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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8233 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to reinstitute subsidies under the 

Essential Air Service program for certain airports, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2020 

Mr. TRONE (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, and Mr. REED) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to reinstitute subsidies under the Essential Air Service program for certain airports, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Restoring Essential 

5 Service to Small Airports Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COVID–19 ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE PROGRAM REIN7 STATEMENT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law, the Secretary of Transportation shall reVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:29 Sep 15, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8233.IH H8233

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8233 IH

1 institute a subsidy under the Essential Air Service pro2 gram for all airports that were removed from such pro3 gram after fiscal year 2015. 

4 (b) TIMING.—For purposes of this section, an airport 

5 described in subsection (a) shall be reinstituted for the 

6 longer of a period of 1 year beginning on the date of enact7 ment of this Act or the period in which such airport meets 

8 the qualifying criteria for an airport under the Essential 

9 Air Service Program. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 67 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 67

Authorizing the 1997 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the 
                            Capitol Grounds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 1997

   Mr. Kim submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the 1997 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the 
                            Capitol Grounds.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF SPECIAL OLYMPICS TORCH RELAY 
              THROUGH CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    On June 13, 1997, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate may 
jointly designate, the 1997 Special Olympics Torch Relay 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 section 1.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event authorized by section 1.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

Order 

April 9, 2010

139541-2 & (56)

139544-5

GREAT WOLF LODGE OF TRAVERSE

CITY, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139541-2

COA: 281398, 281404

Ingham CC: 06-001484-AA

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, MPSC U-14593

Defendant-Appellant,

and

CHERRYLAND ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

GREAT WOLF LODGE OF TRAVERSE

CITY, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139544-5

COA: 281398, 281404

Ingham CC: 06-001484-AA

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, MPSC U-14593

Defendant-Appellee,

and

CHERRYLAND ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the July 14, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered, and they are GRANTED. The parties 

shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether Cherryland Electric 

Cooperative is entitled to provide any component of electric service to Great Wolf Lodge 

of Traverse City or its buildings and facilities, (2) whether the Michigan Public Service 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 9, 2010

y0406

2

Commission must impose interest on the refund it ordered Cherryland Electric 

Cooperative to pay, and (3) whether the Michigan Public Service Commission must levy 

a fine, under MCL 460.558, on Cherryland Electric Cooperative.

The motion of Michigan Electric Cooperative Association for leave to file a brief 

amicus curiae is GRANTED. The Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity 

and the Electric Consumers Resource Council are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. 

Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this 

case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
Exhibit 10.1


 





 DarioHealth Corp.


Amendment to Amended and Restated 2012
Equity Incentive Plan


 


WHEREAS, DarioHealth
Corp. (the “Company”) maintains the DarioHealth Corp.’s Amended and Restated 2012 Equity Incentive Plan (the
“Incentive Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, the
Board of Directors (the “Board”) and the Compensation Committee of the Board has determined that it is in the best
interests of the Company to amend the Incentive Plan to increase the maximum number of shares of the Company’s common stock
authorized to be issued under the Incentive Plan by 1,500,000, from 2,373,000 to 3,873,000; and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant
to Section 13 of the Incentive Plan, an amendment that materially increases the aggregate number of shares that may be issued under
the Incentive Plan generally must be approved by a majority of votes cast by the stockholders of the Company in accordance with
applicable stock exchange rules.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
effective as of the date of approval by a majority of votes cast by the stockholders of the Company in accordance with applicable
stock exchange rules, the Incentive Plan is hereby amended in the following particulars:


 


		1.	Section 4(a) of the Incentive
Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


Share Reserve. Subject to
the provisions of Section 11 relating to adjustments upon changes in Common Stock, the Common Stock that may be issued pursuant
to Awards shall not exceed in the aggregate of 3,873,000 shares of Common Stock. During the terms of the Awards, the Company shall
keep available at all times the number of shares of Common Stock required to satisfy such Awards.


 


		2.	In all other respects the
Incentive Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1104

CLAUDE HOSCH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION; BANDAG,

INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-1135

CLAUDE HOSCH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GRANVILLE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; CHEMICAL

RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY; BANDAG,

INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CA-94-91-MC-5, CA-94-95-MC-5)
2

Submitted: April 23, 1996 Decided: July 18, 1996

Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

No. 96-1104 affirmed and No. 96-1135 dismissed by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Claude Hosch, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988).

2 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

3

PER CURIAM:

In No. 96-1104, the Appellant, Claude Hosch, appeals the

district court's order dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

(1988), all Defendants in a civil suit for monetary damages arising

from the denial of worker's compensation and foreclosure upon his

home. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Hosch v. NC Industrial Comm., No. CA-94-91-MC-5

(E.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 1995).

