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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 151 

Congratulating the University of Minnesota Duluth men’s ice hockey team 

on winning their first National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) 

Division I Men’s Hockey National Championship. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2011 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the University of Minnesota Duluth men’s 

ice hockey team on winning their first National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Men’s 

Hockey National Championship. 

Whereas on Saturday, April 9, 2011, the University of Minnesota Duluth won the 2011 NCAA Division I Men’s Ice 

Hockey Championship; 

Whereas this is the first national championship for the University of Minnesota Duluth Bulldogs men’s ice hockey 

team (the ‘‘University of Minnesota Duluth’’); 

Whereas the University of Minnesota Duluth won the Frozen 

Four championship game with a 3 to 2 sudden death win 

over the University of Michigan; 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 151 IS 

Whereas on Thursday, April 7, 2011, the University of Minnesota Duluth defeated the University of Notre Dame in 

the Frozen Four semifinal game with a score of 4 to 3 

to advance to the national championship game; 

Whereas the game was played before a sellout crowd of more 

than 19,200 fans at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, 

Minnesota; 

Whereas the University of Minnesota Duluth finished the 

2010–2011 season with the most wins since the 2003– 

2004 season; 

Whereas in the 2010–2011 season the University of Minnesota Duluth had the most fans for a home schedule in 

50 Division I seasons, averaging more than 6,800 fans; 

Whereas the University of Minnesota Duluth never lost more 

than 1 game in a row, a first in program history; and 

Whereas the University of Minnesota Duluth had 6 wins and 

1 loss in the postseason, closing with 4 straight wins and 

beating the top 2 teams in the Eastern College Athletic 

Conference in the East Regional and the top 2 teams in 

the Central Collegiate Hockey Association in the Frozen 

Four: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the achievements of the players, 

3 coaches, students, and staff whose hard work and 

4 dedication helped the University of Minnesota Du5 luth win the 2011 NCAA Division I Men’s Hockey 

6 National Championship; and 

7 (2) recognizes University of Minnesota Duluth 

8 Chancellor Lendley Black and Athletic Director Bob 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 151 IS 

1 Nielson, who have shown great leadership in bring2 ing athletic success to the University of Minnesota 

3 Duluth. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Document

Exhibit 10.4
Annex B            

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
MAGNOLIA OIL & GAS CORPORATION
LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 thereof, the Magnolia Oil & Gas Corporation Long Term Incentive Plan, as amended from time to time (the “Plan”), is hereby amended as follows, effective as of May 4, 2021, subject to the approval of the shareholders of Magnolia Oil & Gas Corporation (the “Company”) at the Company’s 2021 annual meeting of shareholders: 
1.      Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 
(a)    Number of Shares Available for Delivery.  Subject to adjustment in a manner consistent with Section 8, the aggregate number of shares of Stock that are reserved and available for delivery with respect to Awards under the Plan shall not exceed, since the Plan’s original inception, 16,800,000 shares (which aggregate maximum number of shares is comprised of the 11,800,000 shares previously reserved and available plus an additional 5,000,000 shares that shall be reserved and available as of May 4, 2021), and such aggregate total number of shares shall be available for the issuance of shares upon the exercise of ISOs.         
2.    Section 4(c) of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 
(c)    Availability of Shares Not Delivered under Awards.  If all or any portion of an Award expires or is cancelled, forfeited, exchanged, settled in cash or otherwise terminated without the actual delivery of shares (Awards of Restricted Stock shall not be considered “delivered shares” for this purpose), the shares of Stock subject to such Award (including (i) shares forfeited with respect to Restricted Stock, and (ii) the number of shares withheld or surrendered to the Company in payment of taxes relating to Awards other than Options and SARs) shall again be available for delivery with respect to future Awards under the Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (A) the number of shares tendered or withheld in payment of the Exercise Price of any Option or SAR or taxes relating to an Option or SAR, (B) shares that were subject to an Option or SAR but were not issued or delivered as a result of the net settlement or net exercise of such Option or SAR, or (C) shares repurchased on the open market with the proceeds of an Option’s Exercise Price will not, in each case, be available for future Awards under the Plan.  If an Award may be settled only in cash, such Award need not be counted against any share limit under this Section 4.  
3.    Except as expressly amended herein, the Plan remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank]
#### Lisa G. Kandell, Appellant, v Cornell University, Respondent.

