alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeffrey David SMITH, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11507 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 6, 2017

Brian W. McKay, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brandon Elliott Beck, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, Aisha J. Dennis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jeffrey David Smith appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release, arguing that the evidence failed to *330establish that he violated the conditions of his supervised release by committing a new offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), He contends that there was insufficient evidence that his statement on his monthly reporting form, in which he falsely denied having contact with persons with a criminal record, was material or was made with an intent to deceive, both of which are necessary elements under the statute. A district court may revoke a term of supervised release upon a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); *United States v. Hinson,*429 F.3d 114, 118-19 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court’s decision to revoke supervised release is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Grandlund,*71 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995), *opinion clarified,*77 F.3d 811 (5th Cir. 1996). When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, this court must “view the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence in a light most favorable to the government.” *United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz,*38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court can “choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence,” and the evidence is sufficient if a reasonable trier of fact could have reached the district court’s conclusion. *Id,*(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we conclude that a reasonable trier of fact could determine that Smith violated the conditions of his supervised release by making a false statement on his supervised release monthly reporting form in violation of § 1001. *See Grandlund,*71 F.3d at 509; *Alaniz-Alaniz,*38 F.3d at 792. Therefore, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

**Pursuant to 5th 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         298,184
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,887,888
<ALLOWANCES>                                   311,538
<INVENTORY>                                     67,875
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,548,284
<PP&E>                                      14,113,812
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,925,804
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,352,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,985,144
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     77,500
<COMMON>                                        92,329
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,949,691
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,352,247
<SALES>                                     13,568,396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,568,396
<CGS>                                     (10,836,288)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (2,233,615)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               558,472
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    50
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (685,645)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                371,270
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            371,270
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   371,270
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02


</TABLE>
#### Roger CONNELL; Richard Ashcroft, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; Wells Fargo Advisors, L.L.C.; Does 1-50, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-20679

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 2, 2017

Thomas R. Ajamie, John Saul Edwards, Jr., Esq., David Schiff Siegel, Ajamie, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Michael Todd Slobin, Principal Litigation Counsel, Shellist La-zarz Slobin, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Scott Robert McLaughlin, Jackson Walker, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Sean Daniel Jordan, Jackson Walker, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees

Before DAVIS, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roger Connell and Richard Ashcroft appeal the district court’s dismissal of their diversity action against Wells Fargo based on a forfeiture provision of a deferred *447compensation plan. The action was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” on the basis that the plan contained a North Carolina choice-of-law provision which allowed forfeiture under the terms to which the parties agreed. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court granted the dismissal with prejudice, finding that the parties’ choice of North Carolina law governed and that the forfeiture provision is valid and enforceable. This court has considered this appeal on the basis of the briefs,.the record, and oral argument. Having done so, we conclude that the matter should be affirmed, essentially for the reasons stated by the district court. Because the district court did not err, we AFFIRM. All outstanding motions are DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
35241+ 

RECEIVED eACTMA M OPPT CBIC EASTMA N 

4013000002 7 20J3 FES 28 AH IJ - 50 _tmanChemicalCompany 

Kingsport, Tennessee 37662 

Telephone: 423-229-2094 

www.Eastman.com 

February 26, 2013 

Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460-0001 

Attn: TSCA Section 4. 

R E: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112. Submission of Tests for 

propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3-(benzoyloxy)-2,2,4-trimethyIpentyl ester (CASRN 

22527-63-5) pursuant to 40 CFR 799.5089. 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

Eastman Chemical Company ("Eastman") appreciates the agency's granting of an extension of 

the date to submit the data required for propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3-(benzoyloxy)-2,2,4-

trimethylpentyl ester (CASRN 22527-63-5) under the test rule published on October 21, 2011 

(76 Fed. Reg. 65,385; 40 CFR 799.5089).1 

In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 799.5089, Eastman submits the following two 

reports as attachments to this letter: 

1. Acute Oral Toxicity in the Rat, Up-and-Down Procedure. 

2. Reverse Mutation Assay "Ames Test" using Salmonella Typhimurium and Escherichia Coli. 

Eastman continues to work on the remaining tests and will submit the finalized reports as they 

become available. If you should have any questions regarding these reports or the status of the 

remaining tests, please contact me at (423) 229-2094 (email: lvelsor(5),eastman.com') or Mr. 

