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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 140 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 140

To promote the use of anaerobic digesters by agricultural producers and 
    rural small businesses to produce renewable energy and improve 
                         environmental quality.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

  Mr. McHugh introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To promote the use of anaerobic digesters by agricultural producers and 
    rural small businesses to produce renewable energy and improve 
                         environmental quality.

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

SECTION 1. USE OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS TO PRODUCE RENEWABLE ENERGY.

    Section 9006(a) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) promote the use of anaerobic digesters to produce 
        renewable energy.''.

SEC. 2. USE OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS TO IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.

    Section 1240A(6)(A) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
3839aa-1) is amended by inserting ``(including an anaerobic digester)'' 
after ``site-specific animal waste management facility''.
                                 <all>
```
Ernest PITTS, Jr., petitioner, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 12-1151.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:13-CR-035 JD

)

WILLIS FIELDS )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation upon

a plea of guilty issued on March 28, 2013 [DE 11]. Accordingly, the court now ADOPTS those

findings and recommendations, ACCEPTS defendant Willis Fields’ plea of guilty, and FINDS the

defendant guilty of Count 1 of the Information, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: April 16, 2013 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1463 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2005 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate a portion of the Federal building located at 

2100 Jamieson Avenue, in Alexandria, Virginia, as the 

‘‘Justin W. Williams United States Attorney’s Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 1463 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The building and structure de3 scribed in subsection (b) shall be known and designated 

4 as the ‘‘Justin W. Williams United States Attorney’s 

5 Building’’. 

6 (b) DESCRIPTION.—The building and structure to be 

7 designated under subsection (a) is that portion of the Fed8 eral building located at 2100 Jamieson Avenue, in Alexan9 dria, Virginia, that is attached to the Federal building’s 

10 main tower structure, described as A-Wing in the architec11 tural plans, and currently occupied by the Office of the 

12 United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Vir13 ginia, Alexandria Division. 

14 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

15 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

16 paper, or other record of the United States to the building 

17 and structure described in section 1(b) shall be deemed 

18 to be a reference to the ‘‘Justin W. Williams United States 

19 Attorney’s Building’’. 

20 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

21 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 

22 as may be necessary for appropriate identifying designa23 tions to be affixed to the building and structure described 

24 in section 1(b) and for an appropriate plaque reflecting 

25 the designation and honoring Justin W. Williams and his 
3 

HR 1463 RFS 

1 service to the Nation to be affixed to or displayed in such 

2 building and structure. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 13, 2005. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32(b)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Zep Inc. (the
Corporation) for the year ended August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Corporation, certifies 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 Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|/s/ Mark R. Bachmann                                
|Mark R. Bachmann                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|November 8, 2010                                    

[A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Zep Inc. and will be retained by Zep Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
Jesus RODRIGUEZ-ESCARENO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9483.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
  Statement Regarding Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(In Thousands)
 Nine MonthsYears Ended
    
    
    Ended2000
    
    
    2001
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2004
    
    
    October 1, 2005Pre-tax income (loss) from
continuing operations
    
    $
    74.1
    
    
    $
    (565.2
    )
    
    $
    (260.2
    )
    
    $
    102.4
    
    
    $
    (183.7
    )
    
    $
    (26.4
    )Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    
    13.7
    
    
    
    25.1
    
    
    
    26.6
    
    
    
    30.2
    
    
    
    31.8
    
    
    
    27.2Interest included in rental
payments(1)
    
    
    4.2
    
    
    
    9.1
    
    
    
    8.5
    
    
    
    10.1
    
    
    
