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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 43 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.43
                                        Agreed to April 27, 2012        

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, 
April 26, 2012, through Sunday, May 6, 2012, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, 
May 7, 2012, or such other time on that day as may be specified by its 
Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or 
until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House 
adjourns on any legislative day through Friday, May 4, 2012, on a 
motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority 
Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, May 
7, 2012, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of 
this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation 
with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the 
House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, 
to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if, in their 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
Case: 1:02-cv-00582 Document #: 33 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:154
Case: 1:02-cv-00582 Document #: 33 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:155
Case: 1:02-cv-00582 Document #: 33 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:156
Case: 1:02-cv-00582 Document #: 33 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:157
Case: 1:02-cv-00582 Document #: 33 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:158
Case: 1:02-cv-00582 Document #: 33 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:159
Case: 1:02-cv-00582 Document #: 33 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:160
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon CANTILLO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-12955

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Oct. 5, 2011.

Evelyn Baltodano-Sheehan, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Sean Thomas McLaughlin, Christopher Párente, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ramon Cantillo-Martinez, D. Ray James, CF, Folkston, GA, pro se.

Maria Elena Perez, Maria E. Perez, PA, Coral Gables, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ramon Cantillo-Martinez (Cantillo) pleaded guilty to conspiring to affect interstate commerce by threats or violence by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), attempting to interfere with interstate commerce by threats or violence by robbery also in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), conspiring to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, attempting to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine also in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Cantillo was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. After he was sentenced, Cantillo filed a notice of appeal and his counsel has since filed an *Anders*brief.

While Cantillo’s appeal was pending the government filed a Rule 35(b) motion in the district court to reduce his sentence because of his substantial assistance to the government. The district court granted that motion and reduced his sentence to 110 months’ imprisonment. But because Cantillo’s appeal was still pending when the district court granted the motion, the district court did not have jurisdiction to reduce his sentence. *See United States v. Russell,*776 F.2d 955, 956 (11th Cir.1985). Accordingly, we deny his counsel’s *Anders*motion, vacate Cantillo’s sentence and remand for the limited purpose of resentenc-ing in accordance with the district court’s attempted resentencing. *Cf. United States v. Turchen,*187 F.3d 735, 743 (7th Cir.1999).

DENIED in part, VACATED in part and REMANDED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 295 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 295

       Designating October 26, 2011, as ``Day of the Deployed''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 17, 2011

  Mr. Hoeven (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
     Isakson, Mr. Blunt, and Mr. Boozman) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       Designating October 26, 2011, as ``Day of the Deployed''.

Whereas more than 2,270,000 people serve as members of the United States Armed 
        Forces;
Whereas several hundred thousand members of the Armed Forces rotate each year 
        through deployments to 150 countries in every region of the world;
Whereas more than 2,300,000 members of the Armed Forces have deployed to the 
        area of operations of the United States Central Command since the 
        September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks;
Whereas the United States is kept strong and free by the loyal military 
        personnel who protect our precious heritage through their positive 
        declaration and actions;
Whereas members of the Armed Forces serving at home and abroad have courageously 
        answered the call to duty to defend the ideals of the United States and 
        to preserve peace and freedom around the world;
Whereas members of the Armed Forces personify the virtues of patriotism, 
        service, duty, courage, and sacrifice;
Whereas the families of members of the Armed Forces make important and 
        significant sacrifices for the United States;
Whereas North Dakota began honoring the members of the Armed Forces and their 
        families by designating October 26 as ``Day of the Deployed'' in 2006 ; 
        and
Whereas 40 States designated October 26, 2010, as ``Day of the Deployed'': Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) honors the members of the United States Armed Forces 
        who are deployed;
            (2) calls on the people of the United States to reflect on 
        the service of those members of the United States Armed Forces, 
        wherever they serve, past, present, and future;
            (3) designates October 26, 2011, as ``Day of the 
        Deployed''; and
            (4) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        ``Day of the Deployed'' with appropriate ceremonies and 
        activities.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

United States of America, ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 01 CR 802 - 1 

 ) 

Mario Morales, ) Judge: Kennelly 

 Defendant. ) 

 

ORDER

 

Mario Morales has moved pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence, 

which the Court imposed in 2004. Mr. Morales's motion is based on amendments 705 

and 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which retroactively reduced the offense levels for 

crimes involving crack cocaine. They do not apply to Mr. Morales, whose offense did not 

involve crack cocaine. Mr. Morales's motion also says that the Court erred in applying a 

Guidelines enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with one of the incidents 

that formed the basis for his guilty plea. Section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a 

sentence reduction on this basis; it applies only to retroactively-applicable Sentencing 

Guidelines amendments, not to alleged errors made at the time of sentencing. For these 

reasons, the Court denies Mr. Morales's motion (dkt. no.369). 

