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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 538

To require the release of the reversionary interest retained by the United 

States in connection with the conveyance of portions of former Williams 

Air Force Base, Arizona, to Arizona State University and Maricopa 

County Community College District. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2005

Mr. FLAKE (for himself, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. SHADEGG, and Mr. RENZI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL

To require the release of the reversionary interest retained 

by the United States in connection with the conveyance 

of portions of former Williams Air Force Base, Arizona, 

to Arizona State University and Maricopa County Community College District.

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 ‘‘ASU/MCCCD Land 

5 Conveyance Act’’. 
2

•HR 538 IH 

1 SEC. 2. RELEASE OF INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY, 

2 FORMER WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE, ARI3 ZONA. 

4 (a) RELEASE REQUIRED.—(1) The Secretary of Edu5 cation shall release, without consideration, the rever6 sionary interests retained by the United States, and all 

7 other terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions im8 posed, in connection with the following conveyances of por9 tions of former Williams Air Force Base, Arizona, under 

10 the authority of the February 1995 Record of Decision 

11 for the disposal of excess Federal property at that installa12 tion: 

13 (A) All conveyances to the Arizona Board of 

14 Regents, for and on behalf of Arizona State Univer15 sity. 

16 (B) All conveyances to the State Board of Di17 rectors for Community Colleges of Arizona for the 

18 Governing Board of the Maricopa County Commu19 nity College District, its successor-in-interest under 

20 Chapter 330, Section 59 of the Laws of the State 

21 of Arizona and the Quit Claim Deed dated Decem22 ber 12, 2002. 

23 (2) The releases required by paragraph (1) shall in24 clude, without limitation, the release of all conditions sub25 sequently imposed on the grantee under quit claim deeds 
3

•HR 538 IH 

1 delivered to the grantee in connection with the convey2 ances. 

3 (b) INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE.—The Secretary of 

4 Education shall execute and file in the appropriate office 

5 a deed of release, amended deed, or other appropriate in6 strument effectuating the release of interests required by 

7 this section.

Æ
exh10-17.htm




Exhibit 10.17


AMENDMENT ONE TO THE


ASTEC INDUSTRIES, INC.


SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN












THIS AMENDMENT to the Astec Industries, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, adopted effective October 21, 2010 (the “Plan”), is adopted by Astec Industries, Inc. (the “Company”), effective as of the dates set forth herein.







W I T N E S S E T H:







WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Plan, and such Plan is currently in effect; and







WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.1, the Company may amend the Plan at any time; and







WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Plan to clarify the current participants and to add an additional participant.







NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends Appendix A of the Plan to read as follows, effective as of October 21, 2010:







“APPENDIX A”


Each Participant’s Date of Participation








	 	
Name of Participant

	
Effective Dates of Participation

	 
	 	
J. Don Brock

	
January 1, 1995

	 
	 	
Thomas R. Campbell

	
January 1, 1995

	 
	 	
Frank Cargould

	
January 1, 1995

	 
	 	
Jeff Elliott

	
January 1, 1995

	 
	 	
Tim Gonigam

	
January 1, 1995

	 
	 	
F. McKamy Hall

	
January 1, 1995

	 
	 	
Richard Patek

	
January 1, 1995

	 
	 	
W. Norman Smith

	
January 1, 1995

	 
	 	
Joseph Vig

	
January 1, 1995

	 
	 	
Jeff Richmond

	
May 1, 2004

	 
	 	
Richard Dorris

	
January 3, 2005

	 
	 	
Ben Brock

	
January 1, 2007

	 
	 	
James Pfeiffer

	
January 1, 2007

	 
	 	
Michael A. Bremmer

	
January 1, 2007

	 
	 	
David L. Winters

	
January 1, 2007

	 
	 	
Stephen C. Anderson

	
January 1, 2008

	 
	 	
Lawrence R. Cumming

	
January 1, 2008

	 
	 	
Neil Peterson

	
January 1, 2008

	 
	 	
David C. Silvious

	
January 1, 2008

	 
	 	
Joe Cline

	
February 1, 2008

	 
	 	
Walter F. Keating

	
October 25, 2010

	 










* * * * * * * * *







-  -









  





  











  













Except as amended herein, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has adopted this Amendment on the date shown below, but effective as of the date(s) indicated above.













	
  

	
ASTEC INDUSTRIES, INC.

















Date: October 21, 2010                                                       By: /s/ Stephen C. Anderson                           


        Name: Stephen C. Anderson      


        Title: Secretary                             












-  -
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2036

ELIJAH SMITH, III; KELLY SMITH; SANDRA SMITH; GARY SMITH,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

BETSY JOHNSON REGIONAL HOSPITAL, INC.; DUKE REGIONAL 

HOSPITAL; WAKEMED, Hospital,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:13-cv-00493-F)

Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013

Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elijah Smith, III, Kelly Smith, Sandra Smith, and Gary Smith, 

Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing their action after a review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 

(2006). We have reviewed the record and agree that the district 

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 

action. See Smith v. Betsy Johnson Reg’l Hosp., Inc., No. 5:13-

cv-00493-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 9, 2013). However, since the 

dismissal of an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

is not a decision on the merits, such dismissal should be 

without prejudice. S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, 

Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir.

