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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 60 

To provide relief to the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for settlement of 

certain claims against the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide relief to the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for 

settlement of certain claims against the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

4 (a) AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT.—Notwith5 standing any other provision of law, subject to subsection 

6 (b), the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the 

7 Pottawatomi Nation in Canada $1,830,000 from amounts 

8 appropriated under section 1304 of title 31, United States 

9 Code. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 60 IS

1 (b) PAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STIPULATION

2 FOR RECOMMENDATION OF SETTLEMENT.—The payment 

3 under subsection (a) shall— 

4 (1) be made in accordance with the terms and 

5 conditions of the Stipulation for Recommendation of 

6 Settlement dated May 22, 2000, entered into be7 tween the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada and the 

8 United States (referred to in this section as the 

9 ‘‘Stipulation for Recommendation of Settlement’’); 

10 and 

11 (2) be included in the report of the Chief Judge 

12 of the United States Court of Federal Claims re13 garding Congressional Reference No. 94–1037X, 

14 submitted to the Senate on January 4, 2001, in ac15 cordance with sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28, 

16 United States Code. 

17 (c) FULL SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS.—The payment 

18 under subsection (a) shall be in full satisfaction of all 

19 claims of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada against the 

20 United States that are referred to or described in the Stip21 ulation for Recommendation of Settlement. 

22 (d) NONAPPLICABILITY.—Notwithstanding any other 

23 provision of law, the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 60 IS

1 or Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) does not 

2 apply to the payment under subsection (a). 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
      32


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 Annual Report of Artfest International, Inc., a Delaware
        corporation
  (the
        "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with
        the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry
        D. Ditto, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, hereby certify,
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
  (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 result of operations of the Company.




DATED:
              March 21, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Larry
              D.
              DittoLarry
              D. DittoChairman
                and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 36701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14880]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice 
of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee 
(SITAC) will meet on July 27, 2021, at 1:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight 
Time, via remote teleconference. The Committee advises the Office of 
the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical 
questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to 
sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.

Agenda

Public Session

1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.
3. Industry Presentations.
4. New Business.

Closed Session

5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions 
relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. Sec.  
10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
    The open session will be accessible via teleconference on a first 
come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to 
Ms. Yvette Springer at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ec7e8fbeaeafbb0cdeeecf7f0f9fbecdefcf7edb0faf1fdb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c755a49585849027f5c5e45424b495e6c4e455f0248434f024b435a">[email protected]</span></a> no later than July 
20, 2021.
    A limited number of seats will be available during the public 
session of the meeting.
    Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, 
members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The 
public may submit written statements at any time before or after the 
meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation 
materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that the 
materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.
    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of 
the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 9, 
2021, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec.  10(d)), that the portion of the 
meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control 
List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the 
provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec.  
Sec.  10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will 
be open to the public. For more information contact Yvette Springer on 
(202) 482-2813.

Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-14880 Filed 7-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit
10.4**
  **Management** **Agreement
of**
  **Christine
M. Carriker, Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer of
HouseRaising, Inc.**
    EMPLOYMENT
LETTER AGREEMENT
 
 January
1, 2005
 
 
 Kristy M.
Carriker
 7911
Surry Lane
 Indian
Trail, NC 28079
 
 Dear
Kristy:
 
 I am
pleased to offer you the position of Senior Vice President and Chief
Administrative Officer of HouseRaising, Inc. effective January 1, 2005.
 
 Remuneration : Your
annual salary will be $120,000 and your annual bonus will be approximately 30%
of your base salary based on the success of your direct corporate role and
personal objectives. You will be entitled to annual car and expense allowance of
$24,000 and you may participate in the company’s benefit program including PPO
group health insurance with Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, and
$10,000 life insurance coverage for yourself through Group Insurance Services.
 
 Stock
Option Program :
Additionally, you are entitled to participate in our stock option program
wherein we will provide you with options on 1,000,000 shares of HRAI common
stock at a strike price of $1.25 per share vesting over five years at one-fifth
on your first anniversary date and one-fifth on the ensuing anniversary dates
thereafter. The period of the option is 10 years. If for any reason the company
is sold during the five year period, all shares would immediately be deemed
vested and issued to you.
 
 Job
Responsibility : As
Senior Vice President of HouseRaising, Inc. and Chief Administrative Officer,
your responsibilities include developing a corporate support structure in
support of our national operation and for establishing and implementing employee
related benefits, policies and procedures. You will also be involved in
completing the HRI manuals and system.
 
 As you
know, we are in the process of raising capital to fund the business.
Accordingly, your 2005 base salary and expenses will be paid in the form of HRAI
common stock (S-8 shares that are registered and tradable) at a rate of $36,000
in shares per quarter in advance.
 