Date: 2/25/2015
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 11.2


           HOME HEALTH CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
                Computation of Fully diluted Earnings Per Share
        for  each of the three years in the period ended June 30, 1997

The following calculation is submitted in accordance with the Securities Act of
1934:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                               1995            1996           1996(1)          1997
                                           ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
<S>                                        <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Net income                                    $  758          $3,294          $2,133          $2,814
Write-off of discount on preferred stock           -            (787)           (787)              -
Dividends on preferred stock                    (123)           (117)           (117)             (6)
                                           ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
Net income available to common
 stockholders                                 $  635          $2,390          $1,229          $2,808
                                           ============    ============    ============    ============
Weighted average number of maximum
 shares outstanding during year                3,453           6,535           6,535           8,563
Weighted average number of maximum
 shares subject to exercise under
 outstanding stock options and
 warrants, net of treasury shares
 assumed repurchased                             223             124             124             133
                                           ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
Weighted average number of common and
 common equivalent shares outstanding          3,676           6,659           6,659           8,696
                                           ============    ============    ============    ============
Net income per share                          $ 0.17           $0.36          $ 0.18          $ 0.32
                                           ============    ============    ============    ============
</TABLE>

(1) Reflects net income and net income per share after extraordinary loss of
    $1,160 on early extinguishment of indebtedness.
Opinion issued July 19 , 2012
.

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO. 01
- 11
- 00584
- CV

Dr. Theresa Hearn
- Haynes , Appellant

V. Candlelight Hills , Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2009
- 81797



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant , Dr. Theresa Hearn

- Haynes , has neither established indigence nor paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk = s record. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence), 37.3(b)2

(allowing dismissal of appeal if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s fault). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b) (allowi ng involuntary dismissal).
We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss all pending
motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Brown.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 137 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Take Our Daughters and Sons To Work 

Day. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 7 (legislative day, APRIL 5), 2011 

Mr. BURR (for himself, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mrs. HUTCHISON, and Mrs. HAGAN) 

submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Take Our Daughters 

and Sons To Work Day. 

Whereas the Take Our Daughters To Work Day program 

was created in New York City as a response to research 

that showed that, by the 8th grade, many girls were 

dropping out of school, had low self-esteem, and lacked 

confidence; 

Whereas, in 2003, the name of the program was changed to 

‘‘Take Our Daughters and Sons To Work Day’’ so that 

boys who face many of the same challenges as girls could 

also be involved in the program; 

Whereas the mission of the program, to develop ‘‘innovative 

strategies that empower girls and boys to overcome societal barriers to reach their full potential’’, now fully reflects the addition of boys; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 137 ATS 

Whereas the Take Our Daughters and Sons To Work Foundation, a nonprofit organization, has grown to become 1 

of the largest public awareness campaigns, with more 

than 33,000,000 participants annually in more than 

3,000,000 organizations and workplaces in every State; 

Whereas, in 2007, the Take Our Daughters To Work program transitioned to Elizabeth City, North Carolina, became known as the Take Our Daughters and Sons To 

Work Foundation, and received national recognition for 

the dedication of the Foundation to future generations; 

Whereas every year, mayors, governors, and other private and 

public officials sign proclamations and lend their support 

to Take Our Daughters and Sons To Work; 

Whereas the fame of the Take Our Daughters and Sons To 

Work program has spread overseas, with requests and inquiries being made from around the world on how to operate the program; 

Whereas Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day will be 

observed on Thursday, April 28, 2011; and 

Whereas Take Our Daughters and Sons To Work is intended 

to continue helping millions of girls and boys on an annual basis through experienced activities and events to 

examine their opportunities and strive to reach their fullest potential: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the goals of introducing our 

3 daughters and sons to the workplace; and 

4 (2) commends all the participants in Take Our 

5 Daughters and Sons To Work for their ongoing con6 tributions to education, and for the vital role the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 137 ATS 

1 participants play in promoting and ensuring a 

2 brighter, stronger future for the United States. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
# C_2019103EN.01005401.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/54