In No. 96-1135, Hosch appeals the district court's order

dismissing some but not all of the Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d) (1988) in another civil suit for monetary damages arising

from the same set of circumstances. We dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,1 and certain interlocutory and collateral orders.2 The order here appealed is neither

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss appeal No. 96-1135 as interlocutory. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
4

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 96-1104, AFFIRMED

No. 96-1135, DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 35.1








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2014 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2014-4, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





|   |                                                                                                              
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.




|   |                                                                                      
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on March 1, 2015 and ending on February 29, 2016 and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.







Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 20th day of May, 2016.





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Andrew J. McMonigle


Vice President, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Powerhouse Technologies Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gregory A. Duffell, Secretary, Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting
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 my knowledge:

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

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


/s/ Gregory A. Duffell
--------------------------
Gregory A. Duffell
Secretary, Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Date: March 26, 2004
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 USC, SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT
OF 2002





I, Justine Dye, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Medicine Man Technologies, Inc.;
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: June 16, 2020



| | /s/ Justine Dye                                             
| | ------------------------------------------------------------
| | Name: Justin Dye                                            
| | Title: Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Vilasid PHICHITH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-71925

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Bart Klein, Law Offices of Bart Klein, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner

Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Depart*358ment of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Vilasid Phichith, a native and citizen of Laos, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo questions of law. *Ahmed v. Holder,*569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Phichith’s request for an additional continuance where he did not demonstrate good cause. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; *Ahmed v. Holder,*569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded and the number of continuances previously granted).

Phichith cites no authority to support his contention that the BIA erred in dismissing his appeal from an IJ’s denial of a continuance prior to resolving his motion to reconsider the denial of his visa petition. *Cf. Matter of Aurelio,*19 I. & N. Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (“The proceedings in which visa petitions are adjudicated are separate and apart from exclusion and deportation proceedings.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3) and related Prospectus of US Unwired Inc. for
the registration of 44,563,654 shares of US Unwired Inc.'s common stock and to
the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated May 2, 2000, with
respect to the financial statements of the Sprint Spectrum Albany, Syracuse and
Manchester Markets (wholly owned by Independent Wireless One Corporation since
their acquisition in 2000 from Sprint Spectrum L.P.) included in US Unwired
Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K dated April 1, 2002, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.


                                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
August 12, 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50624

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT KEITH ADAMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:97-CR-23-1

Before JOLLY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Keith Adams, federal prisoner # 78734-080 moves this court for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in an appeal of the district court’s

dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of his motion to enforce plea agreement and

correct clerical error in the judgment. He argues that the Government breached

the plea agreement by allowing restitution in an amount greater than the

amount to which Adams agreed in the plea agreement. Further, he asserts that

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 22, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-50624 Document: 00512215804 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2013
No. 12-50624

the district court retains jurisdiction to enforce a plea agreement at any time;

therefore, the court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was erroneous.

A movant for IFP on appeal must show that he is a pauper and that the

appeal is taken in good faith. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). 

This court’s inquiry into Adams’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal

involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).

To the extent that Adams sought modification of the restitution order, the

district court lacked jurisdiction to address the issue. See United States v.

Hatten, 167 F.3d 884, 887 n.5 (5th Cir. 1999); see United States v. Segler, 37 F.3d

1131, 1135 (5th Cir. 1994). Further, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 is

the appropriate vehicle for changes that do not substantively alter the orally

announced sentence but instead correct errors in the written judgment. United

States v. Spencer, 513 F.3d 490, 491-92 (5th Cir. 2008). The amount of

restitution announced at sentencing is consistent with the amount stated in the

judgment of conviction and sentence. 

Adams has not established that he will raise a nonfrivolous appellate

issue. See Carson, 689 F.2d at 586. Accordingly, we DENY the motion to

proceed IFP on appeal, and we DISMISS Adams’s appeal as frivolous. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-50624 Document: 00512215804 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2013
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Enterprise Products Partners
L.P. and Enterprise Products Operating L.P.'s (i) Registration Statement
No. 333-36856 of Enterprise Products Partners L.P. on Form S-8; (ii)
Registration Statement No. 333-56082 of Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and
Enterprise Products Operating L.P. on Form S-3; and (iii) Registration Statement
No. 333-82486 of Enterprise Products Partners L.P. on Form S-8 of our reports
dated March 8, 2002, appearing in the respective Annual Reports on Form 10-K of
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and Enterprise Products Operating L.P. for the
year ended December 31, 2001.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Houston, Texas
March 25, 2002