alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 64 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That in recognition of the long and distin3 guished service rendered to the Nation by Daniel K. 

4 Inouye, a Senator from the State of Hawaii and formerly 

5 a Representative from that State, his remains be per6 mitted to lie in state in the rotunda of the Capitol on De7 cember 20, 2012, and the Architect of the Capitol, under 

8 the direction of the Speaker of the House of Representa9 tives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, shall 

10 take all necessary steps for the accomplishment of that 

11 purpose. 

Passed the Senate December 18 (legislative day, December 17), 2012. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 64 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol 

Honorable Daniel K. Inouye. for the lying in state of the remains of the late
#### In the Matter of NORMAN H. SAMUELS, an attorney at law.

October 24, 1960.

For the order: *Mr. Abram A. Lebson.*

For the respondent: *Mr. Norman H. Samuels, pro se.*

Respondent reprimanded. Opinion reported at 33 *N. J.*321.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 6, 2017

No. 04-16-00209-CV

Candelaria GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

STATE FARM LLOYDS and Sylvia Garza,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC-15-106

Honorable Romero Molina, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The court has considered the appellant’s motion for en banc reconsideration, and the 

motion is DENIED.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of February, 2017.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 296 

Commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Combined Federal Campaign. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 18, 2011 

Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. CARPER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

NOVEMBER 14, 2011 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

NOVEMBER 16, 2011 

Considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Combined 

Federal Campaign. 

Whereas the Combined Federal Campaign was established 

pursuant to Executive Order 10927 (26 Fed. Reg. 2383) 

signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 18, 

1961; 

Whereas the Combined Federal Campaign is the only authorized charitable fundraising campaign for Federal employees, employees of the United States Postal Service, and 

members of the armed forces; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 296 ATS 

Whereas the Combined Federal Campaign operates in more 

than 119 localities throughout the United States, Puerto 

Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and overseas military installations; 

Whereas more than 20,000 nonprofit charitable organizations 

participate annually in the Combined Federal Campaign; 

Whereas the men and women of the Federal Government, the 

United States Postal Service, and the Armed Forces have 

contributed approximately $7,000,000,000 to local, national, and international charities over the past 50 years, 

making the Combined Federal Campaign the largest and 

most successful workplace charitable drive in the world; 

and 

Whereas commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Combined Federal Campaign will thank public servants whose 

generous contributions over the years have helped to feed 

hungry children, cure disease, comfort the sick and dying, 

protect the environment and natural resources of the 

United States, and offered hope to people and communities across the United States and worldwide: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate: 

2 (1) commemorates the 50th anniversary of the 

3 Combined Federal Campaign; 

4 (2) commends public servants of the United 

5 States for their unyielding dedication, generosity, 

6 and spirit of charitable giving; 

7 (3) calls upon the new generation of Federal 

8 employees, employees of the United States Postal 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

SRES 296 ATS 

1 Service, and members of the Armed Forces to par2 ticipate annually in the Combined Federal Cam3 paign; 

4 (4) encourages all Federal employees, employees 

5 of the United States Postal Service, and members of 

6 the Armed Forces to continue their philanthropic ef7 forts for the betterment of the less fortunate; and 

8 (5) urges the people of the United States to ob9 serve the 50th anniversary of the Combined Federal 

10 Campaign with appropriate ceremonies and activi11 ties. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2008284EN.01S00301.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, John Maxwell, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of FirstPlus Financial Group, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: March 31, 2008 By:  */s/ John Maxwell*    John Maxwell    Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS, INC.




2010 LONG-TERM EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN



     The 2010 Long-Term Equity Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) of Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. (the
“Company”) will be administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the
“Committee”). The Company’s executive officers and certain key employees (together, the “Eligible
Employees”) will be eligible to participate in the Plan.




	1.	 	Equity Awards.






	 	(a)	 	The Committee, in its sole discretion, may grant stock options to the Eligible
Employees to purchase a number of shares of Common Stock not to exceed 1.5% of the
Company’s aggregate total of issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock as of the grant
date, the exact number to be determined in the sole discretion of the Committee. The stock
options shall vest and become exercisable over four years, with 25% vesting on each
anniversary of the date of grant over the next four years.
	 
	 	(b)	 	The Committee, in its sole discretion, may also grant to the Eligible Employees a
number of shares of restricted Common Stock not to exceed 1.5% of the Company’s aggregate
total of issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock as of the grant date, the exact
number to be determined in the sole discretion of the Committee; provided that each share
of restricted Common Stock granted under the 2010 Plan shall be counted as 2.5 shares of
Common Stock for the purpose of the number of shares eligible to be granted to
participants. Any restricted stock awards shall vest over four years, with 25% vesting on
each anniversary date of the date of grant over the next four years provided the Company’s
adjusted EPS for its 2010 fiscal year (the “Current Year EPS”) exceeds the Company’s
budgeted EPS for its 2010 fiscal year. If the Company’s Current Year EPS does not exceed
the Company’s budgeted EPS for its 2010 fiscal year, all restricted stock awards granted
under the Plan shall be forfeited. The Committee shall certify whether the performance
criteria was met prior to March 31, 2011.






	2.	 	Allocation of Equity Awards. The Committee shall meet with the Company’s Chief
Executive Officer on or before March 31, 2010 to determine the allocation of the equity awards
to the Eligible Employees.






