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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1125 

To amend the VA MISSION Act of 2018 to expand the veterans healing 

veterans medical access and scholarship program to include more students and schools. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 18, 2021 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the VA MISSION Act of 2018 to expand the 

veterans healing veterans medical access and scholarship 

program to include more students and schools. 

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

3 SECTION 1. VETERANS HEALING VETERANS MEDICAL AC4 CESS AND SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. 

5 Section 304 of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 (Public 

6 Law 115–182; 38 U.S.C. 7601 note) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘18 eligible 

8 veterans’’ and inserting ‘‘28 eligible veterans’’; and 

9 (2) in subsection (g)— 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1125 IH

1 (A) in the subsection heading, by striking 

2 ‘‘COVERED MEDICAL SCHOOLS’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘DEFINITIONS’’; 

4 (B) in paragraph (1), by redesignating 

5 subparagraphs (A) through (E) as clauses (i) 

6 through (v), respectively (and by moving such 

7 clauses two ems to the right); 

8 (C) by redesignating paragraphs (1) 

9 through (5) as subparagraphs (A) through (E), 

10 respectively (and by moving such subpara11 graphs two ems to the right); 

12 (D) by striking ‘‘section, the term’’ and in13 serting the following: ‘‘section: 

14 ‘‘(1) COVERED MEDICAL SCHOOL.—The term’’; 

15 and 

16 (E) by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘(F) University of Puerto Rico School of 

18 Medicine. 

19 ‘‘(G) Universidad Central del Caribe 

20 School of Medicine. 

21 ‘‘(H) San Juan Bautista School of Medi22 cine. 

23 ‘‘(I) Ponce Health Sciences University. 

24 ‘‘(J) University of Texas Health Sciences 

25 Center at San Antonio. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1125 IH

1 ‘‘(2) STATE.—The term ‘State’ has the mean2 ing given that term in section 101 of title 38, United 

3 States Code.’’. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0213 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSHUA GLEN REID,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 14, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

November 4 2022

11/04/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0213
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 16, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 16, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20D0235. ISAAC ADIELE v. FLORENCE ADIELE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2017SUCV1066
#### Vernon NELSON *v.*David Keith UNDERWOOD et al

5-4542

Opinion delivered May 27, 1968

[Rehearing denied July 15, 1968.]

*Smith, Williams, Friday & Bowen,*for appellant.

*Gordon, Gordon*& *Eddy,*for appellees.

*1066Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Vernon Nelson was involved in a collision with appellees David Keith Underwood and Betty Lee Underwood, his wife, at the intersection of Frog Levee Road and Highway 95 near Morrilton, Arkansas. Nelson was making a left turn with his pick-up truck when he was struck in the left side by the automobile driven and occupied by the Under-woods. Nelson testified that he was giving a proper left-hand turn signal. The Underwoods deny that any signal was given. From a jury verdict awarding a substantial judgment in favor of each of the Underwoods, Nelson appeals, claiming error in the selection and impaneling of the jury; error in the trial court’s failure to' direct a verdict; that the verdict for Betty Lee Underwood was excessive; and that the trial court erred in instructing the jury upon Ark. Stat. Ann. § 75-609 (b) (Repl. 1957).

The instruction given upon the statute by the trial court, being incorporated in AMI 601, is in part as follows :

> “There were in force in the State of Arkansas at the time of the occurrence seven (7) statutes which provided:

> “75-609: The following rules shall govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction, subject to those limitations, exceptions, and special rules hereinafter stated:

> “(b) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted,1 the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

> *1067“A violation of one or more of these seven (7) statutes although not necessarily negligence, is evidence of negligence to be considered by you along with all of the other facts and circumstances in this case.”

We hold that it was error to instruct the jury on the statute, under the facts of this case, without informing them that the statute did not apply if Nelson was making a lawful left *turn*— i. *e.,*if he had given the proper signals for the left turn. As given, the instruction leaves with the jury the impression that once the overtaking vehicle has given an audible signal, the overtaken vehicle must yield the right of way even though he is properly signaling for a left turn exit from the highway.

In view of this reversal we do not reach and have made no determination on the excessiveness of the verdict. We find no merit in the other alleged errors.

Reversed.

Habéis, C. J., and Jokes, J., would affirm the judgment.

