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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1473 

To require the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Director of the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to report to Congress all 

serious adverse events that are reported to such agencies in connection 

with administration of a COVID–19 vaccine, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2021 

Mr. STEUBE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the 

Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to report to Congress all serious adverse events 

that are reported to such agencies in connection with 

administration of a COVID–19 vaccine, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Vaccine Transparency 

5 Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1473 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORTS TO CONGRESS ON SERIOUS ADVERSE 

2 EVENTS IN CONNECTION WITH COVID–19 

3 VACCINES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the 

5 date of enactment of this Act, and every 60 days there6 after, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Direc7 tor of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, act8 ing jointly, shall submit a report to the Congress on all 

9 serious adverse events that are reported— 

10 (1) to either agency pursuant to the Vaccine 

11 Adverse Event Reporting System or otherwise dur12 ing the period covered by the report; and 

13 (2) in connection with a COVID–19 vaccine. 

14 (b) INITIAL REPORT.—The reporting period of the 

15 initial report under subsection (a) shall begin on the date 

16 when the Commissioner of Food and Drugs first author17 ized emergency use of a COVID–19 vaccine under section 

18 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 

19 U.S.C. 360bbb–3). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.T., A MINOR

PETITION OF: K.T.

:

:

:

:

:

No. 177 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.T., A MINOR

PETITION OF: ALLEGHENY COUNTY 

CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES

:

:

:

:

:

No. 178 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

1. Whether this Court should grant review to ensure that trial courts across 

the Commonwealth are uniformly applying the correct standard for 

evaluating the bond between a child and parent when conducting a 

needs and welfare analysis under Section 2511(b) of the Adoption Act 

in an involuntary termination of parental rights case by:

a. Clarifying that the trial court must evaluate whether the bond is 

necessary and beneficial to the child and not just whether any parentchild bond exists; and

b. Clarifying that the trial court must evaluate whether severing that 

bond would cause the child to experience extreme emotional 

consequences and not just any adverse effect?

2. Whether a divided three judge panel of the Superior Court, by ignoring 

this Court’s decisions in In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) and In re 

E.M., 680 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993), erred in affirming the trial court’s denial 

of a petition for termination of parental rights when the almost 5-year-old 
[177 WAL 2022 and 178 WAL 2022] - 2

child had been in care in a secure and stable kinship pre-adoptive foster 

home for almost four years, and it was undisputed that the mother was 

unlikely to ever be able to parent the child, that the mother was still courtordered to have supervised visits due to concerns about the mother’s 

behavior, and that the court-appointed psychologist opined that the child 

needed permanence through adoption by her kinship foster parent with 

whom the child enjoyed a strong and secure bond?

Additionally, the Application for Leave to File a Brief in Support of Joint Petition for 

Allowance of appeal as Amici Curiae is GRANTED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Patrick WILLIAMS

No. 2018-KP-0427

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TANGIPAHOA**

Writ denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons

After defendant is resentenced pursuant to *Montgomery v. Louisiana* , 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016) and *Miller v. Alabama* , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), that judgment is included by statute among those which defendant may appeal. *See* La.C.Cr.P. art. 912(C)(1) ; *see, e.g., also**State ex rel. Braud v. State* , 15-0701 (La. 3/2/18), 237 So.3d 504. I additionally concur in the denial of defendant's writ application because the parties agree the question presented is res nova, and I believe the issue merits careful scrutiny, which can be better accomplished with the benefit of a fully developed record on appeal.
Patricia A. SMITH and Gordon D. Smith, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STEAK N SHAKE, INC. d/b/a Steak N Shake #384, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0969

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.09.7




Amendment 5 to the Supplemental ERISA Compensation Plan of Citibank, N.A. and Affiliates




		
	1.
	Effective December 31, 2018, the following definition shall be added to Paragraph 1 of the Plan:




“2018 Frozen Grandfathered Participant” means any Grandfathered Participant whose benefits under the Retirement Plan were frozen on or after December 31, 2018, in accordance with Article IV, Section 3 of the Retirement Plan.  Any individual who becomes a 2018 Frozen Grandfathered Participant and was not already a Participant under this Plan shall become a Participant on his or her Individual Freeze Date.”
		
