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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3255 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3255

                  For the relief of Miguel Santillan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2012

   Mr. Levin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  For the relief of Miguel Santillan.

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
seq.), Miguel Santillan shall be deemed to have been lawfully admitted 
to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be eligible for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence under section 245 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing an application for such 
adjustment of status.
    (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall apply 
only if the application for adjustment of status is filed with 
appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
    (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of 
permanent resident status to Miguel Santillan, the Secretary of State 
shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current or 
next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that 
are made available to natives of the country of the birth of Miguel 
Santillan under section 202(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 4.10


 


PARK NATIONAL CORPORATION


50 North Third Street


Post Office Box 3500


Newark, Ohio 43058-3500


(740) 349-8451


www.parknationalcorp.com


 


February 29, 2012


 


 


 


United States Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, D.C. 20549


 


	 	Re:	Park National Corporation
	 	 	Commission File Number: 1-13006
	 	 	Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year
	 	 	   Ended December 31, 2011


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Park National Corporation, an Ohio corporation
(“Park”), is today filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Park for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (“Park’s 2011 Form 10-K”).


Neither (i) Park nor (ii) any of Park’s
consolidated subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument or agreement with respect to its long-term debt under which the total
amount of long-term debt authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of Park and Park’s subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.
In accordance with the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of SEC Regulation S-K, Park hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon
request, a copy of each instrument or agreement defining (i) the rights of holders of long-term debt of Park or (ii) the rights
of holders of long-term debt of a consolidated subsidiary of Park, in each case which is not being filed or incorporated by reference
as an exhibit to Park’s 2011 Form 10-K.


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	PARK NATIONAL CORPORATION
	 	 
	 	/s/ John W. Kozak
	 	John W. Kozak
	 	Chief Financial Officer
RANDY A. ANDERSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-2163

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 18, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Russell L. Healey, Judge.

Randy A. Anderson, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WOLF and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0130

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

TOMMY JONATHAN SETH DELLAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 20, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 13 2023

10/13/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0130
CLGX-2011-EX10.31












AMENDMENT 4
to the
CORELOGIC, INC. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


WHEREAS, CoreLogic, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the CoreLogic, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, Section 9.1 of the Plan reserves to the Board or Plan Committee the right to amend the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Amendment No. 4 (the “Amendment”) to the Plan is to permit Plan expenses to be paid out of Trust assets or by the Company; and 
WHEREAS, this Amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of this Amendment.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is amended as follows, effective as of January 1, 2011: 
		
	1.
	Plan section 7.4(b), “Compensation and Expenses,” is amended to read in its entirety as follows:




“(b)    All expenses of administering the Plan shall be paid from Trust assets,             unless paid directly by the Company.”


		
	2.
	Plan section 6.4(a)(5), “Death Benefit While Still Employed,” is amended to read in its entirety as follows:




“(5)    So long as the Trust maintains a Policy to pay benefits to a Participant or former Participant under Section 6.4(a)(2) and the Plan is not deemed to be in a 'restricted period' within the meaning of Code section 409A(b)(3), the Company shall pay to the Trustee amounts necessary to pay premiums on such Policy insuring the Participant or former Participant's life as soon as practicable after the end of each Plan Year, or such earlier time as the Company shall determine (but no later than the tax return due date for the Company for such year).  Such premium expenses may be paid from Trust assets, unless the Company allocates such premium expenses amongst Participating Companies.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CoreLogic, Inc. has duly executed this Amendment this 29th day of            September, 2011.




CoreLogic, Inc.


By:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001096594
<NAME>                        Natural Solutions Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jul-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Aug-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Oct-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         487,834
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  38,803
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    584,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,420,524
<PP&E>                                         156,350
<DEPRECIATION>                                 81,305
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,794,518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,271,461
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    450,000
<COMMON>                                       20,046
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,175,295)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,794,518
<SALES>                                        446,799
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               90,706
<CGS>                                          356,093
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  356,093
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               633,986
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (764,079)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (764,079)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS R. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

D. BAKER, C/O; SPEER, C/O,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17273

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02881-TLNDAD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017**

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Luis R. Johnson appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 

391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 24 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-17273 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Johnson

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted 

with retaliatory intent to chill his exercise of protected conduct. See Brodheim v. 

Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of retaliation claim in prison 

context).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely 

Johnson’s August 3, 2015 motion for summary judgment and September 18, 2015 

motion to amend because Johnson filed them after the deadline for pretrial 

motions. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir.

2010) (standard of review); FTC v. Gill, 265 F.3d 944, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (district 

court has broad discretion to control its docket and set deadlines).

