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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 262 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 262

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Authorizing the 1998 District of Columbia Special Olympics Law 
      Enforcement Torch Run to be run through the Capitol Grounds.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 262

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF D.C. SPECIAL OLYMPICS LAW 
              ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN THROUGH CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    On May 29, 1998, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
Senate may jointly designate, the 1998 District of Columbia Special 
Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run (in this resolution referred to as 
the ``event'') may be run through the Capitol Grounds, as part of the 
journey of the Special Olympics torch to the District of Columbia 
Special Olympics summer games at Gallaudet University in the District 
of Columbia.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out the event.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event.

SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY OF PROHIBITIONS.

    Nothing in this resolution may be construed to waive the 
applicability of the prohibitions established by section 4 of the Act 
of July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), concerning sales, 
displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 12, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1203

WELBON A. DELON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE NEWS AND OBSERVER PUBLISHING COMPANY OF RALEIGH, NORTH

CAROLINA, A MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPER,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:05-cv-00259-WO-PTS)

Submitted: April 23, 2008 Decided: May 6, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Welbon A. DeLon, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Harrington, Angelique

Regail Vincent, ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA, Charlotte, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Welbon A. DeLon appeals the district court’s orders

accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and

dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. DeLon v. The

News & Observer Publishing, No. 1:05-cv-00259-WO-PTS (M.D.N.C. Jan.

22, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### NUM BER 13-0 8-00 447- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _______ _ IN THE INTEREST OF B. C. C., A CHILD

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On ap pe al f rom th e 2 4th D istrict Co urt of Ja ckso n Co un ty , T exas .

____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s Yan ez, Garza, a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam The appel lan t per

fected an appea l from a j udg ment t er minat ing parental r ig hts or conse rv ato rship. On July 28, 20 08, the Clerk of

this Court not if ied ap pellan t tha t the clerk's record in the abo v e cau se w as originally due on July 21, 200 8, an d tha t the district clerk, Sharon M athi s, had not ified thi s C our t t hat a ppel lan t fail ed to make arra n gem entsfor payme nt of

the clerk's record. T he Clerk of this Court not if ied ap pellan t of this defect so that ste ps coul d be ta ke n t o c o rrect t he defect , i f it coul d be done. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 37.3 , 42.3( b) ,( c)
. Appel lan t was adv is ed th at, if the defect was not c or re cte d w it hin ten2

days from the date of rec eip t of thi s n oti ce, the appeal woul d be dis mis sed fo r wan t of prosec uti on. App ellanth a s failed to respon d to th is Court’s notice. Accordingly , the app eal is DI SM ISSE D FO R W AN T OF PR OSEC UTIO N. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8.8( a) , 42. 3( b)
. PERC UR IAM Me moran dum Opi nio n del ivered and filed thi s t he 30th day

of Oct ober , 200 8.
Cite as 2015 Ark. 5



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-14-742 ISRAEL TODD WATSON APPELLANT V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered January 15, 2015 DETERMINATION OF ATTORNEY FAULT

REFERRAL TO THE SUPREME C O U R T C O M M I T T E E O N P R O F E S S I O N A L C O N D U C T ORDERED.

PER CURIAM By per curiam dated October 2, 2014, we directed the clerk to accept Israel Todd Watson’s belated appeal, but remanded this case to the circuit court for a determination of attorney fault. Pursuant to this court’s order, the circuit court made findings of fact on the issue of attorney fault in failing to timely file the record on appeal. We conclude that there is attorney fault and direct that a copy of this per curiam be sent to the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct. The circuit court’s findings are as follows. Israel Todd Watson, through his trial counsel, Darrell Brown, Jr., filed a timely notice of appeal on October 2, 2013. By letter dated October 16, 2013, the court reporter notified Brown that financial arrangements should be made as soon as possible since this was not an indigence case, and the lengthy transcript would need to be started in the very near future. On December 13, 2013, Brown filed a motion to extend time to file the record. By order entered December 18, 2013, the time toCite as 2015 Ark. 5