	2.
	Effective December 31, 2018, the definition of “Individual Freeze Date” shall be amended to add the following sentence at the end thereof to read as follows:


“The Individual Freeze Date for 2018 Frozen Grandfathered Participants shall mean the December 31 of the Plan Year as of which a 2018 Frozen Grandfathered Participant’s benefit in the Retirement Plan is frozen in accordance with Article IV, Section 3 of the Retirement Plan.”
		
	3.
	Effective December 31, 2018, Paragraph 2 shall be amended to add the following new subparagraph (d):


“(d)    All of the provisions of this Paragraph 2 shall apply to a 2018 Frozen Grandfathered Participant.”
		
	4.
	Effective December 31, 2018, Paragraph 3 shall be amended to add the following new subparagraph (k):


“(k)    Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, the terms of 3(b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) shall not apply with respect to a 2018 Frozen Grandfathered Participant.  Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan to the contrary, the Payment Event Date for a 2018 Frozen Grandfathered Participant means the Participant’s Separation from Service within the meaning of Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.409A-1(h).  Each 2018 Frozen Grandfathered Participant’s annuity starting date for purposes of calculating the value of the Participant’s Plan benefits shall be the first of the month following the Participant’s Payment Event Date, and benefits under the Plan shall be paid on the Benefit Distribution Date.  A 2018 Frozen Grandfathered Participant’s Plan benefit shall be paid only in a single lump sum.”


1
#### Patton et al. vs. Wagner et al.

The statutory regulations for partition of land, do not take away tlie original jurisdie tion of chancery.

*Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Francis county, in Chancery.*

Hon. George W. Beazley Circuit Judge.

Williams & Williams, for the appellants,

cited *Eq. Dr.*299; 1 *Story's Eq. Jur.*646 *to*658; 4 *Dessau.*86; 3 *Am. Ch. Dig.*171, to show that.the Chancery Court has jurisdiction in cases of partition.

Mr. Justice Scott

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a bill for partition of lands. It seems to have been regularly filed and order of publication was taken against all the defendants as non-residents. No exception seems to have been taken as to the statutory notice. But the Court seems to have proceeded in dismissing the bill upon the ground, that our various statutory provisions as to partition have taken away the original jurisdiction of chancery on this head.

In this the Court below was in error. The statute but cumulates the remedy; and if, nevertheless, a party should elect to seek his remedy in chancery, as these parties seem to have done, he is entitled to such as the Chancellor can afford him.

*234The order of the Court dismissing the bill, will, therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to the Court below to proceed with the case according to law.
#### Zachery vs. Brown et al.

■The mater -of ahond, for the payment of money, has the whole of the day on which it falls due to pay it, and cannot he sued until the next day.

*Error to Jolmson Circmt Court.*

Hon. Felix J. BatsoN, Circuit Judge.

May, for the plaintiff.

OummiNS, for defendants.

*443Mr. Chief Justice Eh&lish

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action of debt, by petition, in the Johnson Circuit Court. The petition is as follows:

“Tour petitioners, Newton *W.*Brown and James B. Brown,merchants and partners in trade, trading and doing business under the name, style and firm of N. W. & J. B. 'Brown, the plaintiffs in this cause, state that they are the legal owners of a writing obligatory, against the defendant, Burr BE. Zachery, to the following effect:

$302 46. One day after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of N. W. & J. B. Brown, three hundred and two dollars and forty-six cents, with interest from the first day of January, 1855, at ten per cent, until paid: this 8th day of February, 1855. ' ’ •

B. H. ZACHERY, [seal.]

Yet the debt remains unpaid: therefore, they demand judgment for their debt, and damages for the detention thereof, together with their costs.”

The petition was filed and the writ issued on the *9th day qf February,*1855.

The defendant demurred to the petition, on the ground that the action was prematurely brought, the court overruled the demurrer, the defendant suffered final judgment to go for the plaintiffs, and brought error.

The bond bearing date on the 8th, and due and payable on the 9th of February, one day after date, the maker had the whole of the day on which it fell due, to pay it. He was not in default,, and there was no breach of his contract until the entire day had expired, without payment. He was not liable to be sued, therefore, until the next day.

