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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 17 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 17

 Designating the month of November 2011 as ``National Military Family 
                                Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

 Mr. Inouye submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating the month of November 2011 as ``National Military Family 
                                Month''.

Whereas military families, through their sacrifices and their dedication to the 
        United States and its values, represent the bedrock upon which the 
        United States was founded and upon which the country continues to rely 
        in these perilous and challenging times: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates November 2011 as ``National Military Family 
        Month''; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        National Military Family Month with appropriate ceremonies and 
        activities.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 11.1





AHL SERVICES, INC.


COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


(Amounts in thousands, except per share data)





Three Months Ended June 30,


Six Months EndedJune 30,2002


2001


2002


2001Income (Loss) Applicable to Common Stock:Income (loss) from continuing operations

$
(2,840
)

$
107


$
(4,243
)

$
(2,244
)Loss from discontinued operations

$
(5,295
)

$
(1,042
)

$
(7,211
)

$
(25
)Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

$



$



$
(20,723
)

$
Net loss

$
(8,135
)

$
(935
)

$
(32,177
)

$
(2,269
)Weighted average shares:Common shares


15,247



15,255



15,247



15,320Common share equivalents applicable to potentially diluted stock optionsoutstanding (1)






47







Weighted average common and common equivalent shares outstanding during the period


15,247



15,302



15,247



15,320Basic earnings (loss) per share:Income (loss) from continuing operations

$
(0.18
)

$
0.01


$
(0.28
)

$
(0.15
)Loss from discontinued operations

$
(0.35
)

$
(0.07
)

$
(0.47
)

$
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

$



$



$
(1.36
)

$
Net loss

$
(0.53
)

$
(0.06
)

$
(2.11
)

$
(0.15
)Diluted earnings (loss) per share:Income (loss) from continuing operations

$
(0.18
)

$
0.01


$
(0.28
)

$
(0.15
)Loss from discontinued operations

$
(0.35
)

$
(0.07
)

$
(0.47
)

$
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

$



$



$
(1.36
)

$
Net loss

$
(0.53
)

$
(0.06
)

$
(2.11
)

$
(0.15
)


---

|(1) |  | Because of the loss from continuing operations, diluted earnings per share for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2002 and the six month period
ended June 30, 2001 does not include the incremental shares from the assumed conversion of stock options granted. The common share equivalents applicable to potentially dilutive stock options outstanding were zero for the three months and six months
ended June 30, 2002, and 71,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2001.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2019295EN.01005501.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/55

---

Action brought on 2 July 2019 — Gawronski v Parliament

(Case T-432/19)

(2019/C 295/71)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Jas Gawronski (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 [Intellon Letterhead] 
 Mr. Rick E. Furtney 
 [Address] 
 December 14, 2009 
 Re: Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement Between Intellon Corporation and Rick E. Furtney 
 Dear Rick: 
 Reference is made to
the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement Between Intellon Corporation and Rick E. Furtney, dated September 27, 2007 (the “Employment Agreement”). By this letter, you and Intellon Corporation agree to amend the Employment
Agreement, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, in the following particulars, as of the date hereof: 
  

	 	4.	Section 3.01(c) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting subsection (B) of the Section in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


 “(B) Good Reason shall not exist unless the Preliminary Notice of Good Reason shall have been given by
Executive to the Company within ninety (90) days after Executive learned of the act, failure or event which Executive alleges constitutes Good Reason hereunder,” 
 In all other particulars the Employment Agreement shall remain in effect in accordance with its terms. The signature of the parties below
indicates their respective agreement to these amendments to the Employment Agreement. 
  

			
	INTELLON CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Brian T. McGee

	Name:	 	Brian T. McGee
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer
	
	 /s/ Rick E. Furtney

	RICK E. FURTNEY
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS            
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998           
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1998          
<CASH>                                    1,225        
<SECURITIES>                                  0       
<RECEIVABLES>                                64
<ALLOWANCES>                                 34
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          1,292
<PP&E>                                      490  
<DEPRECIATION>                              101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            1,722
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    11,295
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                     25
<OTHER-SE>                               (9,588)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              1,722
<SALES>                                      40
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             40
<CGS>                                        22
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             8,350
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            261
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        3,449
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (12,020)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (12,022)
<DISCONTINUED>                            1,555
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            (13,577)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (0.65)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.2

Confidential

LOGO

Interoffice Memorandum



|      |  |                                                      
|----- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|To:   |  | Personnel File                                       
|      | 
|From: |  | David M. Wurzer, EVP & Chief Financial Officer       
|      | 
|Date: |  | January 25, 2006                                     
|      | 
|Re:   |  | Amendment to Employment Agreement dated April 1, 2002



---

I, David M. Wurzer, (the Executive) signed an Employment Agreement (the Agreement) with my employer, CuraGen Corporation (the Company), on or about April 1, 2002, and subsequently signed an Addendum
to the Agreement on October 31, 2003. Exhibit A, Item 1) of the original Agreement provides that the Executives initial base salary shall be subject to increases by the Board of Directors, which shall review the salary periodically.
Therefore, pursuant to the minutes of the January 25, 2006, Meeting of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, the Executives 2006 base salary will be adjusted to $300,000 per year, payable in bi-weekly installments.