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated December 18, 1984, which granted defendant’s motion for a change of venue from Nassau County to Tompkins County.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The determination under review was not an abuse of discretion. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 27

     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
December 31, 1996 Financial Statements included in Form 10-K and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

                       In millions, except per share data

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000,000

<S>                             <C>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                        YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1996    DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1996    DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                            224           177
<SECURITIES>                                      599             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     800           890
<ALLOWANCES>                                      141           106
<INVENTORY>                                       103            86
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,698         1,143
<PP&E>                                          5,532         4,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                    786           646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  9,275         8,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,391         1,459
<BONDS>                                         4,191         3,840
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0             0
<PREFERRED>                                         0             0
<COMMON>                                        2,897         2,944
<OTHER-SE>                                        177            (8)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    9,275         8,692
<SALES>                                             0             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                6,597         6,252
<CGS>                                               0             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   5,869         5,684
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (1)           (5)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   55            68
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                230           291
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   499           282
<INCOME-TAX>                                      210           114
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               249           147
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0             0
<CHANGES>                                           0             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      249           147
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    2.11          1.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2.11          1.24



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RONALD PORTIS AND MARDRIC E. LANCE, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CITY OF CHICAGO, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 02 C 3139 

Judge Thomas M. Durkin 

THE CITY OF CHICAGO’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

 The City of Chicago respectfully moves this Court for judgment as a matter of law under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) because: (1) plaintiffs have failed to put forth evidence sufficient to show 

that the length of their detentions from arrest to release were unreasonable in violation of the 

Fourth Amendment; and (2) plaintiffs have not established that a City official policy or custom 

caused any deprivation of plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights through its deliberate indifference 

to the known and obvious consequences of its official policy. For these reasons, and those set 

forth in the attached Memorandum in Support of this motion, plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of 

law, and judgment should be entered in favor of the City. 

 

Case: 1:02-cv-03139 Document #: 749 Filed: 10/16/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:13528
2 

CONCLUSION 

 WHEREFORE, for the reasons explained above, and in the attached Memorandum in 

Support of this motion, and based on the evidence set forth in the record, the City of Chicago 

respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion for judgment as a matter of law and enter 

judgment in its favor. 

Dated: October 16, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Matthew C. Singer

June K. Ghezzi, Bar No. 6185506 

 jkghezzi@jonesday.com

Brian J. Murray, Bar No. 6272767 

 bjmurray@jonesday.com

Morgan R. Hirst, Bar No. 6275128 

 mhirst@jonesday.com

Mark W. DeMonte, Bar No. 6282734 

mdemonte@jonesday.com 

Matthew C. Singer, Bar No. 6297632 

mcsinger@jonesday.com 

JONES DAY 

77 West Wacker Drive 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692 

(312) 782-3939 

ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANT 

Case: 1:02-cv-03139 Document #: 749 Filed: 10/16/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:13529
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 16, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system that will send notification of such filing to the 

following at their e-mail address on file with the Court:

Thomas G. Morrissey 

10249 S. Western Avenue 

Chicago, Illinois 60643 

(773) 239-0387 

Mark G. Weinberg 

3612 N. Tripp Avenue 

Chicago, Illinois 60641 

(773) 283-4878 

Robert H. Farley, Jr. 

1155 S. Washington Street 

Naperville, Illinois 60540 

(630) 369-0195 

Judson H. Miner

Miner, Barnhill & Galland 

14 West Erie Street 

Chicago, IL 60610 

(312) 751-0438 

Michael Kanovitz 

Loevy & Loevy 

312 N. May St., Suite 100 

Chicago, IL 60607 

(312) 243-5902 

 s/ Matthew C. Singer

 Matthew C. Singer 

 

Case: 1:02-cv-03139 Document #: 749 Filed: 10/16/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:13530
**Exhibit 31.****2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Steven Leidenfrost, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Asta Funding, Inc.; and

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

 

| /s/   Steven Leidenfrost                        |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Steven Leidenfrost                                                                                                         |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                    |   |
| (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)                               |   |

 

Date: January 27, 2020

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff per request.
734 A.2d 1289

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Robert Wade DICK, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Aug. 3, 1999.

