alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Owen Columbus BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23138.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 13, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 20, 1967.

See also 5 Cir., 367 F.2d 144.

Brooks Taylor, Crestview, Fla., for appellant.

Robert B. McGowan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for appellee.

Before BROWN, GEWIN and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted under the general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S. C.A. § 371, of a conspiracy to violate 26 U.S.C.A. § 5691, in failing to pay the special tax on retail dealerships in liquor. Appellant predicates his plea for reversal on two grounds. First, he claims that he was entrapped into crime; that the Government agent was too seductive in his urging and passed the point of merely facilitating the criminal designs of the Appellant. However, a careful reading of the transcript shows that the Government agent tested the Appellant in the usual manner of cases of this kind, and did not put him under such extraordinary temptation or inducement as to entrap him. At least the jury was entitled to so conclude. See the opinion of Judge Sibley in United States v. Wray, 8 F.2d 429 (N.D.Ga.1925).

 Second, Appellant claims that there was no evidence of a true conspiracy. We have no quarrel with Appel*146lant’s abstract proposition that if the only co-conspirators were Government agents, the conviction could not stand. The evidence, however, clearly permitted the jury to find that there were co-conspirators other than Government agents.

As with the other case argued jointly, 367 F.2d 144, this day decided, there was no error.

Affirmed.
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:29 PM 

Subject: Announcement from the U.S. Department of Energy regarding Test Procedures for LightEmitting Diode Lamps Notice of proposed rulemaking 

Good afternoon,

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for light‐

emitting diode (LED) lamps test procedure on April 9, 2012. A public meeting will be held on May 3,

2012, with a webinar option available. Participants can join the webinar by registering here.  

At the public meeting, DOE will present and invite discussion on the test procedure rulemaking process

as it applies to LED lamps and request comments, data, and information from participants. DOE

encourages stakeholders to participate in the public meeting and submit comments on issues that are

addressed in the NOPR no later than June 25, 2012.

The NOPR is available on DOE’s website.  

Regards,

Lucy deButts

Building Technologies Program

U.S. Department of Energy

202‐287‐1604

lucy.debutts@ee.doe.gov
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 706 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent unjust and irrational 

criminal punishments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2015 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia (for himself and Mr. MASSIE) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent unjust 

and irrational criminal punishments. 

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 ‘‘Justice Safety Valve 

5 Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A SENTENCE BELOW A 

7 STATUTORY MINIMUM. 

8 Section 3553 of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 706 IH

1 ‘‘(g) AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A SENTENCE BELOW A

2 STATUTORY MINIMUM TO PREVENT AN UNJUST SEN3 TENCE.— 

4 ‘‘(1) GENERAL RULE.—Notwithstanding any 

5 provision of law other than this subsection, the court 

6 may impose a sentence below a statutory minimum 

7 if the court finds that it is necessary to do so in 

8 order to avoid violating the requirements of sub9 section (a). 

10 ‘‘(2) COURT TO GIVE PARTIES NOTICE.—Before 

11 imposing a sentence under paragraph (1), the court 

12 shall give the parties reasonable notice of the court’s 

13 intent to do so and an opportunity to respond. 

14 ‘‘(3) STATEMENT IN WRITING OF FACTORS.— 

15 The court shall state, in the written statement of 

16 reasons, the factors under subsection (a) that re17 quire imposition of a sentence below the statutory 

18 minimum. 

19 ‘‘(4) APPEAL RIGHTS NOT LIMITED.—This sub20 section does not limit any right to appeal that would 

21 otherwise exist in its absence.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.117    
  


 
 

AMENDMENT TO THE
  EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT    
  


        This Amendment Agreement, made as of the 18th day of December, 2001 is between Staff Builders, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the "Company") now called ATC
Healthcare Services, Inc. and Edward Teixeira (the "Employee"). 


        WHEREAS,
the Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of April 15, 1999 and 


        WHEREAS,
the parties now desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein; 


        NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 


	1.
	Section 3
of the Agreement, relating to term is hereby amended such that term now is extended through, December 31, 2004.



	2.
	Section 4(a)
of the Agreement, relating to compensation, is hereby amended such that the Employee's base salary as of January 1, 2002 will be $250,000 and such salary
will be increased to $265,000 on January 1, 2003 and to $280,000 on January 1, 2004.



	3.
	Section 4(b)
of the Agreement relating to incentive compensation is hereby amended such that the net income before taxes related to the acquisition of franchise rights of the
DSS and DSI franchise is not included in the calculation of net income before taxes for calculating this incentive compensation. Any similar transaction in which ATC acquires franchise rights will
also not be included in calculating net income before taxes for this incentive compensation.