Unless explicitly changed in the Addendum dated October 31, 2003, all other terms of the original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



|                 
|-----------------
|David M. Wurzer  
|                 
|Patrick J. Zenner
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 2 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 2

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                 relating to United States citizenship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

 Mr. Vitter (for himself and Mr. Paul) introduced the following joint 
 resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                 relating to United States citizenship.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification by 
the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``A person born in the United States shall not be a citizen of the 
United States unless--
            ``(1) one parent of the person is a citizen of the United 
        States;
            ``(2) one parent of the person is an alien lawfully 
        admitted for permanent residence in the United States who 
        resides in the United States;
            ``(3) one parent of the person is an alien performing 
        active service in the Armed Forces of the United States; or
            ``(4) the person is naturalized in accordance with the laws 
        of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Optical Cable Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statement No. 333-09433 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-103108 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-115575 on Form S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-128163 on Form S-8 of
Optical Cable Corporation of our report dated January 28, 2008, with respect to the balance sheets of Optical Cable Corporation as of October 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related statements of income, shareholders equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended October 31, 2007, which report is incorporated by reference in the October 31, 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Optical Cable Corporation. Our report refers to the
Companys adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R) Share-Based Payment on November 1, 2005.



|                 
|-----------------
|/s/ KPMG LLP     
|                 
|Roanoke, Virginia
|January 28, 2008
# C_2020339EN.01001701.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — EP v Commission

(Case T-605/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2018 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Consideration of comparative merits)

(2020/C 339/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: EP (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Lilamand and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TEFU for annulment of the Commission decision of 13 November 2018 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 9in the 2018 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 13 November 2018 not to promote EP to grade AD 9in the 2018 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 13 November 2018 not to promote EP to grade AD 9in the 2018 promotion exercise;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Leavell, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—criminal possession of stolen property, second degree, and petit larceny.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Pine, JJ.
##### 



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 I, Josh Emanuel, 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 and belief: (1)  The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of DataWave Systems Inc. for the year ended March 31,
2005 (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 DataWave Systems Inc. By:
    /s/ Josh EmanuelJosh EmanuelChairman, Chief Executive OfficerDated:
    June 29th, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by 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 DataWave Systems Inc. and will be retained by DataWave Systems Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 8, 2011 *

Decided December 8, 2011

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 11

‐ 1973

VASSIL M. MARINOV, Appeal from the United States District

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant , Court for the Northern District of Indiana,

Hammond Division.

v. No. 4:07cv54

TRUSTEES OF PURDUE Jon E. DeGuilio,

UNIVERSITY, and ALYSA Judge.

CHRISTMAS ROLLACK,

Defendants

‐ Appellees

.

O R D E R

Vassil Marinov, a Bulgarian who used to do custodial work at Purdue University,

sued the university and one of its personnel administrators for discrimination under the

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e

‐ 2(a)(1),

2000e

‐ 3(a). Marinov could not be around certain cleaning chemicals because they made him NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P.

34(a)(2)(C).No. 11

‐ 1973 Page 2

sick. He claimed that Purdue failed to accommodate this disability, denied him other

opportunities because he was Bulgarian, and then fired him in retaliation for a complaint he

filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The district court granted

summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, determining that Purdue was entitled

to sovereign immunity from Marinov’s ADA claim; that Marinov could not establish a

prima facie case of national origin discrimination, or alternatively that Purdue’s reasons for

its personnel actions were pretextual; and that Marinov failed to establish a retaliation claim

because he could not show a causal connection between his filing of the EEOC complaint

and his termination.

On appeal Marinov, now proceeding pro se, maintains that his discharge was

improper, but he does not identify any specific error made by the district court or develop

an argument supported by citations to legal authority or the record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P.

28(a)(9); Anderson v. Hardman

, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Although we will construe a

pro se litigant’s brief liberally, we will not craft a litigant’s arguments or perform legal

research for him. See Anderson

, 241 F.3d at 545–46.

DISMISSED.
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 Metalline  Mining  Company
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30,  2006,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Merlin D. Bingham,  President 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, 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.


/s/ Merlin D. Bingham
----------------------
President


Dated:  June 14, 2006



                                       E-4
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6635

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RYAN CHRISTOPHER FULTZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Jamar Kentrell Walker, District Judge. (4:13-cr-00026-JKW-DEM-1)

Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ryan Christopher Fultz, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6635 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ryan Christopher Fultz appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Limiting our review of the 

record to the issues raised in Fultz’s informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. 

Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014), and finding no reversible error, we affirm the 

district court’s order, United States v. Fultz, No. 4:13-cr-00026-JKW-DEM-1 (E.D. Va. 

June 20, 2023). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6635 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
# C_2020175EN.01002101.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Conlance v EUIPO — LG Electronics (SONANCE)

(Case T-343/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SONANCE - Earlier national word mark conlance - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Conlance GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Hayn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: LG Electronics, Inc (Seoul, South Korea)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2019 (Case R 1085/2018-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Conlance and LG Electronics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Conlance GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Conlance GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---
# C_2020010EN.01002101.xml

| 13.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/21

---

Appeal brought on 5 April 2019 by Mr André Geske against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2019 in Case T-427/18, André Geske v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-285/19 P)

(2020/C 10/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: André Geske (represented by: S. Dahm, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 6 November 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---