file the record was extended until April 19, 2014. On April 15, 2014, Brown filed a second motion to extend time for filing the record. The circuit court stated that it had “mistakenly” granted the extension, because, pursuant to Rule 4(c)(2) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Criminal, the limit of seven months to file the transcript would have expired on April 19, 2014. Pursuant to Rule 4(c)(3) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Criminal, Brown should have filed his second motion for extension of time with the appellate court. Brown also did not file the motion to find Watson indigent simultaneously with the motion to extend time. Watson’s petition was not filed until July 25, 2014. In McDonald v. State , 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883 (2004), we said that there are only two possible reasons for an appeal not being timely perfected: either the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or there is good reason. Id . at 116, 146 S.W.3d at 891. When it is plain from the motion, affidavits, and record that relief is proper under either rule based on error or good reason, the relief will be granted, and if there is attorney error, a copy of the opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. See id . Because the failure to perfect this appeal lies with Watson’s trial counsel, a copy of the opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. See id. It is so ordered.

2
E 

### GENEEZAI.

HonorableHerbert C. Martin ,DistrictAttorney Littlefield, Texas

Dear Sir: OpinionNo. 

### 0-3806 Whether lotspurchasedby a city under Section 9 of Article 7345b,V.A.C.S., may be sold for less than the amount of judgment against the same.

In your letter of August 21, 1941, you advise that the city of Olton, as a taxingunit,purchased a number of lots situated in said city for the use and benefit of itself and other taxing units whichwere parties to such suit, in a proceedingunderArticle 7345b,Vernon'sBnnotated Civil Statutes. The other taxing unitswhich were parties to said suit were the State and county and an independent schooldistrict. It is assumed that two and a halfyears have not passed since the sale at which the citybought the lots. You request our opinion as to whether or not the said city of Olton may now sell said lots for an amount less than the amount of the judgments:~rendered

against the property in said suit.

Under the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 0f.sai.d Article 7345b a taxing unit party to the foreclosure suLt may purchase the property foreclosed,upon. In the event such property is bought by one of the taxing units, such unit purchases the same for the use and benefit of itselfand all other taxingunits which are parties to the suit and whichhave been adjudged in said s,uit to have tax liens against the prope*y. Nowhere in the statute is there an absoluteprohibition against the sale of such propertyby the purchasingunit. On the other hand, by clear implication,such a unit may sell the property thus acquired, subject to certain restrictions contained In the act. It is provided that the purchasingunit may not sell any suchproperty for less than the adjudged value or the total amount of judgmentsawarded in said suit against the property,whichever is lower,without the written consent of all taxing unitswhich obtained judgments fixing their tax liensagainst theproperty foreclosedupon in said suit. It is our opinion that the said city of Olton may sellHonorable :Herbert C. Martkn, page 2 (o-3886)

saldproperty for an allowed in said suit the State and cotinty Consent in behalf of collector. If there

. . .amount less than the total recoveries

against the same, with the consent of and the independentschool district. the State may be given by the county tax was an adjudged value, and the amount for which theproperty 1s sold excaeds such adjudged value, sale may be made by the city without obtaining the consent of the otherunits.

APPROVED SEP 8, 1941 Yours very truly
/s/Grover Sellers ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

FIRSTASS~ISTANT

ATTORNEY GENERAL
GRL:WFS-dhs By /s/GlennR. Lewis Glenn R. Lewis Assistant APPROVED IIPINION

COMMITTEE
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

THIRD AMENDMENT TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Third Amendment”) is made the
11th day of December, 2017 by and between Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Anthony M. Sanfilippo, an individual (“Executive”), with
respect to the following facts and circumstances: 
 RECITALS 

The Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement on August 18, 2014 (the “Original Agreement”), which was amended
by the First Amendment to Employment Agreement on December 16, 2014 and the Second Amendment to Employment Agreement on December 21, 2015 (collectively, with the Original Agreement, the “Employment Agreement”). 

The Company and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement pursuant to the terms set forth herein. 