    10.5
    
    
    
    7.2Total fixed charges
    
    $
    17.9
    
    
    $
    34.2
    
    
    $
    35.1
    
    
    $
    40.3
    
    
    $
    42.3
    
    
    $
    34.4Pre-tax income (loss) from
continuing operations plus
fixed charges
    
    $
    92.0
    
    
    $
    (531.0
    )
    
    $
    (225.1
    )
    
    $
    142.7
    
    
    $
    (141.4
    )
    
    $
    8.0Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    5.1
    
    
    
    
    (2)
    
    
    
    (3)
    
    
    3.5
    
    
    
    
    (4)
    
    
    
    (5)
 
 (1)
    
    Represents appropriate portion (1/3) of rentals.(2)
    
    Due to the Companys loss in 2001, the ratio coverage was less than
1:1. The Company must generate additional earnings of $565.2 million to
achieve a coverage of 1:1.(3)
    
    Due to the Companys loss in 2002, the ratio coverage was less than
1:1. The Company must generate additional earnings of $260.2 million to
achieve a coverage of 1:1.(4)
    
    Due to the Companys loss in 2004, the ratio coverage was less than
1:1. The Company must generate additional earnings of $183.7 million to
achieve a coverage of 1:1.(5)
    
    Due to the Companys loss in 2004, the ratio coverage was
less than 1:1. The Company must generate additional earnings of
$26.4 million to achieve a coverage of 1:1.
John JACQUES, petitioner, v. Jeffrey PUGH, Warden.

No. 12-8884.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Schedule to Stock Option Agreement



 Exhibit 10.9 
  
 Schedule to Stock Option Agreement Under Huttig Building Products, Inc. 
 2001 Stock Incentive Plan 
  

							
	 Option Holder

	  	Number Of Shares

	    	Exercise Price

	    	Date of Grant


	 Barry J. Kulpa
	  	55,000	    	$5.875 per share	    	January 29, 2002
	 Thomas S. McHugh
	  	40,000	    	$5.875 per share	    	January 29, 2002
	 Nick H. Varsam
	  	34,000	    	$5.875 per share	    	January 29, 2002
	 Michael A. Lupo
	  	400,000	    	$2.300 per share	    	April 28, 2003
	 Carl A. Liliequist
	  	100,000	    	$2.980 per share	    	August 5, 2003
	 Hank J. Krey
	  	25,000	    	$2.980 per share	    	August 5, 2003
exv10w40



 




Exhibit 10.40



SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT


     
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT (the
“Second Amendment”) is made and entered into as of
this 31 day of December, 2003, by and between ProLogis
Limited Partnership 1, a Delaware Limited Partnership
(“Landlord”) and At Road, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“Tenant”).



     
Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain
Lease Agreement dated August 3, 2000 (the
“Lease”) and amended March 8, 2001 with respect
to certain premises containing approximately 30,000 rentable
square feet, as determined by Landlord, of the Building commonly
known as 47370 Fremont Boulevard, Fremont, California
(“Premises”).



     
Landlord and Tenant therefore agree that the
following modifications will be made to the Lease:




		
	 	     
    1.     Security
    Deposit: An additional Security Deposit of $31,000 shall be
    required and is due upon execution of the First Amendment. This
    amount, in addition to the existing $79,000 Security Deposit,
    brings the total Security Deposit amount to $110,000. Said sum
    shall be refunded at the expiration of the Term, as set forth in
    the Lease.
    
	 
	 	     
    2.     Letter of
    Credit: Addendum III of the Lease shall be deleted and
    Tenant shall have no obligation to provide a Letter of Credit
    for additional security.
    
	 
	 	     
    3.     Limitation of
    Liability of Trustees, Shareholders and Officers of ProLogis
    Trust: Any obligation or liability whatsoever of ProLogis
    Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust, which may arise
    at any time under this Lease or any obligation or liability
    which may be incurred by it pursuant to any other instrument,
    transaction, or undertaking contemplated hereby shall not be
    personally binding upon, nor shall resort for the enforcement
    thereof be hand to the property of, its trustees, directors,
    shareholders, officers, employees or agents, regardless of
    whether such obligation or liability is in the nature of the
    contract, tort or otherwise.
    
	 
	 	     
    4.     Ratification
    Conflict: Except as set forth in Paragraph 1 through 3
    above, the terms of the Lease remain unchanged and Landlord and
    Tenant hereby ratify and confirm all of said unchanged terms of
    the Lease. In the event of any conflict between the Lease and
    this Second Amendment, the terms of this Second Amendment shall
    govern.
    




     
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have
executed this First Amendment as of the date first written above.




	 	 	 
	
    
    LANDLORD:
    

    	 	
    TENANT:
    
	
    ProLogis Limited Partnership

    a Delaware Limited Partnership
    	 	
    At Road, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
    
	 
	 
	
    By: /s/ W. SCOTT LAMSON

    
W. Scott Lamson

    Its: Sr. Vice President

    

    Date: 12/31/03
    	 	
    By: /s/ THOMAS C. HOSTER

    
Thomas C. Hoster

    Its: Chief Financial Officer

    
Date: 12/23/2003
For more information on health equity, visit 

www.fda.gov/healthequity.

DIAGNOSIS A1C LEVEL

