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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1605

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to convey vessels in the National

Defense Reserve Fleet to certain nonprofit organizations.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 1 (legislative day, OCTOBER 13), 1993

Ms. MIKULSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to convey vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet to certain

nonprofit organizations.

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 ‘‘Merchant Marine Me5 morial Enhancement Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE VESSELS.

7 (a) AUTHORITY TO CONVEY.—The Secretary of

8 Transportation may convey without consideration all

9 right, title, and interest of the United States in 2 vessels

10 described in subsection (b) to any nonprofit organization
2

S 1605 IS

1 which operates and maintains a Liberty Ship or Victory

2 Ship as a memorial to merchant mariners.

3 (b) VESSELS DESCRIBED.—Vessels which may be

4 conveyed under subsection (a) are vessels which—

5 (1) are in the National Defense Reserve Fleet

6 on the date of the enactment of this Act;

7 (2) are not less than 4,000 displacement tons;

8 (3) have no usefulness to the Government; and

9 (4) are scheduled to be scrapped.

10 (c) CONDITIONS OF CONVEYANCE.—As a condition of

11 conveying any vessel to an organization under subsection

12 (a), the Secretary shall require that before the date of the

13 conveyance the organization enter into an agreement

14 under which the organization shall—

15 (1) sell the vessel for scrap purposes;

16 (2) use the proceeds of that scrapping for the

17 purpose of refurbishing and making seaworthy a

18 Liberty Ship or Victory Ship which the organization

19 maintains as a memorial to merchant mariners, to

20 enable the ship to participate in 1994 in commemo21 rative activities in conjunction with the 50th anni22 versary of the Normandy invasion; and

23 (3) return to the United States any proceeds of

24 scrapping carried out pursuant to paragraph (1)
3

S 1605 IS

1 which are not used in accordance with paragraph

2 (2).

3 (d) DEPOSIT OF AMOUNTS RETURNED.—Amounts

4 returned to the United States pursuant to subsection

5 (c)(3) shall be deposited in the Vessel Operations Revolv6 ing Fund created by the Act of June 2, 1951 (65 Stat.

7 59; 46 App. U.S.C. 1241a).

8 (e) DELIVERY OF VESSELS.—The Secretary shall de9 liver each vessel conveyed under this section—

10 (1) at the place where the vessel is located on

11 the date of the approval of the conveyance by the

12 Secretary;

13 (2) in its condition on that date; and

14 (3) without cost to the Government.

15 (f) EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY TO CONVEY.—The

16 authority of the Secretary under this section to convey ves17 sels shall expire on the date that is 2 years after the date

18 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
1

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00290-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.J., A 

CHILD

----------

FROM THE 231ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant J.J.2attempts to appeal an interlocutory order for the monitored 

return of a child to a parent along with other pretrial rulings associated with that 

order. The trial court’s July 25, 2011 “Order for Monitored Return of Child to 

Parent” appointed M.J., the mother, as temporary possessory conservator with 

care, custody, and control of the child, A.J. The order also provided that M.J. and 

A.J. must not have contact with appellant, who is A.J.’s father. The order did not 

purport to finally dispose of the suit; instead, it extended a dismissal date for the suit 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2

The names of the parties have been replaced with their initials. See Tex. 

Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d) (West 2008).
2

until January 21, 2012.3 Appellant filed notice of appeal, contending that the trial 

court had violated his constitutional and due process rights.

On August 26, 2011, we notified appellant of our concern that we lack 

jurisdiction over this appeal because it does not appear to arise from a final 

judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, and we informed him that the appeal 

may be dismissed unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a 

response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. We received a response, but 

it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal; the response confirms that 

appellant is appealing pretrial rulings. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want 

of jurisdiction. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 105.001(e) (West 2008); Tex. Civ. Prac. 

& Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West 2008) (listing types of appealable 

interlocutory orders); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) 

(stating that generally an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment and that a 

judgment is final and appealable if it disposes of all parties and all issues); In re 

J.W.L., 291 S.W.3d 79, 83 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, orig. proceeding [mand. 

denied]) (reiterating that temporary orders in family law cases are not appealable); 

see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: October 13, 2011

 

3See id. § 263.403 (West 2008).
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|No chart available.                                                        
|No chart available.                                                        
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Buffalo, NY Compressed Natural Gas Imports from Canada (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2021                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | 0  
|2022                                                                                                                              | 0   | 0   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|- = 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                              13
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                       235
<INVENTORY>                                     13,899
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,665
<PP&E>                                           5,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,767
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,109
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,399
<SALES>                                         38,362
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,362
<CGS>                                           27,926
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,926
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,636
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,223
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,998
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (200)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,198
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,198
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .73
        

</TABLE>
FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made andentered into as of August 6, 1998 by and between MedPartners, Inc











FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT






 



THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "First Amendment") is executed as of May 12, 2006, with an effective date of March 25, 2006 (the "Effective Date"), by and between Caremark Rx, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Employer") and Rudy Mladenovic, a resident of Southlake, Texas. ("Officer"). 







WHEREAS, Employer and Officer entered into an Employment Agreement ("Agreement") dated as of  April 1, 2004; and 







WHEREAS, the Parties desire to further amend the Agreement to reflect a change in Officer's compensation.







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, mutual covenants, and agreements contained in the Employment Agreement and this Amendment To Employment Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 



1.Amendment of Section 3(a).Subsection (a) of Section 3 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following subsection:



Salary.  Employer shall pay Officer a base salary  in the amount of $589,950 per year (prorated for any partial year during the Term) (the "Base Salary"), payable in equal bi-weekly installments, less any applicable state and federal tax and other legally required or authorized withholdings. The Base Salary shall be subject to review and adjustment from time to time at the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer of Employer or his designee.