1

 In the compiled statutes the phrase reads, “except when overtaking and passing on the right as permitted.” The original act says, “is permitted.”
exv10w15







	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 10.15




Compensatory Arrangements for Non-Employee Directors



In January 2008, the Board of Directors of MicroFinancial Incorporated (the “Company”) adopted the
following annual compensation package for its non-employee directors:





	 	•	 	an annual retainer of $20,000, to be paid at the director’s election either entirely in
shares of stock or 40% in cash and 60% in shares of stock, in each case with full vesting
upon the date of issuance;
	 
	 	•	 	a cash fee of $1,250 for meetings, including committee meetings, not held by telephone
and not held on the same day as a full Board meeting;
	 
	 	•	 	committee meeting fees of $500 for telephonic meetings and meetings on the same day as
Board meetings;
	 
	 	•	 	a fee for the Chair of the Audit Committee of $10,000 per year, to be paid either
entirely in shares of stock or 40% in cash and 60% in shares of stock, in each case with
full vesting upon the date of issuance;
	 
	 	•	 	a fee for the Chairman of the Board of $20,000 per year, to be paid either entirely in
shares of stock or 40% in cash and 60% in shares of stock, in each case with full vesting
upon the date of issuance;1
	 
	 	•	 	a stock grant made annually to each non-employee director valued at $42,000 on the date
of grant, with all shares of stock fully vested upon the date of issuance; and
	 
	 	•	 	health insurance benefits for those non-employee directors who elect to participate,
with the cost to be borne partially by the Company, consistent with its past practices.




Committee chairs will decide at the time of any committee meeting whether the meeting is
substantive enough to merit the committee fees described above.






 




			
	1	 	As amended per Compensation and Benefits Committee
recommendation in May 2008.
exv10w39






Exhibit 10.39




EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

2009 SHORT-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Category	 	Eligible Points	 	Points Awarded	 	Goal
	Capital

	 	 	7.5	 	 	—	 	Maintain average TRBC ratio of at least 12% at FSB
	 
	 	 	7.5	 	 	—	 	Maintain leverage ratio < or = 95% of senior note agreement requirement
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Bonus: Additional 5 points for successful
renegotiation of leverage limitations in senior note
agreements.
	Asset Quality

	 	 	15.0	 	 	—	 	NPA Ratio1 at or below 1.5% for entire year.
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Bonus: Additional 5 points if the NPA
ratio1 is 1% or less with a reduction of 5
points if net charge offs exceed .5%.
	Management

	 	 	10.0	 	 	—	 	Make substantial progress toward conversion of NCBFSB
to National Bank
	 

	 	 	5.0


10.0	 	 	—



—	 	Achieve satisfactory evaluations from Loan Review,
auditors, FCA, and OTS, including FIDICA compliance. 


Complete conversion to OSI by year-end.
	Earnings

	 	 	10.0	 	 	—	 	Maintain Avg. ROAE of 7% at NCBFSB and achieve FSB
Earnings objectives of senior note agreements
	 

	 	 	5.0	 	 	—	 	Implement Relationship Profitability System by year-end

Bonus: 1 extra point for every 1% reduction in
Efficiency Ratio (adjusted for one-time charges) below
68% (up to 5 extra points).
	Liquidity

	 	 	7.5	 	 	—	 	Reduce average Bank Revolver outstandings in Q4 to
< $25MM.
	 

	 	 	7.5	 	 	—	 	Fund 100% of net loan and investment portfolio growth
at NCBFSB with Non-Brokered Deposits2
and/or FHLB advances.
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Bonus: 1 extra point for every 1% reduction in
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Brokered Deposits below 40% of total deposits (up to 5
extra points).
	Sensitivity

	 	 	5.0	 	 	—	 	Maintain all sensitivity measurements within Green or
Yellow ranges. No more than 5 measurements (out of
288 total measurements for the year) in the Red range,
all of which must be cured within 30 days of
measurement.
	Mission

	 	 	10.0	 	 	—	 	Achieve “Best Efforts” evaluation by Board of
Directors. Best Efforts to be based on performance
against mission objectives set for new products, new
markets, policy advocacy, strengthening of the brand
and internal enhancement of operations. One of two
objectives will set for each area identified above.
	Total Points

	 	 	100.0	 	 	—	 	 
	Income Bonus Points
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Bonus: 1 extra percentage point for each 5% that Actual post-tax Net Income exceeds Budget (up to 10
extra points).