Gary Shrum, Director of Product Stewardship at (423) 229-2471 (email: 

glshrum@eastman.com'). 

Sincerely, 

4-0 1 3000002 7 

Leonard Velsor 

Senior Attorney 

Global Trade and Compliance 

Eastman Chemical Company 

P.O. Box 511, Building 75 

Kingsport, TN 37662-5075 

1

 E-mail communication from John Schaeffer, Senior Biologist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency date 

February 4, 2013. 

CONTAINS NO CB
#### REMBRANDT GAMING TECHNOLOGIES, LP, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, WMS Gaming, Inc., LVGV, LLC, Defendants-Appellees New Castle Corp., Ramparts, Inc., Mandalay Corp., Circus Circus Casinos, Inc., Victoria Partners, Bellagio, LLC, MGM Grand Hotel, LLC, The Mirage Casino-Hotel, New York-New York Hotel & Casino, LLC, Aria Resort & Casino Holdings, LLC, Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc., Defendants

2016-2249

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

August 21, 2017

Rachel Zimmerman Scobie, Merchant *&*Gould P.C., Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Rachel C. Hughey, Christopher C. Davis, Christopher J. Sorenson, Emily Wessels; Jeffrey Blake, Atlanta, GA.

Timothy Colin Meece, Banner & Wit-coff, Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by Christopher Galfano, Michael Joseph Harris, Audra Carol Eidem Heinze, Bryan Medlock, Jr.; David P, Enzminger, Winston & Strawn LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Patrick Michael McCarthy, Howard & Howard Attorneys, PLLC, Ann Arbor, MI.

*511(Newman, O’Malley, and Reyna, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### Anil KUMAR, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60372 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 25, 2017

Jaime Jasso, Esq., Attorney, Law Offices of Jaime Jasso, Westlake Village, CA, for Petitioner

Linda Y. Cheng, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Anil Kumar petitions this court for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal *399from the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying him, asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. Because the BIA relied upon the IJ’s decision, this court reviews both the IJ’s decision and the order of the BIA. *See Wang v. Holder,*569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009).

Kumar does not brief the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, and he has therefore abandoned the issue. *See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). We lack jurisdiction to consider Kumar’s challenge to the dismissal of his asylum application as time barred since his argument is based upon factual, rather than legal, grounds. *See Zhu v. Gonzales,*493 F.3d 588, 594-96 (5th Cir. 2007).

We review the denial of withholding of removal under the substantial evidence standard. *See Efe v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). We “may not reverse the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels it.” *Wang,*569 F.3d at 536-37. Kumar “must show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” *Id.*at 537.

To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant “must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution upon return.” *Roy v. Ashcroft,*389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A showing of past persecution gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the applicant’s life or freedom will be threatened in the future. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(l)(i). Kumar fails to show that the evidence compels a finding that he suffered past persecution. *See Eduard v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 182,187-88 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding that petitioner who had suffered verbal threats and had sustained injury on one occasion failed to establish past persecution); *Abdel-Masieh v. United States INS,*73 F.3d 579, 583-84 (5th Cir. 1996) (upholding BIA finding that two arrests, two detentions, and beatings not characterized as severe did not rise to level of past persecution). As Kumar relies almost exclusively on his evidence of past persecution to establish his entitlement to withholding of removal, he fails to show that the BIA’s denial was not based upon substantial evidence. *See Efe,*293 F.3d at 906.

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EX-10.16





 Exhibit 10.16 

NOTE: PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT INDICATED BY [****] ARE SUBJECT TO A CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST AND HAVE BEEN OMITTED FROM THIS EXHIBIT. COMPLETE,
UNREDACTED COPIES OF THIS EXHIBIT HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AS A PART OF THIS COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST. 
  