	3.	 	Vesting and Terms of Equity Awards. Any equity awards granted pursuant to the Plan
shall be issued under the Company’s Equity Incentive Plan and subject to all of the terms and
conditions of the Company’s Equity Incentive Plan and the Company’s Executive Performance
Incentive Plan.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 17, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00648-CR

IN RE JONATHAN DYER, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1686141

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 4, 2024, relator Jonathan Dyer filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Hazel 
2

Jones, presiding judge of the 174th District Court of Harris County, to rule on 

relator’s request for a hearing on his motion for speedy trial.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show that (1) he has no 

adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and (2) what he seeks to 

compel is a ministerial act, not a discretionary act. In re Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 

494–95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has a ministerial 

duty to consider and rule on motions properly filed and pending before it, and 

mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 

381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). For relator to 

be entitled to mandamus relief, the record must show (1) the motion was filed and 

brought to the attention of the respondent-judge for a ruling, and (2) the 

respondent-judge has not ruled on the motion within a reasonable time after the 

motion was submitted to the court for a ruling or after the party requested a ruling. 

In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. 

proceeding).

As the party seeking mandamus relief, relator has the burden of providing 

this court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Id. at 

73-74. Relator has neither provided this Court with a mandamus record to 

demonstrate that any pending motion has been filed nor has the relator shown that 

he has brought the pending motion to the attention of the respondent-judge for a 

ruling. Merely filing a motion with a court clerk does not show that the motion 

was brought to the trial court’s attention for a ruling because the clerk’s knowledge 

is not imputed to the trial court. In re Ramos, 598 S.W.3d 472, 473 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). The respondent-judge is not required 
3

to consider a motion that has not been called to the trial court’s attention by proper 

means. See Henry, 525 S.W.3d at 382. Relator has not made the requisite 

showing. 

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. 

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

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11



      STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER PARTNERSHIP INTEREST





<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Year                  Year                 Year
                                           Ended                 Ended                Ended
                                    December 31, 1997     December 31, 1996     December 31, 1995
                                    -----------------     -----------------     -----------------

<S>                                 <C>                   <C>                   <C>
Net loss-Limited Partners                 ($--)              ($4,824,512)         ($10,918,532)
                                          =====              ============         =============

Average Units Outstanding                   921                      921                   921
                                            ===                      ===                   ===

Net Loss Per Class A and B Unit           ($--)                  ($5,238)             ($11,855)
                                          =====                  ========             =========
</TABLE>
#### ASH, Respondent, v. ULSTER & D. R. Co., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 27, 1907.)

Action by Robert H. Ash against the Ulster & Delaware Railroad Company.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**Subsidiaries of Visual Networks, Inc.**

 

Visual Networks Operations, Inc. (DE) 

VisualNetworks Texas Operations, Inc. (DE) 

Visual Networks Insurance (VT) 

Visual Networks Ltd. (Bermuda) 

Net2Net, LLC (DE) 

Visual Networks UK Operations, Inc. (DE) 

Avesta Technologies, LLC (DE) 

Inverse Network Technology (CA) 

Visual Networks Investments, Inc. (CA) 

Visual Networks Technologies, Inc. (CA) 

Visual Networks, italia Srl (Italy)

Visual Networks International Operations, Inc. (DE) 

AvestaTechnologies Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,593
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  197,457
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,677
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               230,633
<PP&E>                                          57,955
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,574
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 761,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          177,084
<BONDS>                                        238,115
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              324
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     338,421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   761,999
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               850,487
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  567,568
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               204,003
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 63,559
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,697
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             36,862
<DISCONTINUED>                                  28,929
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    65,791
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.88
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Santos Rodriguez, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), rendered August 18, 1983, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life.

Judgment modified, on the law, by (1) vacating the sentence imposed and (2) vacating the persistent violent felony adjudication, and substituting therefor an adjudication that defendant is a second violent felony offender. As so modified, judgment affirmed, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing.

As the prosecution concedes, under the Court of Appeals decision in *People v Morse*(62 NY2d 205, *appeal dismissed sub nom. Vega v New York,*— US —, 105 S Ct 951), the sentencing court erred in adjudicating appellant to be a persistent violent felony offender. Defendant’s two prior violent felony convictions were rendered in September 1981 and October 1981, respectively. The conviction in October 1981 was for a crime committed prior to the imposition of the first sentence. In *People v Morse (supra),*the Court of Appeals held that Penal Law § 70.08 (1) (b) must be interpreted as requiring that the predicate violent felony offenses must have been committed sequentially, that is, the proposed second predicate violent felony offense must have been committed after sentence was imposed upon the first predicate violent felony offense. Thus, defendant’s prior convictions do not constitute two or more predicate convictions for the purpose of sentencing him as a persistent violent felony offender. Accordingly, that adjudication is vacated, defendant is adjudicated a second violent felony offender, and the matter is remitted for resentencing.

*750We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
# C_2016402EN.01005501.xml

| 31.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/55

---

Action brought on 7 September 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB

(Case T-645/16)

(2016/C 402/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board, apparently of 15 April 2016, at least in so far as that decision concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board, apparently of 15 April 2016, at least in so far as that decision concerns the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of a lack of (full) disclosure of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of a lack of (full) disclosure of the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001031002
<NAME>                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING II, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-26-1999
<CASH>                                             0
<SECURITIES>                             364,039,758
<RECEIVABLES>                              7,204,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         371,244,126
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           371,244,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      7,204,368
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                              309,278,400
<COMMON>                                  54,761,358
<OTHER-SE>                                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             371,244,126
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           7,254,260
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            7,254,260
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        7,254,260
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                               7,254,260
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0
        


</TABLE>