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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6012 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6012

 To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to permit removal of trees 
    around electrical lines on National Forest System land without 
           conducting a timber sale, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 20, 2023

  Mr. Carbajal (for himself, Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer, Mr. Costa, and Mr. 
                 Valadao) introduced the following bill

                            October 25, 2023

   Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the 
    Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to permit removal of trees 
    around electrical lines on National Forest System land without 
           conducting a timber sale, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act 
of 2023''.

SEC. 2. PERMITS AND AGREEMENTS WITH ELECTRICAL UTILITIES.

    (a) In General.--In any special use permit or easement on National 
Forest System land provided to an electrical utility, the Secretary of 
Agriculture may provide permission to cut and remove trees or other 
vegetation from within the vicinity of distribution lines or 
transmission lines without requiring a separate timber sale, if that 
cutting and removal is consistent with--
            (1) the applicable land and resource management plan; and
            (2) other applicable environmental laws (including 
        regulations).
    (b) Use of Proceeds.--A special use permit or easement that 
includes permission for cutting and removal described in subsection (a) 
shall include a requirement that, if the applicable electrical utility 
sells any portion of the material removed under the permit or easement, 
the electrical utility shall provide to the Secretary of Agriculture, 
acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, any proceeds received 
from the sale, less any transportation costs incurred in the sale.
    (c) Effect.--Nothing in subsection (b) shall require the sale of 
any material removed under a permit or easement that includes 
permission for cutting and removal described in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Thomas E. Mara, as Chief Executive Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date:August 6, 2007
| 1.   | The Annual Report on Amendment No. 1 to the Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 (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 Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Date:      | November 3, 2011                                                    |
|--------|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Signature: | /s/ Mitchell Cox                                                    |
|   | Title:     | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accouting Officer) |
David LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-4385

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
WALKER INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS, INC. QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,539
<SECURITIES>                                     6,557
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,844
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,284
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,164
<PP&E>                                          28,799
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,910
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,086
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,982
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,541
<SALES>                                         23,907
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,907
<CGS>                                           12,933
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,820
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,674)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (636)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,038)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
* 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. 07-40959 Summary Calendar
ELPIDIO DELGADO, JR Plaintiff-Appellant

v. BUREAU OF PRISONS; KATHLEEN HAWK-SAWYER; M MORRISON Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CV-401
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Elpidio Delgado, Jr., federal prisoner # 83283-079, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint challenging Bureau ofPrisons (BOP) Program Statement 1351.05 under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the First Amendment. Delgado does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his claims arising under the Administrative Procedures Act and the First Amendment. Because Delgado fails to brief these United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 14, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-40959

2 issues, they are deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. DallasCounty Deputy SheriffAbner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Delgado’s challenge to Program Statement 1351.05 is without merit and fails to state a claim for reliefunder the Freedom of Information Act. See Harris
v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Ken GRYDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HCL AMERICA; Adrienne Kenndy, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1387

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Ken Gryder, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Lynn Vossler, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK &' STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ken Gryder appeals the district court’s order dismissing Gryder’s civil claims against Defendants after reviewing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Gryder’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s dispositive rulings, Gryder has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004); *see also Edwards v. City of*
      *139
      *Goldsboro,*178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (failure to raise issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of that issue). Accordingly, although we grant Gryder’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s order. *See Gryder v. HCL America,*No. 1:17-cv-00246-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. Mar. 8, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7                        
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000
<CURRENCY>                                     $
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           858
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                            0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                              0
<EQUITIES>                                     440
<MORTGAGE>                                       0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,369
<CASH>                                          59
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              30
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           4
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,861
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,025
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             40
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 (2)
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           43
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         2
<OTHER-SE>                                     716
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,861
<PREMIUMS>                                     165
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             87
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               5
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   0
<BENEFITS>                                     113
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      1
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            79
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 61
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (33)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                    49
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    2
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2
<RESERVE-OPEN>                               1,159
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            133
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                7
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              40
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               234
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                              1,025
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                          0
        



</TABLE>
Joshua Ray CANTRILL and Leray Cantrill, Petitioners, v. Kristopher Scott FERRIS, Respondent.

Case No. 2D17-2417

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 23, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.7




2019 INCENTIVE PLAN FOR CERTAIN KEY EMPLOYEES


The Company has a discretionary annual incentive program under which exempt salaried employees may earn cash payments based on a percentage of base annual salary.  The actual percent is based on a variety of guidelines including performance levels of the respective business units primarily measured by operating income subject to certain adjustments.