 
 



 
 June 28, 2018 
 RTI Surgical,
Inc. 
 11621 Research Circle 
 Alachua, Florida 32615 

Attn: Chief Financial Officer 

Re:    Letter Agreement re: Marketing Approval in [****] 

To Whom It May Concern: 
 Reference is made to
(i) the Exclusive Distribution Agreement made and entered into between Biomet 3i LLC (‘ZBD’) and RTI Surgical, Inc. (‘RTI’) as of September 30, 2010 (as amended, the ‘Distribution Agreement’), and
(ii) the letter agreement dated January 31, 2017, between ZBD to RTI concerning, among other things, Marketing Approvals in [****] (the ‘2017 Letter Agreement’). Defined terms that are used but not defined in this letter
agreement shall have the meanings given to them in the 2017 Letter Agreement. 
 The Parties hereby agree that paragraph 1 in the 2017
Letter Agreement (with the heading ‘Marketing Approval in [****]) is null and void, and that the Parties are hereby released from any obligations set forth in such paragraph including, without limitation, RTI’s obligations to seek
Marketing Approvals for the Subject Implants in [****], and ZBD’s obligation to reimburse RTI for certain costs and expenses in connection therewith. The Parties may, but shall not be required to, reevaluate at a later date opportunities for
seeking Marketing Approvals for the Subject Implants in [****]. 
 Except as specifically set forth above, the 2017 Letter Agreement and the
Distribution Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed. This letter agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois, without regard to its choice of law
rules. 
 [Remainder of page intentionally left blank; 

Signatures appear on following page] 













 NOTE: PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT INDICATED BY [****] ARE SUBJECT TO A CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST AND HAVE
BEEN OMITTED FROM THIS EXHIBIT. COMPLETE, UNREDACTED COPIES OF THIS EXHIBIT HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AS A PART OF THIS COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST. 

 

 If the provisions above are acceptable to RTI, please execute this letter agreement in the
space below and return a signed copy to ZBD. 
  

			
	 Sincerely,

	
	 Biomet 3i LLC

		
	By:	 	/s/ C.M. Jayashankar
		
	Name:	 	C.M. Jayashankar
		
	Title:	 	Marketing Director
		
	Date:	 	June 29, 2018


  

			
	 Acknowledged and agreed:

	
	 RTI Surgical, Inc.

		
	By:	 	/s/ Olivier M. Visa
		
	Name:	 	Olivier M. Visa
		
	Title:	 	Vice President OEM, Sports and Donor Services
		
	Date:	 	July 9, 2018

  

			
	cc:	  	Corporate Counsel
		  	RTI Surgical, Inc.
		  	11621 Research Circle
		  	Alachua, FL 32615
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report of VendingData Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Steven J. Blad,Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and Douglas H. Caszatt,Acting Chief Financial Officer and Controller of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:    |   /s/  Steven J. Blad                            |   | Dated: | November 15,  2004 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------|
|   |   Steven  J. Blad                                |   |   |
| Title: |   Chief  Executive Officer and President         |   |   |
|   |                                                       |   |   |
|   |                                                       |   |   |
| By:    |   /s/ Douglas  H. Caszatt                        |   | Dated: | November 15,  2004 |
|   |   Douglas  H. Caszatt                            |   |   |
| Title: |   Acting  Chief Financial Officer and Controller |   |   |

 

 

This certification ismade solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to theknowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6369 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend incentive payments 

for participation in eligible alternative payment models. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2023 

Ms. SCHRIER (for herself and Mr. DUNN of Florida) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 

in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend 

incentive payments for participation in eligible alternative 

payment models. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENDING INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR PAR4 TICIPATION IN ELIGIBLE ALTERNATIVE PAY5 MENT MODELS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1833(z) of the Social Se7 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(z)) is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1)— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6369 IH