 Beginning
January 2006, we will function through a payroll procedure with monthly or
bi-weekly pay checks. If adequate funding is arranged earlier than year-end
2005, we will convert the S-8 shares into a payroll system at that time.
 
 While we
established the value of the stock for your base salary at $1.75 per share;
i.e., ($30,000 per quarter divided by $1.75 = 17,143 shares for three month
salary, plus $6,000 per quarter in expenses = 3,429 shares), in the event the
price per share drops below $1.75 per share during the quarter, we will protect
your compensation down to $1.00 per share. This will be accomplished by issuing
additional shares in any single quarter in which we are paying you with S-8
shares.
 
 If this
offer is acceptable to you, please sign below and fax a copy back to me at (704)
536-0928.
 
 
 Sincerely
yours,
 
 
 
 Charles
M. Skibo
 CEO and
Chairman
  Accepted:Date:
    By:
    /s/ Kristy M.
    CarrikerName: Kristy M. Carriker
EXHIBIT 99.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the annual report of Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Alan P. Niedzwiecki, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,
Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



|Date: June 30, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/    ALAN P.
NIEDZWIECKI
|------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------
|                    |  |  |  |                           
|                    |  |  |  |                           



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. and will be retained by Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Thomas Darby

*John R. Williams,*in support of the petition.

*Carolyn K. Longstreth,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided October 25, 1989

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 19 Conn. App. 445, is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3715 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3715

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To extend the limited antitrust exemption contained in the Pandemic and 
                     All-Hazards Preparedness Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LIMITED ANTITRUST EXEMPTION.

    Section 405(b) of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (42 
U.S.C. 247d-6a note) is amended by striking ``6-year'' and inserting 
``7-year''.

            Passed the Senate December 30, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3715

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To extend the limited antitrust exemption contained in the Pandemic and 
                     All-Hazards Preparedness Act.
```
#### In re HEYMANN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 29, *11351912.)

In the matter of Henry M. Heymann. No opinion. Reference ordered to official referee. Settle order on notice.
Exhibit 21.1

Nextest Systems Corporation Subsidiaries



|                                          |  |                                             
|----------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Name                                      |  | State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Nextest Systems Europe S.R.L.             |  | Italy                                       
|Nextest Systems (Philippines) Corporation |  | Philippines                                 
|Nextest Systems UK LTD                    |  | United Kingdom                              
|Nextest Systems France S.A.R.L.           |  | France                                      
|Nextest Systems (Thailand) Ltd            |  | Thailand                                    
|Nextest Systems Japan K.K.                |  | Japan                                       
|Nextest Systems Korea Co., Ltd.           |  | Korea
#### John Franklin, Respondent, *v.*The Forty-second Street and Grand Street Ferry Railroad Company, Appellant.

(Submitted April 23, 1890;

decided May 9, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made December 11, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*FreMng H. Smith*for appellant. .

*Roswell II. Carpenter*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 68 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 68

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize certain disabled 
  former prisoners of war to use Department of Defense commissary and 
                            exchange stores.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize certain disabled 
  former prisoners of war to use Department of Defense commissary and 
                            exchange stores.

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

SECTION 1. USE OF COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE STORES BY CERTAIN DISABLED 
              FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 54 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 1064 the following new section:
``Sec. 1064a. Use of commissary and exchange stores: certain disabled 
              former prisoners of war
    ``(a) In General.--Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of 
Defense, former prisoners of war described in subsection (b) may use 
commissary and exchange stores.
    ``(b) Covered Individuals.--Subsection (a) applies to any former 
prisoner of war who--
            ``(1) separated from active duty in the armed forces under 
        honorable conditions; and
            ``(2) has a service-connected disability rated by the 
        Secretary of Veterans Affairs at 30 percent or more.
    ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
            ``(1) The term `former prisoner of war' has the meaning 
        given that term in section 101(32) of title 38.
            ``(2) The term `service-connected' has the meaning given 
        that term in section 101(16) of title 38.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 54 of such title is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 1064 the following new item:

``1064a. Use of commissary and exchange stores: certain disabled former 
                            prisoners of war.''.
                                 <all>
```
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Opinion filed October 19 , 2021

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00034

- CV

IN RE JOSEPH EMANUEL MURGOLA , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

507th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Tria l Cou rt C au se No. 2019

- 12994



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 11

, 2021, relator

, Joseph Emanuel Murgola

, filed a sec ond

sup plemen tal petition for writ of m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code

Ann. § 22.221 ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the p eti t i o n, rel ator ask s this c ourt to

compel the Honorable Julia Maldonado

, presiding judge of the 507th District Court2

H arris County

, to withdraw her Febru ary 13 , 2021 1 temporary order denying in

par t realtor ’ s requ ested relief and granting certa in r e l ief to the r eal party in inter est

.

Relator ha s not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justic es B ourliot , Zimmerer, and Spain.

