alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hanna Gustavson, as Administratrix of the Estate of Margaret Gustavson, Deceased, Respondent and Appellant, *v.*Southern Boulevard Railroad Company, Respondent, and Selma Lipton, Defendant, Appellant and Respondent. (Action No. 1.) Selma S. Lipton, Appellant, *v.*Southern Boulevard Railroad Company, Respondent, et al., Defendant. (Action No. 2.)

Submitted February 23, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*William G. Walsh*for motion.

*Addison B. Saoville, Oliver R. Brant*and *Alfred T. Davison,*opposed.

Motion dismissed on the ground that an appeal lies as of right.
#### Hamlin *vs.*Stevenson.

*Appeal front a J. P.*

[Mr. Beatty for plaintiff: no appearance for defendant.]

From the Circuit Court for Lewis County.

*November*4.

A person is' of full age on the day preceding the 21st anniversary of his birth.

Infancy &- want of *prochein amie*is not plead-able in abatement after the plaintiff is of age —tbo1 the suit was brought ba fore.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court,

Hamlin, being twenty-one years old on the day preceding the twenty first anniversary of his birth, was, of course, twenty-one years of age on the day when the plea in abatement was filedj and when the issue upon it was tried.

And therefore, as he then had a right to prosecute his suit in his own name, without the intervention of a *prochein amie,*the plea that he was an infant when he brought the suit, was not available for abating the suit.

And, moreover, had the plea been sustained, the Circuit Court erred in rendering a judgment in bar of the Suit.

Wherefore, the judgment must be reversed, and the eause remanded with instructions to render a judgment for Hamlin, on the verdict for nine dollars.
#### BRYANT v. THE STATE.

Appeal from Rains county.

*Indictment*— Theft *of Money.*— An indictment for theft of money which describes the money stolen as “one twenty dollar gold piece of the value of twenty dollars, current money of the United States, and one five dollar bill in money of the value of five dollars,” fully complies with the rule prescribed in art. 427 0. C. P„, and is sufii cient.

*Charge*— Possession *of Property Recently Stolen.*— The court instructed the jury that “possession of property recently stolen is evidence against the defendant,- which, like all other evidence is to be taken and considered by the jury in connection with other testimony in the case.” Held; error as giving undue prominence to the evidence submitted on that point; and, it was incorrect to say that such evidence is *against*the defendant.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion by

Willson, J.
<![CDATA[Amendment to the C&J Energy Services, Inc. 2006 Stock Option Plan]]>


 Exhibit 10.3 
 AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 

C&J ENERGY SERVICES, INC. 
 2006 STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 May 29, 2012 

WHEREAS, C&J Energy Services, Inc. (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted the C&J Energy Services, Inc.
2006 Stock Option Plan (the “2006 Plan”) under which stock options have been granted to employees, directors, and consultants of the Company; 
 WHEREAS, on April 5, 2012 the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved the C&J Energy Services, Inc. 2012 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2012
Plan”), to be effective upon approval by the Company’s stockholders at the 2012 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, under which stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, stock appreciation rights, performance awards,
dividend equivalent rights, and share awards may be granted to employees, directors, and consultants of the Company; 

WHEREAS, the Company’s stockholders approved the adoption of the 2012 Plan at the 2012 Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on
May 29, 2012, and the Company now desires to amend the 2006 Plan effective as of the effective date of the 2012 Plan (the “2012 Plan Effective Date”). 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the 2006 Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as provided below: 
  

	 	1)	Capitalized terms used by not defined herein shall have the meanings attributed to such terms in the 2006 Plan. 


 

	 	2)	Notwithstanding any provision of the 2006 Plan to the contrary: 

  

	 	a)	Any Award outstanding under the 2006 Plan as of the 2012 Plan Effective Date shall continue to be subject to the terms of the 2006 Plan and the applicable Award
Agreement. 

  

	 	b)	If, and to the extent, an Award originally granted pursuant to the terms of the 2006 Plan is terminated by expiration, forfeiture, cancellation or otherwise without the
issuance of shares of Common Stock, any and all shares of Common Stock associated with such Award shall become available to be granted pursuant to a new award under the terms of the 2012 Plan. 


 

	 	3)	As amended hereby, the 2006 Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.
Exhibit 10.2

 

Amendment to Dynamic Materials Corporation
 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
 Adopted by the Board of Directors on March 7, 2012
 Approved by the Stockholders on May 24, 2012

 

Dynamic Materials Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) by its Board of Directors, hereby amends its Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”) originally adopted on January 9, 1998, and approved by the stockholders of the Company on May 22, 1998, as subsequently amended, as follows:

 

1.             Amendment to Paragraph 3.    Paragraph 3(a), first sentence is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

 

(a)           Subject to the Provisions of paragraph 12 relating to adjustments upon changes in stock, the stock that may be sold pursuant to rights granted under the Plan shall not exceed in the aggregate Six Hundred Thousand (600,000) shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Common Stock”).