---

Action brought on 28 January 2019 — smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things)

(Case T-48/19)

(2019/C 103/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: smart things solutions GmbH (Seefeld, Germany) (represented by: R. Dissmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Samsung Electronics GmbH (Schwalbach am Taunus, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark smart:)things in colours black and green — European Union trade mark No 10 914 836

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2018 in Case R 835/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15985]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11478]

Determination Regarding Foreign Assistance to the Central 
Government of Nicaragua

    Pursuant to section 7047(c)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2021 (Div. K, Pub. 
L. 116-260) and section 7047(c)(1) of the FY 2020 SFOAA (Div. G, Pub. 
L. 116-94), I hereby determine that the Government of Nicaragua has 
recognized the independence of, or has established diplomatic relations 
with, the Russian Federation occupied Georgian territories of Abkhazia 
and Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register and 
on the Department of State website and, along with the accompanying 
Memorandum of Justification, shall be reported to Congress.

    Dated. June 16, 2021.
Antony J. Blinken,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-15985 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-23-P
```
exhibit1015.htm






  



  







  









December 9, 2008









Mr. James H. Tate

17605 Lasiandra Drive

Chesterfield, MO 63005





Re:           Completion of Duties as Acting Chief Financial Officer





Dear Jim:





Thank you for your many months of service as acting Chief Financial Officer during this time of transition for the Company.  This letter will memorialize the termination and full and complete satisfaction of the terms of a Letter Agreement governing your compensation as acting Chief Financial Officer, which you signed and dated March
26, 2008.  By signing below you indicate your concurrence that the Letter Agreement has been terminated and that its terms have been fully satisfied.  In addition, in recognition of your service to the Company the Human Resources and Nominating Committee of the Board of Directors has awarded you a special separation bonus in the amount of $100,000.





To formalize our understanding, please sign and return a counterpart of this letter to me at your earliest convenience.  Again Jim, we appreciate your service to the Company.



 





Sincerely,













Dennis R. Winkleman













ACCEPTED:









/s/ James H. Tate                                                      

James H. Tate, December 9, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of operations found on
pages F-2 and F-3 of the Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended May
31, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                  105,857
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            19,155
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                             155,893
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        296,654
<PP&E>                                  167,318
<DEPRECIATION>                           70,055
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          467,825
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   236,620
<BONDS>                                   7,295
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  1,288
<OTHER-SE>                               10,278
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            467,825
<SALES>                                 228,613
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        228,613
<CGS>                                   148,344
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           148,344
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       12,874
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (374,085)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (374,085)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                           (374,085)
<EPS-BASIC>                              (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.03)


</TABLE>
#### Homer C. Davidson *vs.*Sarah A. Davidson and others, Executors.

April 27, 1891.

Master and Servant — Negligence—Evidence.—The, evidence in an action for a personal injury *held*not sufficient to go to the jury on the question of the defendants’ negligence.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Eamsey county, Brill, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict directed for defendants, (executors of the last will of Wm. F. Davidson, deceased,) in an action to recover $20,000 for personal injuries.

*Davis, Kellogg dc Severance,*for appellant.

*Williams, Goodenow á Stanton,*for respondents.

Gilfillan, C. J.

Plaintiff was employed by the defendants in operating an elevator in a building, and while so engaged one of the iron weights by means of which the elevator is operated became detached from the iron rods by which the weights are suspended and kept in place, and, falling through the top of the elevator car or cab, injured plaintiff. To recover for the injury he brings this action. At the close of the evidence the court below directed, and the jury returned, a verdict for defendants. The direction of the court was right. In such actions the plaintiff must show that the injury occurred through negligence or want of care on the part of the defendant. If it is claimed to have occurred through the improper and dangerous condition of machinery with which plaintiff was at work, he must show that it was in a dangerous condition which proper care would have prevented, and that the injury was caused by that condition. It is not enough to prove the injury'. He must show that it was in consequence of want of care on the part of the defendant. In this *118case there’was no evidence to suggest how the weight came to be displaced; none to indicate that it was through any defect in the plan or construction of the elevator, or that in respect to the manner of keeping the weights in place the elevator differed from others; or to show that it was'prior to the injury in improper condition. ' Its condition just prior to the injury was not shown. We cannot conjecture from the testimony and the model placed before us how the weights could fall unless from positive interference by some person.

Order affirmed.