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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1311 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1311

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

                For the relief of Olga D. Zhondetskaya.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
  
    
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1311

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                For the relief of Olga D. Zhondetskaya.

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

SEC. 1. WAIVER OF CERTAIN NATURALIZATION REQUIREMENTS FOR OLGA D. 
              ZHONDETSKAYA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the inability of Olga D. 
Zhondetskaya to meet the requirements of section 312 of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act or the requirements of section 316 of such Act that 
relate to residence and physical presence in the United States, if 
otherwise qualified, she shall be considered eligible for 
naturalization and, upon filing an application for naturalization and 
being administered the oath of renunciation and allegiance pursuant to 
section 337 of such Act, shall be naturalized as a citizen of the 
United States.
    (b) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) 
shall apply only if the application for naturalization is filed with 
appropriate fees within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

            Passed the Senate July 29 (legislative day, June 30), 1993.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
```
ex10_30.htm




Exhibit 10.30


 


Schedule of Board of Director and Committee Fees


 


Effective January 1, 2007 (revised July 1, 2011)


 


Annual Director Fees



	
Retainer

	  	
$39,600 (payable quarterly in arrears)


	
Stock

	  	
$40,000 valued at closing price of TNL on the day immediately prior to the Annual Meeting, payable in a lump sum.







 



	
Annual Committee Fees (all paid quarterly in arrears)

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	  	 	
Audit

	 	 	
Compensation

	 	 	
Governance

	 
	
Chairman

	 	$	22,500	 	 	$	9,000	 	 	$	8,100	 
	
Member

	 	$	12,600	 	 	$	2,700	 	 	$	2,700
No. 12-6387.

#### Travillion *v.*Difenderfer et al.

Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JOSEPH ANTHONY RANSOM, Defendant - Appellant. No. 17-3072 (D.C. No. 6:14-CR -10194-EFM-1) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , BALDOCK , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Joseph Ransom, proceedin g pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction. Exercisi ng jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. Ransom was convicted by a jury of multiple drug- and firearm-related offenses. After sentencing, defense counsel filed a direct appeal to this court. While that appeal

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 27, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 was pending, Ransom filed a pr o se Rule 60(b) motion before the district court, which the court dismissed for lack of jurisd iction. Ransom timely appealed. We review de novo the district court’s di smissal for lack of jurisdiction. Merida Delgado v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 916, 919 (10th Cir. 2005). The filing of a notice of appeal generally divests a district court of jurisdiction, United States v. Meyers, 95 F.3d 1475, 1488 n.6 (10th Cir. 1996), and Rule 60 (b) does not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction in a criminal case, United States v. Triple tt, 166 F. App’x 362, 365-66 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished). Ransom has not identified any applicable exception to this general rule, and our independent review reveals none. 1 Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing th e motion for lack of jurisdiction. 2
AFFIRMED

.
Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge

1 Although there is no jurisdic tional barrier to considerati on of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition while a direct a ppeal is pending, see United States v. Prows, 448 F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2006), the district court declined to construe Ransom’s motion as a § 2255 petition. Ransom does not challenge that decision on appeal. Krastev v. INS, 292 F.3d 1268, 1280 (10th Cir. 2002) (“ Issues not raised on appeal are deemed to be waived.”).

2 Ransom’s direct appeal was resolved during the pend ency of this appeal, see United States v. Ransom, No. 15-3293, 2017 WL 1959316 (10th Cir. May 11, 2017) (unpublished) (affirming conv iction and sentence), but that does not alter the fact that, at the time Ransom f iled his Rule 60(b) motion, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
155P17

#### State v. Joe Robert Reynolds

1. Def’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA16-149)

2. Defs Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

1. Allowed 05/19/2017

2.
No. 12-362.

#### Eastside Exhibition Corp. *v.*210 East 86th Street Corp.

Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                SCHEDULE OF OMITTED INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS

Marshall Industries entered into Indemnification Agreements in the form filed 
as Exhibit 10.13 to this Form 10-Q with the following individuals on the 
dates indicated:

             NAME                                DATE
             ----                                ----

      Gordon S. Marshall                    October 22, 1996
      Robert Rodin                          October 22, 1996
      Richard D. Bentley                    October 22, 1996
      Henry W. Chin                         October 22, 1996
      Richard C. Colyear                    October 22, 1996
      Jean Fribourg                         October 22, 1996
      Lathrop Hoffman                       October 22, 1996
      Jose Menendez                         October 22, 1996
      Raymond G. Rinehart                   October 22, 1996
      Howard C. White                       October 22, 1996

Other than the name of the individual party to the agreement and the date, 
such Indemnification Agreements are in the same form as Exhibit 10.13.
|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File) 
|View History: Annual                           
|View History: Annual                           
|View History:                                  
|                                               
|Ohio Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                               
|                                               
|Ohio Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3 | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------ | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         | 207     | 670     | 1,713  | 2,263   | 2,591   | 2,555   | 3,036   | 2,812   | 2,608  
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 3,081   | 2,615   | 2,730   | 2,989  | 2,930   | 2,257   | 2,477   | 2,553   | 2,895   | 2,933  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 3,285   | 4,336   | 4,098   | 3,609  | 3,883   | 2,657   | 2,397   | 1,456   |         |        
|2010's                                                                                                                            |         |         | 2,211   | 33,031 | 344,073 | 745,715 | 916,699 | 723,435 | 667,738 | 536,490
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 460,974 | 446,207 | 438,169 |        |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                               
|View History: Annual                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                         
|View History:                                                                
|                                                                             
|West Virginia Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             
|                                                                             