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

AMENDMENT 
 1. Effective
as of January 1, 2018, Article 3, Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement (Base Salary) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new Article 3, Section 3.1: 

“3.1 Base Salary. In consideration for Executive’s services hereunder, the Company shall pay Executive an annual base salary
at the rate of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) per year effective as of January 1, 2018 through the end of the Term, subject to increase at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board (the
“Committee”), payable in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll schedule from time to time (less any deductions required for Social Security, state, federal and local withholding taxes, and any other authorized or mandated
similar withholdings). Executive shall not receive any compensation for services as a member of the Board.” 
 2. Except as modified
herein, all other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms of the Employment Agreement and this Third Amendment, the terms of this Third Amendment shall apply. No
modification may be made to the Employment Agreement or this Third Amendment except in writing and signed by both the Company and Executive. 

[SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Third Amendment to be duly executed as of
the date first written above. 
  

							
	EXECUTIVE	 		 	PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
				
	 /s/ Anthony M. Sanfilippo
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Donna S. Negrotto

	Anthony M. Sanfilippo	 		 		 	Donna S. Negrotto, Executive Vice President,
		 		 		 	General Counsel and Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JUNE 30,
1999 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,904
<SECURITIES>                                    27,643
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,162
<PP&E>                                           3,113
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  60,981
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,429
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    60,981
<SALES>                                         20,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,282
<CGS>                                           10,787
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,787
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,553
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,542)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,279)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,263)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,263)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)


</TABLE>
Page | 1 

NO. 2014-006760-1

MARY BROCK A/K/A CINDY BROCK § IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW

Plaintiff, §

§

V. § NO. ONE

§

CYNTHIA ANDREWS §

Defendant. § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Defendant, Cynthia Andrews, party to this case, files this Notice of Appeal seeking to 

alter the trial court's judgment or other appealable order. 

The trial court, trial court case number and style of this matter are shown in the above 

caption. 

The judgment or order appealed from was signed on March 13, 2015. 

Cynthia Andrews desires to appeal the judgment of the Court.

This appeal is being taken to the Second Court of Appeals. 

This notice is being filed by Cynthia Andrews. 

 This is an accelerated appeal. 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Renea Overstreet 

Texas Bar No. 24066704 

Email: rdolaw@gmail.com 

2100 N. Main Street, Suite 228 

Fort Worth, TX 76164 

Tel. (817) 810-9747 

Fax. (1-855) 299-5593 

Attorney for Defendant 

Cynthia Andrews 

E-FILED

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

3/19/2015 3:11:01 PM

MARY LOUISE GARCIA

COUNTY CLERK

BY: L.S. S.

 RECEIVED IN 2nd COURT OF APPEALS FORT WORTH, TEXAS 04/02/2015 11:01:41 AM DEBRA SPISAK Clerk
Page | 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on March 19, 2015 a true and correct copy of Defendant's Notice of Appeal 

was served on Jason K. Naumann electronically through the electronic filing manager.

/s/ Renea Overstreet
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0141 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 092 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24

- 1131

JIANYI ZHANG , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. US FDA , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III , Chief District Judge. ( 1:22

- cv - 03126

- GLR )

Submitted : May 30 , 2024 Decided: June 4, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jianyi Zhang, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Jackman Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1131 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Jianyi Zhang appeals the district court’s order dismissing Zhang’s complaint alleging several constitutional violations filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Federal
Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 to 2680 . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Zhang v. U

. S

. F

ood & Drug Admin. , No. 1:22

- cv - 03126

- GLR (D. Md. Jan. 18, 2024). 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 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1131 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
No. 11-10011.

#### Hickman *v.*Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 99.1
------------

                               TALK VISUAL CORPORATION

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 Talk Visual Corporation (the "Company")  Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harley L. Rollins,
Chief  Executive  Offer and Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

         (1). 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 15, 2003               By:  /s/ HARLEY L. ROLLINS
                                      ---------------------------------
                                      Harley L. Rollins
                                      Chief Executive Officer and
                                      Chief Financial Officer







                                       17
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.1**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

May 24, 2011

 

Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

a.               that this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

b.              that information contained in this Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2011 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/   Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr. |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Charles   T. Chrietzberg, Jr.     |
|   | Chief   Executive Officer              |
|   | and   President                        |

 

1

----