 

2.             All Other Provisions Unaffected.    Except for this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Plan are unamended and shall remain in full force and effect.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 24, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40856

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FREDIE FERNANDO ARIAS-ORTEGA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-02-CR-45-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fredie Fernando Arias-Ortega (“Arias”) appeals his guiltyplea conviction and sentence for being an alien unlawfully found

in the United States after deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. He argues that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction

to accept his guilty plea, that his prior cocaine-possession

conviction was not an aggravated felony for purposes of U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) (2001), and that 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is
No. 02-40856

-2-

unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000).

Arias concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by this

court’s precedent; he raises these issues only to preserve them

for possible Supreme Court review. See United States v. BolivarMunoz, 313 F.3d 253, 256-57 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 2003

WL 729161 (U.S. Mar. 31, 2003); United States v. Caicedo-Cuero,

312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir. 2002), petition for cert. filed,

(U.S. Mar. 19, 2003)(No. 02-9747); United States v. Dabeit, 231

F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). His arguments are foreclosed. 

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6895 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6895

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 to 
  extend Federal support for bioindustrial manufacturing processes to 
    include support for the manufacturing of certain pharmaceutical 
                              ingredients.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 22, 2023

 Ms. Slotkin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 to 
  extend Federal support for bioindustrial manufacturing processes to 
    include support for the manufacturing of certain pharmaceutical 
                              ingredients.

    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 ``Defense Production and Active 
Pharmaceutical Ingredients Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF 
              BIOINDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING PROCESSES.

    Section 215(c)(1) of the James M. Inhofe National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (Public Law 117-263; 10 U.S.C. 
4841 note) is amended by inserting ``active pharmaceutical ingredients, 
key starting materials for such ingredients,'' after ``commodity 
chemicals,''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6864 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6864

To amend the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act to require 
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to testify on an annual 
                       basis before the Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2023

  Mr. Lawler introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act to require 
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to testify on an annual 
                       basis before the Congress.

    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 ``HUD Accountability Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO TESTIFY.