Normal

Prediabetes

Diabetes

Below 5.7%

5.7% to 6.4%

6.5% or above

Office of Minority Health and Health Equity

The A1C test can be used to diagnose or manage 

diabetes by measuring your average blood glucose 

(blood sugar levels) over the past 3 months. 

For most people living with diabetes an A1C of 7% 

or less is ideal. Higher A1C levels put you at risk 

for diabetes complications.

Talk to your health care provider about getting an 

A1C test and how often is right for you. 

A1C TEST FOR DIABETES 
A1C TEST FOR DIABETES 

The A1C test can be used to diagnose or manage 

diabetes by measuring your average blood glucose 

(blood sugar levels) over the past 3 months. 

For most people living with diabetes an A1C of 7% 

or less is ideal. Higher A1C levels put you at risk 

for diabetes complications.

Talk to your health care provider about getting an 

A1C test and how often is right for you. 

For more information on health equity, visit 

www.fda.gov/healthequity.

DIAGNOSIS A1C LEVEL

Normal

Prediabetes

Diabetes

Below 5.7%

5.7% to 6.4%

6.5% or above

Office of Minority Health and Health Equity
For more information on health equity, visit 

www.fda.gov/healthequity.

DIAGNOSIS A1C LEVEL

Normal

Prediabetes

Diabetes

Below 5.7%

5.7% to 6.4%

6.5% or above

A1C TEST FOR DIABETES 

Office of Minority Health and Health Equity

The A1C test can be used to diagnose or manage 

diabetes by measuring your average blood glucose 

(blood sugar levels) over the past 3 months. 

For most people living with diabetes an A1C of 7% 

or less is ideal. Higher A1C levels put you at risk 

for diabetes complications.

Talk to your health care provider about getting an 

A1C test and how often is right for you.
EXHIBIT
      32.2





**SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION**




I,
      Dennis
      M. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)
      the
      accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
      June 30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended; and





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






Dated:
      August 8, 2008




By: /s/
      Dennis M. McGrath


Dennis
      M.
      McGrath


Chief
      Financial Officer






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
      otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
      electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
      provided to PhotoMedex, Inc. and will be retained by PhotoMedex, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.






E-32.2
NUMBER 13-11-00333-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF T. C., H. C., K. P. AND C. P., CHILDREN

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Vela, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, K.P.

1

, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County 

Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 09-61405-5. Appellant 

has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the parties have 

 

1

In appeals from cases involving the termination of parental rights, the rules of appellate procedure 

require the use of an alias to refer to a minor, and if necessary to protect the minor’s identity, to the minor’s 

parent or other family member.” Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.
2

entered into a mediation agreement, post-final order. Appellant requests that this Court 

dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s unopposed 

motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is 

hereby DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) 

("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). 

Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be 

entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

29th day of September, 2011.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6239** 

JOSEPH H. SPARKS, III , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:14

- cv - 00440

- AWA

- DEM )

Submitted : July 31, 2015 Decided: August 18, 2015

Before WYNN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Bradley Rittenhouse Haywood, SHELDON, FLOOD & HAYWOOD, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding preced ent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joseph H. Sparks, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circ uit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 48 4 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sparks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
James Charles KOPP, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10292.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice SOTOMAYOR and Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:14-CR-1-TLS 

)

CRISSY TILL )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 12], filed on January 29, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection to

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 12] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offenses charged in Counts 1 and 2 of the Information are hereby

accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offenses. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on February 24, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Katosh PANTOLIANO, aka K, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-8221.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.