 




			
	1	 	NPA Ratio equals average Non-accruing Loans plus REO as a percentage of average
Total Loans.
	 
	2	 	Includes CDARs Reciprocal trades.
EX PARTE Clayton MCCARTY

CR-16-0282

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1158 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1158

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To provide women and girls safe access to sanitation facilities in 
                             refugee camps.

    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 ``Refugee Sanitation Facility Safety 
Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. SECURE ACCESS TO SANITATION FACILITIES FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS.

    Subsection (a) of section 501 of the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 2601 note) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (11) as 
        paragraphs (7) through (12), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(6) the provision of safe and secure access to sanitation 
        facilities, with a special emphasis on women, girls, and 
        vulnerable populations.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 20, 2021.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1158

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To provide women and girls safe access to sanitation facilities in 
                             refugee camps.
```
Exhibit 10.4 

Valassis Communications, Inc. 

Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation 

On June 22, 2007 the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Valassis Communications, Inc. (the “Corporation”), on recommendation of theCompensation/Stock Option Committee, approved the compensation program described below to compensate non-employee directors for service on the Board and its committees. The compensation program described below became effective July 1, 2007 andreplaced the compensation program previously in effect. 

The Corporation’s non-employee directors are entitled to receive thefollowing fees in connection with their participation on the Board and related Board committees: (i) an annual cash retainer fee of $42,500; (ii) an annual award of 1,400 shares of restricted stock of the Corporation pursuant to theCorporation’s 2005 Employee and Director Restricted Stock Award Plan that becomes fully vested one year from the date of grant; (iii) $2,500 per Board meeting attended in person and $1,300 per Board meeting attended by telephone; and (iv)$1,300 per Board committee meeting attended in person and $650 per Board committee meeting attended by telephone. 

The annual cash retainerand annual award of restricted stock are paid quarterly to the non-employee directors. The Board committee attendance fees are payable only if the committee meeting is not scheduled in conjunction with (just before or after) a Board meeting andtelephonic meeting fees are paid on a pro-rated basis if a non-employee director does not participate via telephone for the entire meeting. 

In addition, each year, the Corporation’s non-employee directors are eligible to receive non-qualified stock options to purchase an aggregate of 10,000 shares of the Corporation’s common stock pursuant to the Corporation’s2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan (or such other plan applicable to the Corporation’s non-employee directors in effect from time to time). These options are granted in two semi-annual installments consisting of 5,000 stock options on April 1 andOctober 1 of each year, have an exercise price equal to the fair market value (as defined in the Corporation’s applicable stock option plan) of the Corporation’s common stock on the date of grant and become fully vested one year from thedate of grant, with the same terms and conditions as the Corporation’s standard non-qualified stock option agreement for non-employee directors.
Surfaces

Scoping: The technical requirements for surfaces below apply to circulation paths, lift platforms, 

ramps and bridgeplates, wheelchair and mobility aid seating spaces, and step treads.

Technical requirements:

 Surfaces shall be firm, stable and slip resistant.

 Openings in surfaces shall not allow the passage of a sphere more than 16 mm (5/8 inch) 

diameter. Elongated openings shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to 

dominant direction of travel. Lift platforms that are folded and stowed manually, and ramps 

and bridgeplates that are deployed manually shall be permitted to have a cut-out in the surface 

38 mm (11⁄2 inches) maximum by 115 mm (41⁄2 inches) maximum for the operator to grasp the 

surface.

 Protrusions on surfaces shall be permitted to be 6.4 mm (1⁄4 inch) high maximum.

 Carpet or carpet tile shall be securely attached and shall have a firm cushion, pad, or backing or 

no cushion or pad. Carpet or carpet tile shall have a level loop, textured loop, level cut pile, or 

level cut/uncut pile texture. Pile height shall be 1⁄2 inch (13 mm) maximum. Exposed edges of 

carpet shall be fastened to floor surfaces and shall have trim on the entire length of the exposed 

edge.

 Surface discontinuities 

o Changes in level of 1⁄4 inch (6.4 mm) high maximum shall be permitted to be vertical.
o Changes in level between 1⁄4 inch (6.4 mm) high minimum and 1⁄2 inch (13 mm) high 

maximum shall be beveled with a slope not steeper than 1:2.

o Changes in level greater than 1⁄2 inch (13 mm) high shall be ramped, and shall with a 

slope 1:12 maximum.
A.F-K., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4393

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Todd E. GATES, Appellant, v. GULF EAGLE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1375

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30805 Conference Calendar