2013). We therefore modify the district court’s dismissal order 

to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice, and we 

affirm the dismissal as modified. 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2006); MM 

ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523, 536 

(4th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e are entitled to affirm the court’s 

judgment on alternate grounds, if such grounds are apparent from 

the record.”). 

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 AS MODIFIED
Ex. 32





CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Vivian Lam Lee Yu, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Oxford Technologies, Inc. on the Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Oxford Technologies, Inc.







|                   |  |     |  |                                                              
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  |     |  |                                                              
|Date:  May 5, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Vivian Lam Lee Yu                                        
|                   |  |     |  | Vivian Lam Lee Yu, President                                 
|                   |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

^J9$ll-E-158 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:10 AM Sheet 199 of 264 
P.2 

Jun. 12. 1998* 9:45AM ^LAMINATED PRODUCTS PES RTP NC lo. 1314 P. I/IS002/002 

From: 

Date: 

Contact: 

Contact Report 

Robert Jemison, Pacific Envif onmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

June 11,1998 

Mr. Scott Barthuly, Safety Director 

Company: Laminated Products, Inc. 

Telephone Number: (414)658-4114 

Fax Number: (414) 6584152 

Contact Summary: 

Mr. Scott Barthuly was contacted on behalf of the U.S. EPA to update infonnation provided 

in the 1993 EPA Reinforced Plastic Composites Screening Surveysubmitted by LarnlnatedPh>ducts, 

Inc. for meir facility located in Kenosha, Wisconsin. In response to my questions Mr. Barthuly 

indicated the following: 

The facility uses polymer casting and atomized spray lay-up (gel coats only) to produce 

cultured marble products such as bathroom vanity tops. 

The facility uses atomized spray lay-up to apply several pigmented gel coats and one clear 

gel coat in the fabrication of the products listed above. The facility does not use tooling gel coats 

to manufacture molds (all molds are purchased from an outside supplier). The pigmented gel coats 

used by the facility contain between 20.0% to 40.0% HAP by weight (20.0% to 40.0% styrene and 

0.0% methyl methacrylate). The dear gel coat used by the facility contains 44.0% HAP by weight 

(42.0% styrene and 2.0% methyl methacrylate). No additional HAP is added to the gel coats during 

or prior to the fabrication process with the exception of small amounts of HAP that may (or may not) 

be present in initiators, promoters and/or catalysts added to the gel coats. 

The facility uses a casting machine to conduct the mixing and polymer casting operations 

necessary to produce the products listed above. The resin, filler, pigments, and catalyst are mixed 

in a mixing tube that is located inside the casting machine. The casting machine is completely 

closed during the mixing operation. After the mixing process is completed the resulting mixture is 

ejected from the casting machine into an empty mold (or molds). The top of the molds used by the 

facility arc completely open. 

The polyester resin used by the facility for its polymer casting operations contains 40.0% 

HAP by weight as supplied (40.0% styrene) and does not contain a vapor suppressant No additional 

HAP ia added to the polyester resin during or prior to the polymer casting process with the exception 

of small amounts of HAP that may (or may not) ba present ir\ initiators, promoters and/or catalysts 

added to the resin. 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Texas United Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Don Stricklin, President and Chief Executive 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:



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 operating results of the Company.



/s/ L. Don StricklinL. Don StricklinPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 9, 2005
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 23
- 00360
- CV 2008 CHEVROLET CORVETTE, VIN#1G1YY36W585105455 AND JAMES TYRON RIGGS, SR. , Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 66th District Court Hill County, Texas Trial Court No. 51223

MEMORANDUM OPINION
James Tyron Riggs attempts to appeal the trial court’s inaction on a motion for default judgment in a case al legedly styled, “ 2008 Chevrolet Corvette,
VIN#1G1YY36W585105455 a nd James Tyron Riggs, Sr. v. The State o f Texas .” By letter dated December 8, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified Riggs that the appeal was subject to dismissal because it appear ed there was no final, appealable order , and th is Court h ad no jurisdiction of the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.2; 44.3. I n the same2008 Chevrolet Corvette v. State Page 2 letter, the Clerk warned Riggs that the appeal would be dismissed unless, within 14 days from the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal. More than 14 days have passed , and no response has been filed

. By a separate letter also dated December 8, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified Riggs that , although Riggs indicated in his Docketing Statement filed on December 1,
2023 , that he did not request a Clerk’s Record, the appeal could not proceed without a Clerk’s Record

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3 (b). In the same letter, the Clerk warned Riggs that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless, within 21 days from
the date of th e letter, Riggs request ed and ma de arrangements to pay for the Clerk’s
Record and simultaneously noti fied th is C ourt of his actions. Id

. More than 21 days have passed , and we have not been notified that Riggs has requested and made arrangements to pay for the Clerk’s Record. Further, b y O rder of the Court issued on December 8, 2023 , Riggs was ordered to
file an af fidavit or declaration of previous filings and a certified copy of his inmate
account within 21 days from the date of the order. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE § § 14.004(a) , 14.004(c) , 14.006(f); Anderson v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice , 530 S.W.3d 150, 15 3 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2015, no pet.)