|West Virginia Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 32,318 | 30,868 | 29,829
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 32,572 | 30,254 | 33,731 | 18,177 | 18,742 | 19,690 | 18,923 | 20,864 | 18,289 | 22,131
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 21,589 | 21,447 | 31,913 | 29,578 | 29,264 | 29,063 | 20,323 | 19,288 | 19,276 | 24,940
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 29,634 | 33,806 | 33,102 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Indiana Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Indiana Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 10,773 | 7,327  | 7,274 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 5,617  | 6,979  | 5,229  | 6,647  | 6,842  | 6,599  | 6,313  | 7,039  | 7,060  | 6,597 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 8,679  | 10,259 | 7,206  | 7,428  | 7,282  | 7,071  | 8,983  | 9,040  | 7,946  | 11,203
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 9,643  | 10,100 | 9,502  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7116

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANDREW DALCOSTA HAMBLIN, a/k/a Drew, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-348-A, CA-97-828-AM) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 27, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Dalcosta Hamblin, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Andrew Dalcosta Hamblin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (WestSupp. 1999) and his subsequent motion for withdrawal of the decision and motion for enlargement of time. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Hamblin , Nos. CR-92-348-A; CA-97-828-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 20 & June 9, 1999). 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.

DISMISSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NOELLE MAJOR, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-15880

D.C. No. 5:12-cv-03067-EJD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 19, 2017

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and STAFFORD,**

District Judge.

 

FILED

MAY 08 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable William H. Stafford, Jr., United States District Judge

for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
Plaintiff Noelle Major appeals the district court’s summary judgment in

favor of Ocean Spray, Inc. in her putative class action alleging misbranding of

juice drinks. We affirm.

1. Major first claims the drinks were improperly labeled as “No Sugar

Added.” The undisputed evidence established, however, that the drinks are made

from juice concentrates with water added. There is no more sugar in the drinks as

sold than there was in the original juices before they were concentrated. The

conclusory affidavit of Plaintiff’s expert was insufficient to call into question the

process of mixing the juice drinks. See United States v. Various Slot Machines on

Guam, 658 F.2d 697, 699–700 (9th Cir. 1981). Although Plaintiff suggests that the

blend of different juices may have served to make the cranberry and pomegranate

juice drink sweeter than cranberry and pomegranate juice alone would have been,

the label stated that the product was a blend of juices, and the labeling was

compliant with federal regulations, see 21 C.F.R. § 102.33(d). Accordingly, there

was no genuine issue of material fact as to the improper labeling claims with

respect to added sugar. Summary judgment was appropriate. See Fed. Rule Civ.

Proc. 56(a); Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 697 F.3d 777, 793 (9th Cir.

2012).

2. Summary judgment was also appropriate as to Plaintiff’s other

2
mislabeling claim under California law. Plaintiff’s theory was that, because of the

“No Sugar Added” labeling, the labels also should have contained a disclaimer

informing customers that the juice was not low calorie and directing customers to

the label’s nutrition panel. See 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(2)(v). The claim fails

because California law requires actual reliance. See Kwikset Corp. v. Superior

Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310, 326 (2011); In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 306

(2009). There is no showing that Plaintiff relied on the absence of the disclaimer

in purchasing the drinks. Plaintiff’s own testimony established that she understood

that the juice was not low calorie and that it contained the same amount of sugar as

juice not made from concentrate. 

AFFIRMED.

3
427A16

#### Abrons Family Practice & Urgent Care, P.A., et al. v. N.C. Department of Health and Human Services and Computer Sciences Corporation

Def’s (Computer Sciences Corporation) Motion to Withdraw Van H. Beckwith, Bryant C. Boren, and the Firm of Baker Botts, LLP as Counsel

Allowed 05/17/2017
No. 12-339.

#### Picture Patents LLC et al. *v.*Aeropostale, Inc., et al.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1322

To extend the suspension of duty on certain collapsible umbrellas.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 30 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. GLENN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To extend the suspension of duty on certain collapsible

umbrellas.

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

3 SECTION 1. SELF-FOLDING TELESCOPIC SHAFT, COLLAPS4 IBLE UMBRELLAS.

5 Heading 9902.66.01 (relating to certain collapsible

6 umbrellas) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the Unit7 ed States is amended by striking out ‘‘12/31/92’’ and in8 serting ‘‘12/31/94’’.

9 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by this Act

11 applies with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from
2

•S 1322 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

3 (b) RELIQUIDATION.—Notwithstanding section 514

4 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law,

5 upon proper request filed with the appropriate customs of6 ficer on or before the 90th day after the date of the enact7 ment of this Act, any entry of an article described in sub8 heading 9902.66.01 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

9 the United States that was made—

10 (1) after December 31, 1992, and

11 (2) before the date which is 15 days after the

12 date of the enactment of this Act,

13 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry

14 occurred on or after the date that is 15 days after the

15 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25260-25261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12078]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3069, Amdt. 6]


State of Georgia

    In accordance with notices from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency dated April 24, 1998, the above-numbered Declaration is hereby 
amended to include the following counties in the State of Georgia as a 
disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms and flooding 
beginning on February 14, 1998 and continuing: Barrow, Bartow, 
Cherokee, Dade, Lumpkin, Murray, Paulding, Pickens, Walker, and Wayne.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed 
until the specified date at the previously designated location: 
Catoosa, Clarke, and Oconee Counties in Georgia; Jackson and De Kalb 
Counties in Alabama; and Bradley,

[[Page 25261]]

Hamilton, Marion, and Polk Counties in Tennessee. Any counties 
contiguous to the above-named primary counties and not listed herein 
have been previously declared.
    The economic injury number for Tennessee is 985100.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for physical damage is May 10, 1998 and for 
economic injury the termination date is December 11, 1998.

    Dated: April 27, 1998.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)
Bernard Kulik,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-12078 Filed 5-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P