	4.
	Section 5(d)
of the Agreement relating to change of control is hereby amended such that the severance payment of (12) twelve months salary is changed to
(18) eighteen months salary; and the payment period is hereby amended such that payment period of (12) twelve months is changed to (18) eighteen months.



	5.
	In
consideration for entering into this Amended Employment Agreement, employee will be paid a bonus of $15,000 by January 30, 2002. 




        Except
as expressly amended herein, all other terms, conditions, agreements, representations and warranties contained in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 



	 	 	ATC HEALTHCARE, INC.
	

 	
 	

By	

/s/  DAVID SAVITSKY      
 David Savitsky
	

 	
 	
EMPLOYEE
	

 	
 	

 	

/s/  EDWARD TEIXEIRA      
 Edward Teixeira











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.117


AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
#### Rhodes and Others *against*Cobb.

Chancery.

[Messrs. Morehead Brown for Plaintiffs: no appearance for Defendant.]

From the Circuit Court for Edmondson County*

*April*7.

An allegation, in an attachment bill, as to the amountofthe garnishee’s debt, may he sufficient without staling it precisely, if it shows that it exceeds the complainant’s judgment.

To justify a proceeding, under the statute, against a defendant’s *chosesin*action, therq must be a *fi. fa.*returned no property, “by the proper officer,” i. e. an officer of the county where thejudgmentwia rendered, or that in which tile de ■ fendant resides. A judgment in one county, and return on an execution sent to another, without any allegation that the defendant resides in the latter, will not authorize a decree, on bill *pro canfessa.*

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Cobb, a judgment creditor of Rhodes and McFerran, filed a bill against them and Roundtree, for subjecting a debt alleged to be due from him to Rhodes, and for enjoining the payment of it, in the mean time. And the hill having been taken for confessed against all three, a decree was rendered according to the prayer.

As to the indebtedness of Roundtree, the bill,although silent as to the precise amount of it, alleges that it exceeds that of the judgment. This is sufficiently certain to justify, in that particular, the decree, as rendered, for the amount of the judgment.

But in one essential particular the allegations are not, in our opinion, sufficient to authorize a decree on the bill *pro confesso.*The proceeding is altogether statutory, and the statute prescribes, as indispensable to the jurisdiction in such a case, that there shall have been a return, “by *the proper officer,”*of “no *property”*on a *fieri facias.*The bill alleges, that such an execution had been so returned. But the only execution exhibited was a *fieri facias*to Barren county, returned by an officer of that county; and, though the judgment was rendered in Edmondson county, there is no suggestion that any of the defendants resided in Barren; nor is there any intimation that a *fieri facias*had ever been issued to Edmondson.

It seems to us therefore, that, admitting all the allegations of the bill, and every proper judicial deduction from them, it does not appear that there had been such a *fieri facias*and such a return upon it by “the proper officer,” as are required by the statute, which should *24certainly be understood as contemplating a return of “no property” by an officer of the county of the defendant’s residence or domicil, or of the county in which the judgment was rendered, when it does not appear that the defendant resides elsewhere. The only object of the statute was to aid a party who had, *by a trial of the ordinary legal*remedy, *been unable to enforce his judg*ment, and who could shew that fact by *an official return*on the common execution against the estate of his debt- or. And surely all this does not necessarily appear from the allegations of the bill in this case.

Wherefore, the decree must be reversed, and the cause, remanded*
|   | I. | The      Agreement is hereby amended asfollows: |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------|

|   | A. | Section      4(b) shall be deleted and replaced with the  following: |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | Bonus.  In      addition to a base salary, Executive shall be eligible to receive an      annual cash bonus (pro-rated for partial calendar years during the      Employment Period) upon the achievement of pre-established performance      goals tied to the Company’s revenues, EBITDA or other financial measures      as determined by the Company’s Board of Directors or Compensation      Committee after consultation with the      Executive.   Depending upon achievement of the performance      goals, Executive’s bonus for each calendar year during the Employment      Period shall be 50% of Executive’s base salary earned during such      year.  Any such Bonus earned during a calendar year shall be      paid at such time as the Company customarily pays annual      bonuses. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | B. | Section      4(g) of the Agreement shall be amended by adding a new clause (iv) as      follows: |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

|   | COMPANY:                            |
|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   |                                |   |
|   | interCLICK,      Inc.               |
|   |                                |   |
|   | By:                                 | ______________________________ |
|   |                                | ______________,      _______________ |
|   |                                |   |
|   | EXECUTIVE:                          |
|   |                                |   |
|   | ___________________________________ |
|   | Michael      Mathews                |

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alberto CASTRUITA-ESCOBEDO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50436 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 17, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kristin L. Davidson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

*342Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alberto Castruita-Escobedo was convicted of illegal reentry and was sentenced within the guidelines range to 41 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. However, he fails to demonstrate any error with respect to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. *See United States v. Cooks,*589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); *United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008).