ALLEN JERRY FIELDS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus PHILLIP J. BAIERS, Individually and in his official capacity as Special Agent FBI; JOHN M. TANZA, Individually and in his official capacity as Special Agent FBI; WILBERT SANDERS, Individually and in his official capacity as Louisiana State Trooper, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 98-CV-969

- - - - - - - - - - August 26, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Allen Jerry Fields, Jr., federal inmate # 08388-035, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint filed on May 26, 1998, as frivolous. His motion for the appointment of appellate counsel is DENIED.No. 98-30805 -2- Fields alleged constitutional violations occurring on May 6, 1992. Fields argues that his claims had not prescribed because he filed his complaint within one year from the date on which he discovered a case that led him to conclude that his rights had been violated. Fields asserts, correctly, that while state law governs the prescriptive or limitations period, federal law governs when the cause of action arises or accrues. See Gartrell v. Gaylor , 981 F.2d 254, 257 (5th Cir. 1993). Under federal law, a cause of action accrues “when the plaintiff is in possession of the `critical facts that he has been hurt and who has inflicted the injury,’” not when he discovers the legal basis of his claim. Id. (citations omitted); see Piotrowski v. City of Houston , 51 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 1995) (“A plaintiff need not realize that a legal cause of action exists; a plaintiff need only know the facts that would support a claim.”). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Fields’ claims are frivolous because they have prescribed. See McCormick v. Stalder , 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997). Fields also argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for appointment of counsel. The magistrate judge denied the motion, and Fields did not appeal to the district
court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This court lacks jurisdiction to address the magistrate judge’s order denying Fields’ motion for appointment of counsel. See Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc. , 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989).
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
#### Christopher R. CUMMINGS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-1636

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued February 16, 2017

Decided March 21, 2017

Shelley M. Fite, Attorney, Joseph Toth, Attorney, Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, Inc., Madison, WI, for Petitioner-Appellant

Jonathan H. Koenig, Attorney, Benjamin Taibleson, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Respondent-Appellee -

Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge DANIEL-A. MANION, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ORDER

In 2006, Cummings pled guilty to distributing cocaine. The district court sentenced him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. To be sentenced as a career offender, § 4Bl.l(a) requires the defendant to have “at least two prior felo*524ny convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” Cummings previously had been convicted in Wisconsin for possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and for discharging a firearm from a vehicle. He argued that discharging a firearm from a vehicle was not a crime of violence and thus he could not be sentenced as a career offender. The district court held, however, that discharging a firearm was a crime of violence under the sentencing guideline’s residual clause.

In 2015, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague. *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). After *Johnson,*Cummings filed a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that because the language in the sentencing guideline’s residual clause is identical to the language in the ACCA’s residual clause, the sentencing- guideline’s residual clause is also unconstitutionally vague.

We had held that the sentencing guideline’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague after *Johnson*in *United States v. Hurlburt,*835 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2016). But this week, the Supreme Court held that the sentencing guidelines are not subject to due-process vagueness challenges. *Beckles v. United States,*580 U.S. —, —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017). Cummings’s argument is thus without merit.

AFFIRMED.

3⁄8

 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal argu-mente, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
Marc D. ANDREWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2165

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
United States Court of A ppeals
Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

July 27, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________
No. 04-50534

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ALBERTO ROJAS-DE LA ROSA

Defendant - Appellant

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (03-CR-666)

---------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate

sentence is granted.

IT IS FURTHE R ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to

remand case to the district court for resentencing is granted.

_________________

* Pursua nt to 5 t h Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s alte rnative unopposed

motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief until 14 days

after denial of motion to vacate and remand is denied as moot.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT AMIL LAMONT BARNES, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-3297 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed April 20, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kimberly K. Fernandez, Judge. Amil Lamont Barnes, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cornelius C. Demps, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT, CRENSHAW, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.