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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1338 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1338

To authorize the expenditure of certain health care funds by the Ponca 
                           Tribe of Nebraska.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 1997

  Mr. Kerrey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the expenditure of certain health care funds by the Ponca 
                           Tribe of Nebraska.

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

SECTION 1. SELF-DETERMINATION CONTRACT CARRY-OVER EXPENDITURE 
              AUTHORIZATION.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any funds that were 
provided to the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska for any of the fiscal years 
1992 through 1997 pursuant to a self-determination contract with the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services that the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska 
entered into under section 102 of the Indian Self-Determination and 
Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450f) that were retained by the 
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska to carry out programs and functions of the 
Indian Health Service may be used by the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska to 
purchase or build facilities for the health services programs of the 
Ponca Tribe of Nebraska.
                                 <all>
```
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
 Cattle Fever Tick Research Unit: Kerrville, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Kerrville, Texas Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory Cattle Fever Tick Research Unit People & Locations







Jacqueline  Garcia
                        Cattle Fever Tick Research Unit

                        




                        
                        Animal Caretaker
                        Phone: (956) 205-7694
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7

                     [SILVERLEAF RESORTS, INC. LETTERHEAD]


MEMORANDUM

DATE:     August 21, 1997

TO:       Sharon K. Brayfield and James B. Francis, Jr.

FROM:     Robert E. Mead

RE:       Tom Franks Home-1504 Cottonwood Valley Circle, Irving, Texas

==============================================================================

Per our discussion on Tuesday, august 19, 1997, Silverleaf Resorts, Inc.
entered into an agreement to purchase a house which would be rented to tom
Franks for a period of thirteen months for an amount that would cover monthly
principal, interest, homeowners associations dues, taxes and insurance. The
principal and interest will be deducted from Tom's payroll check monthly and
the homeowners associations dues, taxes and insurance will be reimbursed by Tom
to the company upon invoice.

Additionally, the house which cost $522,000.00 required a down payment of
$104,400.00 with a note payable of $417,600.00 at a favorable loan factor of
2.4 percentage points plus the Current Index which is the "Twelve Month Average
of One-Month LIBOR" rate as published each month by FNMA.

Tom will pay Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. eight percent (8%) interest on
$112,965.49 (down payment plus related closing costs of $14,857.93 less credits
of $6,292.44 for 1997 taxes) plus actual legal fees due to George Bedell of
approximately $500.00. This principal and interest will be due to Silverleaf on
the thirteenth month after closing.

Upon reaching the thirteenth month after closing. Tom will purchase the house
for the original purchase price or make other living arrangements.

This arrangement was necessary due to the lack of available housing in an
appropriate location on a lease basis.

Agreed:                            Agreed:


/s/ THOMAS C. FRANKS               /s/ SHARON K. BRAYFIELD
-----------------------            ------------------------------------------
Thomas C. Franks                   Sharon K. Brayfield, Executive Committee

                                   /s/ JAMES B. FRANCIS, JR.
                                   ------------------------------------------
                                   James B. Francis, Jr., Executive Committee

                                   /s/ ROBERT E. MEAD
                                   ------------------------------------------
                                   Robert E. Mead, Executive Committee
Exhibit 99.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Globus International Resources Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Herman Roth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; 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/ Herman Roth
-----------------
Herman Roth
Chief Financial Officer
August 23, 2002


                                 Page 17 of 17
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50776

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FELIPE RAMIREZ, also known as Felipe Ramirez-Gloria

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-546-ALL

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Felipe Ramirez

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v.

Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug.

28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-K FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       29
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (29)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (29)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (29)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          34,395
<SECURITIES>                                     1,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                       756
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,214
<PP&E>                                           5,684
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,409
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         48
<COMMON>                                            45
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,518
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,489
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,920
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,774
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,984
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   386
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,761
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,052
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,569 <F1>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,569
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.61