It has been held, that the maker of a promissory note, (entitled by the law merchant to three days of grace,) is bound to pay it *444upon demand made at *any*reasonable bour of the last day of grace, and may be sued on that day if he fail to pay on such demand. *Staples et al. vs. Franklin Bank, 1 Metc.*43; *Wilson vs. William,*1 *Nott & McCord*440; *Greely et al. vs. Thurston,*4 *Greenl.*479; *Dennie vs. Walker,*7 *N. H. Rep.*199.

In *Osburn vs. Moncure et al.,*3 *Wend. Rep.*170, it was decided, on the contrary, that the maker of the note has the whole of the third day of grace to make payment, and cannot be sued until after the day passes, though demand upon the third day, and notice *to*an endorser of non-payment are good.

Be this as it may, it is agreed in all of the above eases, and in others cited, that the maker of a bond has the whole of the day on which it falls due to pay it, and cannot be sued until the next day. See, particularly, the case of *Wilson vs. William,*1 *Nott & McCord,*440, and authorities cited.

In this case, thé suit was prematurely brought, and the objection was properly taken by demurrer. 1 *Chit. Pl.*443; *Osborn vs. Moncure 3 Wend. Rep.*170.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded, &c.

Absent, Mr. Justice Soott.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.41

                          FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT

     This First Amendment (the "Amendment") to the Agreement is entered into as
of July 31, 2000 by and between Engage, Inc. ("SUPPLIER") and Compaq Computer
Corporation ("COMPAQ").

     WHEREAS Engage and Customer are parties to an agreement for the purchase
and resale of a certain software dated July 26, 2000 (the "Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS Engage and Customer desire to modify the terms of the Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, Engage and Customer agree as follows:

1.   Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the
meanings set forth in the Agreement.

2.   Schedule D is hereby amended by adding the following new bullet:

COMPAQ shall pay $15,005,150 for additional Profile Server licenses, as follows,
such licenses shall become part of the Initial Licenses:
-    One Hundred Fifty-Six (156) Profile Server Platinum Tier licenses including
     Local Declared and Local Behavioral Options for resale by COMPAQ.
-    One Hundred Fifty-Seven (157) Profile Server Gold licenses including Local
     Declared and Local Behavioral Options for resale by COMPAQ.
-    One Hundred Fifty-Six (156) Profile Server Standard licenses including
     Local Declared and Local Behavioral Options for resale by COMPAQ.

This Amendment acts as the purchase order.

3.   Until all the Initial Licenses are sold, SUPPLIER agrees not to sell into a
COMPAQ resale channel.

4.   Except as specifically set forth herein, no other portion of the Agreement
shall be amended.

5.   This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which
shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original and all of which shall
constitute the same instrument.

6.   Any conflict between the terms of the Agreement and the terms of this
Amendment will be governed by this Amendment.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
executed as of the day and year first above written.

ENGAGE, INC.                           COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION

By: /s/ Michael Baker                  By: /s/ Jeffrey Lynn
    --------------------------------       -------------------------------------
    Name: Michael Baker                    Name: Jeffrey Lynn
    Title: V.P. and General Counsel        Title: V.P. and General Manager
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-0609

_____________________________

RICHARD LEROY DOUGLAS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Angela M. Cox, Judge.

May 11, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Richard Leroy Douglas, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Vladimir CARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3444

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 13, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Kenneth BARBER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3765