2.Amendment of Section 3(b).Subsection (b) of Section 3 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following subsection:



During the Term, Officer shall be eligible to receive from Employer incentive compensation at a target rate of 100% (one hundred percent) and otherwise in accordance with Employer's Management Incentive Program in effect from time to time, less state and federal tax and other legally required or authorized withholdings.  The incentive compensation contemplated by this Section 3(b) shall be payable to Officer and subject to review and adjustment from time to time solely at the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer of Employer or his designee. 
















3.No Other Amendment. Except as expressly modified by this First Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall not be modified or amended and shall remain in full force and effect. 







 









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the date written above to be effective on the Effective Date.







 



Caremark Rx, Inc.







 



/s/ E. Mac Crawford/s/ Rudy Mladenovic



E. Mac CrawfordRudy Mladenovic



Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1568

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the arbitration of

initial contract negotiation disputes, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 19 (legislative day, OCTOBER 13), 1993

Mr. SIMON (for himself and Mr. WELLSTONE) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and

Human Resources

A BILL

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the

arbitration of initial contract negotiation disputes, 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 ‘‘Labor Relations First

5 Contract Negotiations Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. INITIAL CONTRACT DISPUTES.

7 Section of the National Labor Relations Act (29

8 U.S.C. 158) is amended by adding at the end the following

9 new subsection:
2

S 1568 IS

1 ‘‘(h)(1) If not later than 60 days after the certifi2 cation of a new representative for the purpose of collective

3 bargaining, the employer and the representative have not

4 reached a collective bargaining agreement with respect to

5 the terms and conditions of employment, the employer and

6 representative shall jointly select a mediator to mediate

7 those issues on which they cannot agree.

8 ‘‘(2) If the parties are unable to agree upon a medi9 ator, either party may request the Federal Mediation and

10 Conciliation Service to name one and the Federal Medi11 ation and Conciliation Service shall thereupon appoint a

12 person to serve as mediator.

13 ‘‘(3) If not later than 30 days after the date of the

14 selection of a mediator under paragraphs (1) or (2), the

15 employer and the representative have still not reached

16 agreement, the employer or the representative may trans17 fer the matters remaining in controversy to the Federal

18 Mediation and Conciliation Service for binding arbitra19 tion.’’.

Æ
|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                       
|View History:                                                                        
|                                                                                     
|Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Dominican Republic (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                     
|                                                                                     
|Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Dominican Republic (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,216  | 12,259 | 0      | 13,164 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### James C. Herrmann, Appellant, v The Sklover Group, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[768 NYS2d 600]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered November 22, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since the decedent, Richard Sklover, was not merely an officer of The Sklover Group but also owned 1,000 of the corporation’s 1,100 shares (currently held by his estate), the corporate defendant may invoke the Dead Man’s Statute (CPLR 4519; *see Mark Patterson, Inc. v Bowie,*172 Misc 2d 1000, 1003-1004 [1997]). Defendants did not waive that statute by consenting to the joint introduction of portions of Richard’s deposition testimony at trial because the portions that were admitted had nothing to do with the topic on which plaintiff wished to testify *(cf. Ward v Kovacs,*55 AD2d 391 [1977]). The exception applies only when the deposition testimony concerns “the same transaction or communication” about which the survivor wants to testify (CPLR 4519).

Plaintiff argues that he should have been allowed to testify about those conversations held with Richard where Richard’s son, Andrew, was also present, because Andrew had the same interests as his father and *was*available to testify at trial. However, New York does not recognize an exception for surviving partners and joint contractors *(cf. e.g.*735 Ill Comp Stat 5/8-301), and we decline to create such an exception where the Legislature has failed to act *(see generally Matter of Wood,*52 NY2d 139, 144 [1981]).

Defendants did not open the door to plaintiff’s testimony about conversations with Richard by introducing plaintiffs affidavit because they did not try to use the Dead Man’s Statute “as a sword rather than a shield” with respect to that affidavit *(Wood,*52 NY2d at 145). Although defendants did open the door *308through their cross-examination of plaintiff *(see Wood, supra; Matter of Dunbar,*139 Misc 2d 955, 956 [1988]), the trial court’s error in ruling to the contrary was harmless *(see e.g. Matter of LoGuidice,*186 AD2d 659, 660 [1992]). If a new trial were held, plaintiff, in all likelihood, still would not be permitted to testify about his conversations with Richard because of defendants’ caution in not opening the door the second time around. Were the evidence at a new trial the same as initially presented, with the sole exception of the cross-examination passages that opened the door, a fair interpretation of that evidence would still warrant dismissal of plaintiffs action *(see Ventricelli v DeGennaro,*221 AD2d 231, 232 [1995], *lv denied*87 NY2d 808 [1996]).

The trial court’s dismissal of the action was based largely on its assessment of the credibility of various witnesses, to which we give deference *(see e.g. Hoover v Durkee,*212 AD2d 839, 841 [1995]). In fairly interpreting the evidence, the finder of fact was justified in crediting the testimony of Andrew over that of plaintiff or insurance broker Thomas *Ventricelli*v *DeGennaro, supra).*Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

Pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned,  Anthony J. Miceli, Chief Financial
Officer of United Capital Corp.,  (the  "Company"),  does hereby  certify,  with
respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2005 (the "Report") that:

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 results of operations of the Company.

Date:  August 4, 2005

                                                     By: /s/ Anthony J. Miceli
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Anthony J. Miceli
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
```
No. 12-7298.

#### Namer *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                      
|View History:                                                                       
|                                                                                    
|Jacksonville, FL Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to All Countries (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                    
|                                                                                    
|Jacksonville, FL Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to All Countries (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 5      | 1      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
No. 12-7575.

#### Marak *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.