The judgment of the district court 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.
#### Peter F. Murphy, Resp’t, *v.*The City of Yonkers, App’l.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed February 9, 1891.)*

Negligence—Municipal corporations—Defects in street.

Plaintiff was riding with others in a coach returning from a funeral through one of defendant’s streets which was in had condition. In endeavoring to cross the street to avoid a wagon the driver was thrown from his seat and the horses ran until the coach upset and injured plaintiff. *Held,*that the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

*33Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff for $275, entered on verdict.

Plaintiff was returning from a funeral at which he, with three others, had acted as pall bearers. ' He sat in a closed coach with the driver on top. The driver came by the way of Nepperhan avenue to enable one of the other persons to get out at his own house. After he had alighted, the driver proceeded down the avenue, and perceiving a wagon and a ditch in front of the coach, endeavored to cross the street, which was in a bad condition. In doing so one of the horses slipped, turning the coach in the trench and throwing the driver off. The horses then took fright and ran about three-quarters of a mile, when the coach upset and plaintiff was dragged some distance and permanently injured.

*Joseph F.*Daly, for app’lt; *John H.*Ferguson, for resp’t.

Dykman, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the city court of Yonkers in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant.

The action was brought against the city for the recovery of damages resulting to the plaintiff from a fall from a carriage in •one of the public streets within the limits of the corporation.

The plaintiff was riding in a coach on his return from a funeral, when the driver was thrown from his seat by a sudden lurch of the coach and the horses became frightened and ran some distance until the coach was upset. The plaintiff remained- in the coach and received his injuries when it was overturned.

The trial was before a jury and the plaintiff recovered a verdict which is supported by the evidence.

There are many exceptions in the case but they present no material error.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6948 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6948

 To authorize affordable housing construction as an eligible activity 
  under the Community Development Block Grant Program, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2024

  Ms. Waters introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize affordable housing construction as an eligible activity 
  under the Community Development Block Grant Program, 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 ``Strengthening Housing Supply Act of 
2024''.

SEC. 2. AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION AS ELIGIBLE ACTIVITY UNDER 
              COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.

    (a) Eligible Activity.--Subsection (a) of section 105 of the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (25)(D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (26), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(27) the new construction of affordable housing, within 
        the meaning given such term under section 215 of the Cranston-
        Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12745).''.
    (b) Low and Moderate Income Requirement.--Paragraph (3) of section 
105(c) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
5305(c)(3)) is amended by striking ``or rehabilitation'' and inserting 
``, rehabilitation, or new construction''.
    (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section shall apply 
with respect only to amounts appropriated after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7019 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7019

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to address disclosures by 
  directors, officers, and principal stockholders of foreign private 
                    issuers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 2024

Mr. Luetkemeyer (for himself and Mr. Sherman) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to address disclosures by 
  directors, officers, and principal stockholders of foreign private 
                    issuers, 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 ``Holding Foreign Insiders Accountable 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURES BY DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, AND PRINCIPAL STOCKHOLDERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 16(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78p(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``(including any 
such security of a foreign private issuer, as that term is defined in 
section 240.3b-4 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or any 
successor regulation)'' after ``pursuant to section 12''.
    (b) Effect on Regulation.--If any provision of section 240.3a12-
3(b) of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor 
regulation, is inconsistent with the amendment made by subsection (a), 
that provision of such section 240.3a12-3(b) (or such successor) shall 
have no force or effect.
    (c) Issuance or Amendment of Regulations.--Not later than 90 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange 
Commission shall issue final regulations (or amend existing regulations 
of the Commission) to carry out the amendment made by subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

J.B.R., a child

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 54

[ October 11, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; Michael C. Heisey , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 562014CJ000760A, 562014CJ000881B, 562017CJ000239A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Virginia Murphy, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G E RBER , C.J., W ARNER and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7078 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7078

        To amend title 31, United States Code, to prohibit the 
misrepresentation and receipt of a false obligation to the Government, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2024

   Mr. Buck introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To amend title 31, United States Code, to prohibit the 
misrepresentation and receipt of a false obligation to the Government, 
                        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 ``False Claims Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. FALSE CLAIMS ACT.

    Section 3729(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (G), by striking the comma, and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(H) knowingly misrepresents to another an 
                obligation to pay or transmit duty payments to the 
                Government and improperly receives such payment or 
                transmission of duty payments without paying or 
                transmitting such duty payments to the Government,''.
                                 <all>
```