     Section 7 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act 
(42 U.S.C. 3535) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(u) Annual Testimony.--The Secretary shall appear before the 
Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate at an 
annual hearing and present testimony regarding the operations of the 
Department during the preceding year, including regarding the following 
topics:
            ``(1) The physical condition of all public housing and 
        other housing assisted by the Department.
            ``(2) The financial health of the mortgage insurance funds 
        of the FHA.
            ``(3) Oversight by the Department of grantees and sub-
        grantees engaging in waste, fraud, and abuse.
            ``(4) Ongoing activities of the Department, as 
        appropriate.''.
                                 <all>
```
## Adams , Kevi n (OST) 

# Vo^^- ^ ^"i^^CP ?

M j" - 1 i f' i

. I vj-^uhrtllurs O "fTT T From : Sent : To : 

### Cc : Subject : Rizzi , Patric k R . [patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com ] Tuesday , IVIarch 13 , 201 2 3:2 1 Pl\/ I Adams , Kevi n (OST) ; Martin , Michae l (OST ) Cohn , Robert E. ; Rizzi , Patric k R . Peninsul a Ainways ' Notic e (Atka , DOT-OST-1995-363 ) 

### yrii/nljD N 

## 3 J - M

- i

Kevi n an d Michael : Peninsul a Airways , Inc . (PenAir) currentl yoperate s subsidize d EA S t o Atka . PenAi rhereb yinform s th e Departmen ttha t i twil l no tb e applyin g fo rre-selectio n as th e EA S carrie rfo rAtk a an d wil l ceas e tha tservic e upo n th e en d o fit s curren t contrac tter m a tth e en d o fJun e 201 2 o rth e soones tdat e possibl e thereafte ras permitte d byapplicabl e la wan d regulations .

Unde rapplicabl e U.S . Treasur yRegulation s w e ar e require d t o infor m yo u tha tan yadvic e containe d i n thi s emai l o ran yattachmen theret o i s no tintende d o rwritte n t o b e used , an d canno tb e used , eithe r(i ) t o avoi d penaltie s impose d unde rth e Interna l Revenu e Code , o r(11 ) fo rpromoting , marketing , o rrecommendin g t o anothe rpart y an ytax-relate d matte raddresse d herein . Patric k Rizz i Counse l Hoga n Lovell s U S LL P Columbi a Squar e 55 5 Thirteent h Street , N W Washington , D C 2000 4 Tel : Direct : Fax ; Email : + 1 20 2 63 7 560 0 + 1 20 2 63 7 565 9 + 1 20 2 63 7 591 0 patrick.rizz i @ hoganlovells.co m www.hoganlovells.co m Pleas e conside rth e environmen tbefor e printin g thi s e-mail .

Abou tHoga n Lovell s Hoga n Lovell s i s a n internationa l lega l practic e tha tinclude s Hoga n Lovell s U S LL P an d Hoga n Lovell s Internationa l LLP . Fo rmor e information , se e www.hoQanlovells.com . CONFIDENTIALITY . Thi s emai l an d an yattachment s ar e confidential , excep twher e th e emai l state s i tca n b e disclosed ; i tmayals o b e privileged . I f receive d i n error , pleas e d o no tdisclos e th e content s t o anyone , bu t notif yth e sende rb yretur n emai l an d delet e thi s emai l (an d an yattachments ) fro m you rsystem .
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Acting on Behalf of the New York City Housing Authority, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Situated in the Area Bounded by Prince and Other Streets in the Borough of Brooklyn, Pursuant to a Plan Determined upon by said New York City Housing Authority (Fort Greene Houses). Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Appellant.

Argued November 17, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*789
      *Jackson A. Dykman, Augustus J. Wheeler*and *Dimitri G. Eristoff*for appellant.

*Ignatius M. Wilkinson, Corf oration Counsel (Herman Horowitz*and *Murray Sendler*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Thacher, J.
#### Elsa ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., AKA TPMG, Inc.; Ronald Carretti; Tracy Nunes; Shirley Hanson, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15540

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 21, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed May 04, 2017

Jessica A. Warne, Esquire, Law Office of Jessica Warne, PC, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Matthew Karl Hawkins, McCormick Barstow LLP, Modesto, CA, Scott M. Red-die, Laura A. Wolfe, McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and LOGAN,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Steven Paul Logan, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

*536MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Elsa Roberts appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees The Permanente Medical Group, Inc (“TPMG”), Ronald Caretti, Tracy Nunes, and Shirley Hanson on Roberts’s claims of disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). We affirm.

1. The Appellees were entitled to summary judgment on the claim for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. Roberts’s requested accommodation, being restricted from visual or verbal contact with her direct supervisor, is effectively a request for a new supervisor. That is per se unreasonable under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) guidelines. *See EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act,*Question 33 (EEOC Notice No. 915.002, Oct. 17, 2002). Roberts’s alterative request for reassignment in contravention of her collective bargaining agreement was also unreasonable. *See U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett,*535 U.S. 391, 403, 122 S.Ct. 1516, 152 L.Ed.2d 589 (2002).

2. The Appellees were entitled to summary judgment on the claim for failure to engage in the interactive process. Liability for a breakdown in the interactive process “hinges on the objective circumstances surrounding the parties’ breakdown in communication and responsibility for the breakdown lies with the party who fails to participate in good faith.” *Scotch v. The Art Institute of California-Orange County, Inc.,*173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1014, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 338 (2009). Here, the undisputed facts showed that Roberts refused to respond to repeated attempts by the Appel-lees to obtain information regarding her disabilities and limitations.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         254,076
<SECURITIES>                                   256,188
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               650,757
<PP&E>                                         111,978
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,205
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 788,171
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          130,588
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           899
<OTHER-SE>                                     629,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   788,171
<SALES>                                        106,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,283
<CGS>                                           20,461
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,686
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,341
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,138
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,203
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,203
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.26
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles C. LONDON, also known as “C”, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-31022 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 30, 2017

Mary Patricia Jones, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jennifer McDaniel Kleinpeter, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Charles C. London, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Charles C. London has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 *166U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). London has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of London’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as London’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42,2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *166published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6969 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6969

  To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to procure a statue of 
            Benjamin Franklin for placement in the Capitol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 2024

Ms. Houlahan (for herself, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania, 
 Mr. Meuser, Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Ms. 
 Wild, Mr. Evans, Mrs. Dingell, Ms. Titus, Mrs. McClain, Mr. Wilson of 
South Carolina, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Ms. 
 Mace, Mr. Pappas, Ms. Escobar, Mr. Keating, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. 
 Lawler, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Latta, Mr. Kildee, and Mrs. Bice) introduced 
   the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to procure a statue of 
            Benjamin Franklin for placement in the Capitol.

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

SECTION 1. PROCUREMENT AND PLACEMENT OF STATUE OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IN 
              THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL.

    (a) Obtaining of Statue.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Joint Committee on the Library shall 
enter into an agreement to obtain a statue of Benjamin Franklin, under 
such terms and conditions as the Joint Committee considers appropriate 
consistent with applicable law.
    (b) Placement.--Not later than January 1, 2026, the Joint Committee 
shall place the statue obtained under subsection (a) in a suitable 
permanent location in the United States Capitol where the statue is 
accessible to the public during a guided tour of the Capitol provided 
by the Capitol Visitor Center.
                                 <all>
```
PLAY LA INC.

A Tortola, B.V.I. Corporation



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, David Hallonquist, President and Chief Executive Officer and Brian Cole, Chief Financial Officer of Play LA Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

the annual report of Play LA Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006 (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 Play LA Inc.









Dated March 23, 2007

/s/David Hallonquist

David Hallonquist,

President and Chief Executive Officer





Dated March 23, 2007

/s/Brian Cole

Brian Cole,

Chief Financial Officer