We reject as without merit Johnson’s arguments that the district court erred 

by failing to rule separately on Johnson’s motion to strike and motion to remove 

the magistrate judge prior to entry of summary judgment. 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
---

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 Energy Quest Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Wilf Ouellette, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that:

|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 14, 2007

| | /s/
      Wilf Ouellette                           | 
| | -------------------------------------------------- | 
| | Wilf Ouellette,                                   
| | Director, President, Chief Executive
      Officer
| | Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting     
| | Officer                                           

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Magnitude estimates of two large aftershocks of the 16 December 1811 New Madrid earthquake      

      January 1, 2002    

The three principal New Madrid mainshocks of 1811-1812 were followed by extensive aftershock sequences that included numerous felt events. Although no instrumental data are available for either the mainshocks or the aftershocks, available historical accounts do provide information that can be used to estimate magnitudes and locations for the large events. In this article we investigate two of the largest aftershocks: one near dawn following the first mainshock on 16 December 1811, and one near midday on 17 December 1811. We reinterpret original felt reports to obtain a set of 48 and 20 modified Mercalli intensity values of the two aftershocks, respectively. For the dawn aftershock, we infer a Mw of approximately 7.0 based on a comparison of its intensities with those of the smallest New Madrid mainshock. Based on a detailed account that appears to describe near-field ground motions, we further propose a new fault rupture scenario for the dawn aftershock. We suggest that the aftershock had a thrust mechanism and occurred on a southeastern limb of the Reelfoot fault. For the 17 December 1811 aftershock, we infer a MW  of approximately  6.1 ± 0.2. This value is determined using the method of Bakun et al. (2002), which is based on a new calibration of intensity versus distance for earthquakes in central and eastern North America. The location of this event is not well constrained, but the available accounts suggest an epicenter beyond the southern end of the New Madrid Seismic Zone.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Susan E. Hough

##### Geophysicist

Earthquake Hazards Program

hough@usgs.gov

626-583-7224

## Related Content

#### Susan E. Hough

##### Geophysicist

Earthquake Hazards Program

hough@usgs.gov

626-583-7224

### Study Area

### Contacts

#### Susan E. Hough

##### Geophysicist

Earthquake Hazards Program

hough@usgs.gov

626-583-7224

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - New Madrid Seismic Zone
                  - Arkansas
                  -  Illinois
                  -  Missouri
                  -  Tennessee

View All **
<PAGE>
Exhibit 23.01
/Letterhead/
                           Schvaneveldt & Company
                        Certified Public Accountant
                     275 East South Temple, Suite #300
                         Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
                               (801) 521-2392

Darrell T. Schvaneveldt, C.P.A.




                    Consent of Darrell T. Schvaneveldt
                            Independent Auditor




     I consent to the use, of our report dated March 19, 2000, on the
financial statements of Advanced Business Sciences, Inc., dated December
31, 1999, included herein and to the reference made to me.



/S/ Schvaneveldt & Company
Salt Lake City, Utah
March 30, 2000


</Page>
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

32 34 36 38 40 42 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 06/07 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.44 N 77.04 WMeters AGL
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2012-0041

Directorate Identifier: 2011NM167AD

GOODRICH 723-27-1168 --- 1/27/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7544
ELIJAH JEROME WHITE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN M. RIVERA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (3:07-cv-01803-PMD) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elijah Jerome White, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Elijah Jerome White, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. White v. Rivera , No. 3:07-cv-01803-PMD (D.S.C. filed Sept. 21 & entered Sept. 24, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Friday, June 5, 2009 and Saturday, June 6, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Friday, June 5, 2009 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Saturday, June 6, 2009 from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. Eastern Time in New York City, NY. The public is invited to                           ( print page 20102)                        make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Notification of intent to participate must be made with Audrey Y. Jenkins. For more information please contact Ms. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or contact us at the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: April 22, 2009.

Shawn F. Collins,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E9-9883 Filed 4-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3579 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make voting in a Federal 

election by an unlawfully present alien an aggravated felony and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make 

voting in a Federal election by an unlawfully present 

alien an aggravated felony 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 ‘‘Voter Integrity Protec5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. UNLAWFUL VOTING. 

7 (a) AGGRAVATED FELONY.—Paragraph (43) of sec8 tion 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

9 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended— 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3579 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (T), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

2 the end; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (U), by striking the period 

4 at the end and inserting a semicolon and ‘‘and’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(V) an offense described in section 611 of 

7 title 18, United States Code, committed by an 

8 alien who is unlawfully present in the United 

9 States.’’. 

10 (b) DEPORTABLE OFFENSE.—Paragraph (2) of sec11 tion 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

12 U.S.C. 1227(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol13 lowing: 

14 ‘‘(G) VOTING OFFENSES.—Any alien who 

15 is unlawfully present in the United States and 

16 who knowingly commits a violation of section 

17 611 of title 18, United States Code.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
FILED

December 21, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE 

STATE OF TENNESSEE ) Appeal 

) No. 01-S-01-9709-CR-00187

 Appellee ) 

)

v. ) Sumner County

) No. 7994 

)

BOBBY VINCENT BLACKMON ) Judgment of the Court

) of Criminal Appeals is

 Appellant ) Reversed in part,

) Affirmed in part, and

) Remanded for New Trial.

JUDGMENT ORDER

This cause came on to be heard upon briefs, argument

of counsel, and the record on appeal from the Court of Criminal

Appeals.

Upon consideration whereof, this Court is of the

opinion that under the facts of this case, the record does not

support a waiver of the appellant’s right to a constitutionally

qualified judge, and thus, the judgment of the Court of Criminal

Appeals is reversed. In addition, there was no double jeopardy

violation in the forfeiture proceeding. 

Costs of appeal are taxed against the State, for which

execution may issue if necessary.

12/21/98