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit










FARO Technologies, Inc. 2014 Incentive Plan
Deferred Stock Unit Award Agreement
Pursuant to the provisions of the FARO Technologies, Inc. 2014 Incentive Plan (as amended, the “Plan”) and the FARO Technologies, Inc. 2018 Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Deferred Compensation Plan”), you have elected to receive 100% of your (a) annual cash retainer for service on the FARO Board of Directors (the “Board”) earned and paid during 20[XX], and (b) other fees relating to your service as a chairperson or a member of the Board or any committee of the Board, as applicable, earned and paid during 20[XX] (collectively, the “20[XX] Director Fees”) in the form of deferred stock units that represent the right to receive shares of FARO’ common stock and defer settlement of such deferred stock units until such time as you experience a separation of service from FARO.  
      Grantee:                                
Grant Date:                                 
Number of Deferred Stock Units Granted:                 1 
THIS DEFERRED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) evidences the grant of shares of deferred stock units by FARO Technologies, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”), to the Grantee named above, on the date indicated above, pursuant to the provisions of the Plan and the Deferred Compensation Plan.  For purposes of this Agreement, the Grantee shall be a Participant under the Plan and the Deferred Compensation Plan. 
This Agreement, the Deferred Compensation Plan and the Plan contain the terms and conditions governing the deferred stock units. The parties hereto agree as follows:
1.Grant of Units. The Company hereby confirms the grant to Grantee, as of the Grant Date and subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement and the Plan, of the number of Deferred Stock Units specified above (the “Units”).  Each Unit represents the right to receive one share of the Company’s common stock.  


2.Vesting. The Units are fully and immediately vested as of the Grant Date. 


3.Tax Consequences.  No shares will be delivered to Grantee in settlement of vested Units unless Grantee has made arrangements acceptable to the Company for payment of any federal, state, local or foreign withholding taxes that may be due as a result of the delivery of the Shares.
*****




















1 The number of deferred stock units to be credited to your account shall be determined by dividing (i) 100% of that portion of the 20[XX] Director Fees that otherwise would have been paid with respect to the applicable calendar quarter but for your election herein by (ii) the Fair Market Value of a share of FARO’s common stock as of the end of the first business day of the applicable calendar quarter.  















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the Grant Date.
 
FARO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




By:_____________________
Name:
Title:




GRANTEE:




By:_____________________
Name:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00880

- CV

Jose C. LOPEZ and Georgia Rodriguez,

Appellants

v.

WALTER MORTGAGE COMPANY LLC , et al.,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10

- 03

- 48902

- CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE MARION

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of the appeal a re taxed against appellants.

SIGNED February 5, 2014.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1468 

AN ACT 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to eliminate the 

leasing authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1468 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securities and Ex3 change Commission Real Estate Leasing Authority Rev4 ocation Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. LEASING OF SPACE FOR SECURITIES AND EX6 CHANGE COMMISSION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3304 of title 40, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(e) LEASING OF SPACE FOR SECURITIES AND EX11 CHANGE COMMISSION.—Notwithstanding any other provi12 sion of law, on and after the date of enactment of this 

13 subsection, the Securities and Exchange Commission may 

14 not lease general purpose office space. The Administrator 

15 may lease such space for the Securities and Exchange 

16 Commission under section 585 and this chapter.’’. 

17 (b) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.— 

18 The amendment made by subsection (a) may not be con19 strued to invalidate or otherwise affect a lease entered into 

20 by the Securities and Exchange Commission before the 

21 date of enactment of this Act. 

22 SEC. 3. INDEPENDENT LEASING AUTHORITIES. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Comptroller General of the 

24 United States shall submit to the Committee on Transpor25 tation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, 

26 the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
3 

•HR 1468 EH

1 Senate, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 

2 Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the review 

3 described in subsection (b). 

4 (b) REVIEW.—The Comptroller General shall com5 plete a review under which the Comptroller General shall 

6 update the 2016 report of the Comptroller General (GAO– 

7 16–648) with a specific focus on the following: 

8 (1) Updating the information included in Ap9 pendix II: Federal Entities That Reported Having 

10 Independent Leasing Authority for Domestic Offices 

11 and Warehouses of such report. 

12 (2) Determining to what extent Federal entities 

13 with independent leasing authorities have had such 

14 authorities rescinded or amended and the number 

15 and amount of office and warehouse space such enti16 ties lease. 

17 (3) Determining to what extent have agencies 

18 with independent leasing authority utilized the Gen19 eral Services Administration for leasing, including 

20 utilization of delegation of authority. 
4 

•HR 1468 EH

1 (4) Identifying progress made on implementing 

2 the recommendations in such report. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 

2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1468 

AN ACT 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to eliminate 

change Commission, and for other purposes. the leasing authority of the Securities and Ex-