The payment to an employee is based upon (i) their assigned grade level, (ii) actual company earnings achieved relative to a pre-determined target, which is adjusted upward if company performance exceeds target and reduced if company performance is less than target, and (iii) base salary paid during the fiscal year.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Umbrella Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30 2002 as filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John G.
Yedinak, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ John G. Yedinak

John G. Yedinak
Chief Executive Officer
November 19, 2002
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 28, 2009 

p0420 

Order 

 

April 28, 2009 

138023 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138023 

 COA: 256187 

Wayne CC: 03-014160-01 

ANTHONY EDWARD CIAVONE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 11, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

2002 HONDA ACCORD, $26,612.00 IN 

UNITED STATES CURRENCY, (1) DELL 

LAPTOP, (6) CELL PHONES, (2) GUN 

CASES, (8) VARIOUS RIFLES, (5) 

VARIOUS SHOTGUNS, (5) VARIOUS 

PISTOLS, (2) MISCELLANEOUS 

MAGAZINES, PROPERTY OF GARY 

PAUL KUEHNER

PETITION OF: GARY PAUL KUEHNER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 160 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of August, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Thomas E. Mara, as Chief Executive Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the
Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



Date: May 9, 2005

| |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  |                        
| |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------ |  | -----------------------
| |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Thomas E. Mara
| |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  | Thomas E. Mara         
| |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  | Chief Executive Officer
EX-10.44






Exhibit 10.44




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “First Amendment”) between Cardinal Health,
Inc., an Ohio corporation (the “Company”) and Dwight Winstead (the “Executive”) is effective
October 11, 2005 (the “Amendment Date”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated
August 23, 2004 between the Company and the Executive (the “Employment Agreement”), pursuant to
which the Executive renders services to the Company;



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have agreed to amend certain provisions of the
Executive’s Employment Agreement;



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to set forth in writing such amendments to the
Executive’s Employment Agreement;



     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained,
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, agree, effective as of the date of this
First Amendment, as follows:



     1. Employment Period. Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing
the phrase “three-year period” with “four-year period” and replacing the phrase “third
(3rd) anniversary” with “fourth (4th) anniversary”.



     2. Compensation. Sections 3(a) and (b) of the Employment Agreement are hereby amended with
the addition of the following phrase:




“The parties hereto agree and acknowledge that the Executive’s total of Base Salary and
Annual Bonus target under this First Amendment shall be increased from the current Base
Salary and Annual Bonus target (the “Total Cash Compensation”) by no less than fifteen
percent (15%), effective July 1, 2006”.



     3. Option Grant. As of the stock option grant date in fiscal year 2007, the Executive will be
eligible to receive a grant of stock options that he would have otherwise receive in fiscal year
2007, based on the salary as amended in paragraph 2 of this First Amendment, pursuant to the
Company’s then-standard practice for providing such grants to segment leaders of the Company.



     4. Restricted Share Units Grant. As of July 1, 2006, the Company shall grant the Executive
Restricted Share Units, (the “Units”) with a value equivalent to $350,000 pursuant to the terms and
conditions set forth in the Restricted Share Units Agreement attached to this First Amendment as
Exhibit A (the “Restricted Share Units Agreement”).



 









 





     Except as specifically amended by the provisions of this First Amendment, all terms of the
Employment Agreement are unmodified and remain in full force and effect.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.

	 	 	 	EXECUTIVE	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ George L. Fotiades
 

GEORGE L. FOTIADES

	 	 
	 	/s/ Dwight Winstead
 

DWIGHT WINSTEAD
	 	 
	President and Chief Operating Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	 







2
GB ENTERPRISES COMMUNICATIONS CORP., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Carlos S. GUERRERO, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1063

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leland W. Brantley, Jr.,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



/s/ LELAND W. BRANTLEY, JR.Leland W. Brantley, Jr.Chief Financial OfficerMay 14, 2004
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.16





SCHEDULE OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ ANNUAL COMPENSATION 
OF 
UNION BANKSHARES CORPORATION 


Effective January 1, 2019 
	
		
	 

	 
	 

	 
	Amount

	Annual Retainer Cash Fees (1)
	 

	Service as a Director
	$35,000

	Service as Chairman of the Board of Directors
	$80,000 (additional)

	Service as Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors 
	$20,000 (additional)

	Service as Chairman of Audit Committee
	$20,000 (additional)

	Service as Chairman of Compensation Committee
	$13,500 (additional)

	Service as Chairman of Risk Committee
	$15,000 (additional)

	Service as Chairman of Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	$10,000 (additional)

	Members of Audit, Risk, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees
	$8,000 (additional)

	 
	 

	Meeting Fees 
	 

	Executive Committee per meeting (in person)
	$1,000

	Executive Committee per meeting (telephonic lasting under an hour)
	$500

	Meetings above maximum per year number per Meeting
	$1,000

	 
	 

	Equity Compensation
	 

	In addition to cash compensation, non-employee directors receive an annual stock retainer of $50,000 paid quarterly in advance in unrestricted shares of the Company’s stock. 

	 
	 

	(1) The retainer fees are payable in advance in quarterly installments