<FN>
<F1> AFTER DEDUCTING MINORITY INTEREST OF 140.
</FN>

</TABLE>
Document




July 30, 2021


Kathy Cullen-Cote






Dear Kathy,
As you know, Teradata has implemented a hybrid/virtual workplace model and revised its travel allowance policy for executives.  
As the company moves to a hybrid/virtual workplace model, it is expected that Section 16 Officers who live outside the San Diego area will not be required to work in our San Diego office and their primary work location will be their home office.  As a result, you will no longer be expected to relocate to San Diego. Your home office in Massachusetts will be your primary work location and the section of your offer letter dated June 21, 2019 entitled “Relocation” is hereby deleted and no longer effective.  
Additionally, the Compensation and Human Resource Committee (“Compensation Committee”) of the Teradata Board of Directors has revised the travel allowance for eligible executives.  Effective June 1, 2021, because you will be traveling to Teradata’s office in San Diego from time to time, you will be eligible to receive a $6,000 gross monthly allowance, subject to applicable taxes, to cover the cost of lodging, rental car, or ride services.  Airfare to/from the San Diego office will be treated as a business expense and reimbursed according to Teradata’s Travel and Expense policy.  This allowance shall be treated as taxable compensation to you but shall not be considered part of your normal or expected compensation for purposes of calculating severance payments, bonuses, long-service awards, or retirement benefits or similar payments.  Teradata shall have no other obligations to reimburse you for any costs related to these expenses, nor will it assume any liability for lease agreements should you wish to lease an apartment.  The section of your offer letter entitled “Travel Allowance” is hereby deleted and replaced by the new travel allowance policy. This allowance may be revisited by the Compensation Committee on an annual basis. 
If you have any questions as to these terms, please don’t hesitate to reach out.  Please sign below to indicate your acceptance of these changes to your offer letter and return a copy to me.  
Sincerely,
/s/ Traci Mazakas-Corp
Traci Mazakas-Corp
VP, Total Rewards & Workforce Enablement

Agreed and accepted:
/s/ Kathy Cullen-Cote                        8-1-21
________________________________________        _______________
Kathy Cullen-Cote                        Date
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4892

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

QUENTIN A. EICHELBERGER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (9:05-cr-0049-SB)

Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 28, 2007

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James A. Brown, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF JIM BROWN, PA, Beaufort, South

Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney,

Brent Alan Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Quentin A. Eichelberger pled guilty pursuant to a plea

agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute and distribution of a quantity of cocaine (Count 2), two

counts of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of

a quantity of cocaine (Counts 4 and 8), two counts of possession of

a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Counts 5 and

9), two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (Counts 6 and

7), and one count of possession with intent to distribute five

grams or more of cocaine base (Count 14), in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2), (c)(1)(A), (e)(1); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C); 846 (2000). The district court sentenced

Eichelberger to a total term of imprisonment of 437 months. On

appeal, Eichelberger contends his counsel provided ineffective

assistance by failing to object to the court’s imposition of a

twenty-five year mandatory minimum sentence on the second

§ 924(c)(1)(A) offense charged in Count 9. We affirm.

An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is generally

not cognizable on direct appeal, but should instead be asserted in

a post-conviction motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). See United

States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). However,

we have recognized an exception to the general rule when “it

‘conclusively appears’ from the record that defense counsel did not

provide effective representation.” Id. (quoting United States v.
- 3 -

Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582, 590 (4th Cir. 1994)). Because the record

does not conclusively establish that counsel was ineffective,

Eichelberger’s claim is not cognizable on appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,643
<SECURITIES>                                    61,117
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,181
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,647
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,652
<PP&E>                                          15,725
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,952
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 142,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,328
<BONDS>                                            706
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           258
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,249
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   142,541
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,165
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,259
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   503
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (920)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,437
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,974
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,463
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,463
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy J. Steinkopf, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                               
|/s/    TIMOTHY J.
STEINKOPF                                    
|Timothy J. Steinkopf                                           
|Senior Vice President of Operations and Chief Financial Officer



March 16, 2007
# C_2019280EN.01004401.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/44

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Tognoli v Parliament

(Case T-395/19)

(2019/C 280/61)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo Tognoli (Milan, 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.

---