1 (A) in subparagraph (A)— 

2 (i) by striking ‘‘In the case’’ and in3 serting ‘‘Subject to subparagraph (E), in 

4 the case’’; 

5 (ii) by striking ‘‘ending with 2025’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘ending with 2026’’; and 

7 (iii) by inserting ‘‘and 2026’’ after 

8 ‘‘with respect to 2025’’; and 

9 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

10 subparagraph: 

11 ‘‘(E) SPECIAL PAYMENT RULE FOR 2026.— 

12 With respect to an amount payable under sub13 paragraph (A) for 2026 to an eligible profes14 sional who is a qualifying APM participant for 

15 such year, such amount shall be reduced, in the 

16 case such participant has received payment 

17 under such subparagraph— 

18 ‘‘(i) for at least 4 years but fewer 

19 than 7 years, by 34 percent; or 

20 ‘‘(ii) for 7 years, by 67 percent.’’; 

21 (2) in paragraph (2)— 

22 (A) in subparagraph (B)— 

23 (i) in the subparagraph heading, by 

24 striking ‘‘2025’’ and inserting ‘‘2026’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6369 IH

1 (ii) in the matter preceding clause (i), 

2 by striking ‘‘2025’’ and inserting ‘‘2026’’; 

3 (B) in subparagraph (C)— 

4 (i) in the subparagraph heading, by 

5 striking ‘‘2026’’ and inserting ‘‘2027’’; and 

6 (ii) in the matter preceding clause (i), 

7 by striking ‘‘2026’’ and inserting ‘‘2027’’; 

8 and 

9 (C) in subparagraph (D), by striking 

10 ‘‘2024, and 2025’’ and inserting ‘‘2024, 2025, 

11 and 2026’’; and 

12 (3) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ‘‘2025’’ 

13 and inserting ‘‘2025 and 2026’’. 

14 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 

15 1848(q)(1)(C)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

16 1395w–4(q)(1)(C)(iii) is amended— 

17 (1) in subclause (II), by striking ‘‘2025’’ and 

18 inserting ‘‘2026’’; and 

19 (2) in subclause (III), by striking ‘‘2026’’ and 

20 inserting ‘‘2027’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00007-CR

ALFONZO BUTLER, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1698886D)

September 7, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Mike Wallach___________________

 Justice Mike Wallach
##### 



EXHIBIT
10.9
  
   Exhibit A
    
    
    Your salary will be $250,000 on an annualized basis.




---



##### 




    
    The variable portion of your total compensation package will be $100,000 annually.
Your current goals associated with this variable will continue for 2006. Your goals
for 2007 will be set and judged by your reporting management.
    
    During the Term, ATG will maintain your current set of employee benefits, services
and practices.
    
    ATG will extend to you full recognition of your tenure at eStara or any of its
prior acquired companies for purposes of benefit calculation and vesting rights.
  
    
    These options vest quarterly over 4 years, with cliff vesting for the first year
(i.e., on the first anniversary of your start date, your options will vest 25%).
Thereafter, your options will vest quarterly over the remaining 3 years.
    
    In the event of a change in control of ATG, following the transaction with eStara,
50% of your unvested shares underlying the option will vest immediately.
 Exhibit B




---



##### 




    
    to receive the benefits, if any, to which you would be entitled under section 4(d)
of your eStara Agreement; or
    
    to waive such benefits and receive instead continued payment of (or, in ATGs sole
discretion, a lump sum payment of) your base salary and health benefits coverage for
the balance of the Term.
     
  /s/ John FedermanJohn Federman
    
    Start Date: October 2, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6267 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6267

 To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish Election Day as a 
                            Federal holiday.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 7, 2023

Mr. Fitzpatrick (for himself and Mrs. Dingell) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                             Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish Election Day as a 
                            Federal holiday.

    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 ``Election Day Act''.

SEC. 2. PATRIOT DAY.

    Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after the item relating to Columbus Day the following:
            ``Election Day.''.
                                 <all>
```