur in the future. Id.

In this case, we decline to exercise our discretion to consider Taylor-Rose’s moot appeal. 

Therefore, we dismiss Taylor-Rose’s appeal as moot.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 

2.06.040, it is so ordered.

MAXA, J.

We concur:

WORSWICK, P.J.

CRUSER, J.
Jermaine THOMPSON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1906

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2017

Following review of the petition for writ of mandamus and the response thereto, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.
Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Stamford Towers Limited Partnership of our report dated January 27, 1997,
included in the 1996 Annual Report of Stamford Towers Limited Partnership.

Our audit also included the financial statement schedule of Stamford Towers
Limited Partnership listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the responsibility
of the Partnership's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion
based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred
to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken
as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth
herein.

                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
January 27, 1997
MCCORMICK TRUCKING, INC., and Zurich American Ins. Co., Appellants, v. Paul BOJCZUK, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3550

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 13, 2018

Joanne M. Prescott of Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A., Orlando, for Appellants.

Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.