Decided Sept. 9, 1999.

Jaime M. Keating, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., M.L. Ebert, Jr., Dist. Atty., District Attorney’s Office, for Com.

Ellen K. Barry, Asst. Public Defender, Taylor P. Andrews, Public Defender, Public Defender’s Office, for Robert Wade Dick.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Based upon our disposition in *Commonwealth v. Williams,*557 Pa. 285, 733 A.2d 593 (1999), we affirm the Order of the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas dated April 29, 1998. Furthermore, we remand the matter to the common pleas court for disposition of any remaining issues.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eugene Hutchinson, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 879] —

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obus, J.), rendered October 28, 2010, resentencing defendant, as a second felony offender, to a term of 14 years, with five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The resentencing proceeding imposing a term of postrelease supervision was neither barred by double jeopardy nor otherwise unlawful *(see People v Lingle,*16 NY3d 621 [2011]). Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1110

To amend title 28, United States Code, to place a limitation on habeas

corpus relief that prevents retrial of an accused.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 1997

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, to place a limitation

on habeas corpus relief that prevents retrial of an accused.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Victim Protection Act

5 of 1997’’.

6 SEC. 2. HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF LIMITATION.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2243 of title 28, United

8 States Code, is amended in the last paragraph by inserting

9 before the period at the end the following: ‘‘, except that

10 the court shall not prohibit the retrial of the person de-
2

•S 1110 IS

1 tained, unless the court finds an infringement of the dou2 ble jeopardy, speedy trial, or ex post facto rights of the

3 person, or finds that the law under which the person was

4 convicted violates the Constitution. In the event of a re5 trial of the person detained, the trial shall be conducted

6 in accordance with the findings of the court’’.

7 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by this

8 section shall apply to any case pending or commenced on

9 or after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41350 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
PABLO MARTINEZ

- RAMIREZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15

- CR

- 394

- 1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pablo Martinez

Ramirez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez

- Ramirez h a s not file d a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 21 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41350 Document: 00513557505 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2016No. 15

- 41350

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-41350 Document: 00513557505 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Commodity Protection and Quality Research: Parlier, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center
                                    Crop Diseases, Pests and Genetics Research
                                    Water Management Research
                                    National Arid Land Plant Genetic RepositorySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Parlier, California San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center Commodity Protection and Quality Research People & Locations





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People

People and Locations at Parlier, California   [Expand All] [Collapse All]
  (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 21, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00759

- CV

Carolyn Jane BABBITT

, Appellant

v.

Ronald Hugh BELOW

, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 64

Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellee’s first motion for extension of time to file her brief is GRANTED. Appell ee ’s

brief is due on May 9, 2014

.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 21st day of March, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Cl erk of Court
#### AMERICAN ICE CO., Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by the American Ice Company against the city of New York and another. A. Stickney, for appellant. T. Connoly, for respondents.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET  AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             464
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,847
<INVENTORY>                                      3,262
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,720
<PP&E>                                          28,872
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,611
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,263
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,516
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,927
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,263
<SALES>                                        150,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               150,232
<CGS>                                           71,818
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  138,373
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,009<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,849
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,001
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,187
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,814
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,814
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32
<FN>
<F1>OTHER EXPENSES ARE COMPRISED OF $1,584 RELATED TO MERGER COSTS INCURRED IN
CONNECTION WITH A POOLING TRANSACTION IN NOVEMBER 1996, $300 RELATED TO THE
WRITE-OFF OF DEFERRED OFFERING COSTS AS A RESULT OF THE CANCELLATION ON DECEMBER
30, 1996 OF A REGISTRATION OF SHARES OF THE COMPANY'S COMMON STOCK, AND $1,125
RELATED TO A CHARGE REFLECTING THE COMPANY'S CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS UNDER
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO CERTAIN FORMER OWNERS OF ACQUIRED
BUSINESSES WHO ARE NO LONGER INVOLVED IN OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>