1 A ccording to the r elator ’ s petition , the trial court “ orally rendered judgm ent ” on February 10

, 2021. The relator provided us with a mandamus recor d containing the order sig ned February 13, 2021.
#### In the Matter of: TRINITY MEADOWS RACEWAY INC., Debtor. Trinity Meadows Raceway Inc., Appellant v. Texas Racing Commission of the State of Texas; R. Dyke Rogers, In Capacity as former and acting chair of the Texas Racing Commission of the State of Texas, Appellees.

No. 08-10286.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 13, 2009.

David R. Langston, Lawrence Matthew Doss, Mullin, Hoard & Brown, Lubbock, TX, for Appellant.

Edith Stuart Phillips, Office of the Attorney General, Bankruptcy & Collections Div., Austin, TX, for Appellees.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

After having reviewed the briefs and the record, we AFFIRM for essentially the reasons given by the learned bankruptcy judge in his Memorandum Opinion entered on September 12, 2007, 2007 WL 2713920.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paulette DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-20055

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 12, 2009.

*852James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Paulette Davis, pro se.

Katherine Scardino, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Paulette Davis pleaded guilty to making false entries and reports of moneys or securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2073. She was sentenced to two years of probation. As a special condition of her supervision while on probation, Davis was ordered to “participate in a mental health program as deemed necessary and approved by the probation officer.” Davis appeals, arguing that the district judge unlawfully and unconstitutionally delegated his statutory and Article III authority to determine sentencing conditions to a non-judicial officer.

Because Davis did not object at sentencing, this court reviews for plain error only. To show plain error, Davis must show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects her substantial rights. *United States v. Baker,*538 F.3d 324, 332 (5th Cir.2008). If she makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. *Id.*

Davis cites primarily *United States v. Albro,*32 F.3d 173 (5th Cir.1994), to support her position that the district judge plainly erred by delegating his authority to determine special conditions of release to a probation officer. In that case, Albro was convicted of bank fraud and ordered to pay restitution. Although the district judge himself determined the amount to be paid, he delegated the “manner of payment” to a probation officer. We agreed with Albro that “ ‘the amounts to be paid and the manner of payment should be recited in the [sentencing] order, rather than delegating these details to the probation officer.’ ” *Id.*at 174 (citations omitted). We found plain error and reversed.

In *United States v. Warden,*this court held that it was not plain error to allow a probation officer to determine a. defendant’s ability to pay for drug treatment; *Albro*concerned “restitution payments,” this court wrote, not the costs of drug treatment. 291 F.3d 363, 365-66 (5th Cir. 2002). In *United States v. Vega,*332 F.3d 849, 852 n. 3 (5th Cir.2003), this court determined that it was not plain error to allow a probation officer to determine the length of a defendant’s drug treatment.

In light of our opinions in *Warden*and *Vega,*there could be no plain error here because our precedents do not plainly require the result Davis urges. Accordingly, Davis’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  L OAD , I NC .; C OAD , I NC ., Petitioners, No. 07-72564

v. D.C. No.



#  CIR-1 : 7287-02 C OMMISSIONER OF I NTERNAL R EVENUE , OPINION

Respondent. 

# 

Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Stephen J. Swift, Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted January 14, 2009—San Francisco, California

Filed February 2, 2009 Before: Myron H. Bright,* Procter Hug, Jr., and Stephen Reinhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam Opinion

*The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

1173COUNSEL John F. Daniels, Janice Procter-Murphy, Alexander Arpad, Phoenix, Arizona, for the petitioners. Richard T. Morrison, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Teresa E. McLaughlin, Kathleen E. Lyon, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM: Appellants LOAD, Inc. and COAD, Inc. **1** challenge the Tax Court’s determination of a federal income tax deficiency for the tax year ending September 30, 2000. The Tax Court heldthat certain of ADI’s expenses were not deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses under 26 U.S.C. § 162(a) and must be capitalized as inventory costs under 26 U.S.C. § 263A.

**1** Although only LOAD and COAD are parties to this petition for review, Associated Dealers, Inc. and 12 other affiliated companies have raisedsimilar arguments and agree to be bound by the final outcome of this litigation. We refer to LOAD, COAD, Associated Dealers, Inc., and the 12 other affiliated companies as “ADI. ” 1174 L OAD , I NC . v. CIRWe review the Tax Court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Kelley v. Comm’r , 45 F.3d 348, 350 (9th Cir. 1995). Our exclusive jurisdiction to review a final decision of the Tax Court arises under 26 U.S.C. § 7482. The Tax Court wrote an extensive opinion on this matter. See LOAD, Inc. v. Comm’r , 93 T.C.M. (CCH) 969 (2007). We approve and adopt that opinion as governing this case. Accordingly, we affirm. 1175

L OAD , I NC . v. CIR