. Riggs was warned that the failure to timely file these documents would result in the dismissal of his appeal without further notice and a finding that the appeal was frivolous. See Anderson , 530 S.W.3d at 1 53; see also T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 42.3(c), 44.3

. More than 21 days passed , and Riggs has not complied with the Chapter 14 affidavit or declaration of previous filings requirement. Accordingly, we find this appeal to be frivolous. See Anderson , 530 S.W.3d at 153

.2008 Chevrolet Corvette v. State Page 3 For each of the foregoing reasons , this appeal is dismissed. S ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c), 44.3 , and 37.3 (b)

.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed January 11, 2024 [CV 0 6]
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5138 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restrict the use of tax 

return information by preparers of returns. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2006 

Mr. HAYWORTH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restrict 

the use of tax return information by preparers of returns. 

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 ‘‘Taxpayer Information 

5 Protection and Privacy Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON USE OF TAX RETURN INFORMA7 TION BY PREPARERS OF RETURNS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7216 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 (relating to disclosure or use of inforVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:30 Apr 13, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5138.IH H5138

wwhite on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5138 IH 

1 mation by preparers of returns) is amended by adding at 

2 the end the following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(c) RESTRICTION ON SOLICITATIONS OF CON4 SENT.— 

5 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A person described in sub6 section (a) may not solicit the taxpayer to consent 

7 to the disclosure or use of information described in 

8 such subsection for any purpose, including the use 

9 of such information by such person to solicit the tax10 payer for additional tax-related services. 

11 ‘‘(2) REGULATORY EXCEPTION NOT TO

12 APPLY.—Subsection (b)(3) shall not apply with re13 spect to any disclosure or use described in para14 graph (1). 

15 ‘‘(d) CONSENT REQUIRED FOR TAX PREPARATION

16 WORK PERFORMED OUTSIDE UNITED STATES.— 

17 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The disclosure or use of in18 formation described in subsection (a) in the ordinary 

19 course of business by a person engaged in a business 

20 described in such subsection to any individual or 

21 person physically located outside of the United 

22 States shall be treated as a violation of subsection 

23 (a) unless the taxpayer consents to such disclosure 

24 or use. 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5138 IH 

1 ‘‘(2) UNITED STATES.—For purposes of this 

2 subsection, the term ‘United States’ includes any 

3 territory or possession of the United States.’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall apply to disclosures and uses after the 

6 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 20-0483

______________________________

JAMES F. GARDNER, )

)

Respondent and Appellant, )

) ORDER GRANTING 

and. ) EXTENSION OF TIME

)

LISA LARRIVEE, )

)

Petitioner and Appellee. )

____________________________________)

UPON motion of Appellant, and good cause appearing therein;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s motion for extension of time is granted. 

Appellant shall have up to, and including, March 5, 2021, to prepare and file his Opening Brief

in regard to this appeal pursuant to Rule 26(1) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

DATED this _____ day of February, 2021.

______________________________

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 2 2021

02/02/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0483
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Anthony DUDLEY

No. COA18-1121

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 7, 2019

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**Rule 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION**
I, Donald L. Denney, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Monarch Community Bancorp, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have;
 a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluations; and  c.  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
 a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     Date: May 10, 2005 By: /s/ Donald L. Denney             Donald L. Denney   President and Chief Executive Officer
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5355 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against 

tax for volunteer firefighters. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2006 

Ms. HART introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 

credit against tax for volunteer firefighters. 

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 ‘‘Volunteer Firefighter 

5 Recruitment and Retention Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart A of part IV of sub8 chapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 

9 1986 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits) is 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5355 IH

1 amended by inserting after section 25D the following new 

2 section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 25E. CREDIT FOR VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS. 

4 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—In the case of a vol5 unteer firefighter, there shall be allowed as a credit 

6 against the tax imposed by this chapter the credit amount 

7 determined under subsection (b). 

8 ‘‘(b) CREDIT AMOUNT.—With respect to a taxable 

9 year, the credit amount determined under this subsection 

10 is— 

11 ‘‘(1) in the case of a volunteer firefighter who 

12 has completed 3 or more years of service as a volun13 teer firefighter during the taxable year, $1,000, and 

14 ‘‘(2) in the case of a volunteer firefighter who 

15 has completed 8 or more years of service as a volun16 teer firefighter during the taxable year, $1,500. 

17 ‘‘(c) VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER.—For purposes of 

18 this section, the term ‘volunteer firefighter’ means an indi19 vidual who is a member in good standing of a qualified 

20 volunteer fire department (as defined in section 150(e)).’’. 

21 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec22 tions for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 

23 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item 

24 relating to section 25D the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 25E. Credit for volunteer firefighters.’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5355 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS