alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1506

AN ACT

To amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act (P.L. 104–

272).

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

3 That the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 (15

4 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) is amended by—

5 (1) redesignating section 15 as 16; and

6 (2) inserting after section 14 the following:
2

S 1506 ES

1 ‘‘SEC. 15. PROTECTION FROM EXPLOITATION.

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No person described in para3 graph (4), (5), (6), or (9) of section 2 may require a boxer

4 to employ, retain, or provide compensation to any individ5 ual or business enterprise (whether operating in corporate

6 form or not) designated by that person as a condition of—

7 ‘‘(1) such person’s working with the boxer as a

8 licensee, manager, matchmaker, or promoter;

9 ‘‘(2) such person’s arranging for the boxer to

10 participate in a professional boxing match; or

11 ‘‘(3) such boxer’s participation in a professional

12 boxing match.

13 ‘‘(b) ACTION TO ENFORCE CONTRACT.—In any ac14 tion brought against a boxer by any such person, individ15 ual, or business enterprise to recover money for acting as

16 a licensee, manager, matchmaker, or promoter for the

17 boxer, the amount awarded may be reduced or denied, not18 withstanding any agreement to the contrary, as violative

19 of public policy if that person, individual, or enterprise is

20 found by the court or administrative body before which

21 the action was brought to have violated subsection (a) with

22 respect to the boxer in connection with the subject of the
3

S 1506 ES

1 action. Nothing in this subsection affects the enforcement

2 of this Act under section 10.’’.

Passed the Senate November 9, 1997.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1506

AN ACT

To amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act (P.L.

104–272).
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20 - 0480

_________________ KYLE R. BABCOCK,

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CASEY ’ S MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Defendant and Appellee. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable Dan Wilson , Distri ct Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 28 2021

04/28/2021
Case Number: DA 20-0480
Cite as 2015 Ark. 6

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CV-14-585

JAMES TREE AND CRANE SERVICE,

INC., AND ROGER WILLIAMS

APPELLANTS

V.

TERRI FOUGHT

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered January 15, 2015

PETITION FOR JUDICIAL RELIEF

PETITION GRANTED; SHOWCAUSE ORDER ISSUED.

PER CURIAM

Appellants James Tree and Crane Service, Inc., and Roger Williams have filed a

petition for judicial relief seeking a further extension of time to file the record. As per their

request, this court previously, on July 31, 2014, issued a writ of certiorari for the court

reporter to complete the record within ten days. After granting an additional twenty-day

extension of time to lodge the record, on October 9, 2014, we granted a final sixty-day

extension of the writ for the record to be completed and filed with this court on December

8, 2014. On December 5, 2014, appellants filed the present petition stating that the court

reporter, Sheila Russell, had advised them that the record would not be completed by the

December 8, 2014 deadline. Appellants seek additional time for the court reporter to prepare

the record.

We find that the court reporter’s failure to comply with the writ of certiorari is good

cause to grant the petition, and we extend the time for filing the record to Wednesday,
Cite as 2015 Ark. 6

January 28, 2015. In addition, we order Sheila Russell to appear before this court on

Thursday, January 29, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. to show cause why she should not be held in

contempt for her failure to comply with the writ of certiorari, as previously ordered.

SHEILA RUSSELL IS FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT HER FAILURE TO

APPEAR ON JANUARY 29, 2015, COULD RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF A

BENCH WARRANT FOR HER ARREST WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE

APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY TO ARRANGE FOR HER

DELIVERY TO THIS COURT SO A SHOW-CAUSE HEARING CAN BE

CONDUCTED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE.

Petition granted; show-cause order issued.

Watts, Donovan & Tilley, P.A., by: Jim Tilley and Michael McCarty Harrison, for

appellants.

No response.

2
#### BYRNES v. LADEW et al.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.

January, 1896.)

Discover?—Existence op Cause of Action.

An order for the examination of a party before trial will not be granted where the purpose of it is to ascertain whether a cause of action exists against the party sought to be examined.

Action by John Byrnes against Edward R. Ladew and Joseph H. Ladew. Defendants moved to vacate an order for their examination before trial.

Granted.

Martin & Smith, for the motion.

Booth & Deane, opposed.

PRYOR, J.

As the defendants move, upon plaintiff’s own papers, to vacate the order for their examination before trial, the application, although on notice, is properly heard at part 2 of the special term. Code, § 772, last clause; Sturz v. Fischer (Sup.) 36 N. Y. Supp. 893. The complaint exhibits a cause of action against defendants for injury from a defective elevator. Upon allegations, in an affidavit, that the plaintiff is unable to “ascertain” whether the defendants or somebody else are responsible for his injury,—in other words, whether he has a cause of action against them,—he proposes to examine them “to ascertain” the fact of their liability. As said by Bartlett, J., in Churchman v. Merritt, 51 Hun, 375, 377, 4 N. Y. Supp. 245:

> “It would seem that the real purpose in the examination of the defendant is not to obtain knowledge of facts which will facilitate the statement [or proof] of a known and ascertained cause of action, but is rather to find out whether any cause of action whatever really exists in her behalf against these defendants. Under these circumstances, an examination of the defendant before trial is not authorized by the statute. To sanction it would be to permit investigations of the most harassing character, and give rise to a practice liable to great abuse.”

See Britton v. MacDonald, 3 Misc. Rep. 514, 23 N. Y. Supp. 350; Winston v. English, 44 How. Prac. 398.

The cases cited contra are not of authority to overthrow this principle. Sweeney v. Sturgis, 24 Hun, 162, was a decision by a divided court. Douglass v. Meyer (City Ct. N. Y.) 21 N. Y. Supp. 1091, was a ruling at special term. In Re Nolan, 24 N. Y. Supp. 238, 70 Hun, 536, the application was, before action brought, to take and perpetuate testimony; but, even as such, I question its propriety, since, surely, it was never the policy or purpose of the statute to permit an experiment of discovery whether a plaintiff have a cause of action against any person whom he may be pleased to implead and subject to the inquisition. A party may examine his adversary in order to frame his pleading, or complete his proof, but not to ascertain whether he has a cause of action or a defense against that adversary.

Motion granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1456 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                S. 1456

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 8, 1997

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To authorize an interpretive center at Fort Peck Dam, Montana.

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

SECTION 1. FORT PECK DAM INTERPRETIVE CENTER.

    (a) In General.--The Director of Fish and Wildlife shall design, 
construct, furnish, and equip an historical, cultural and 
paleontological interpretive center and museum to be located at Fort 
Peck Dam, Montana.
    (b) Coordination.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Director of 
Fish and Wildlife shall coordinate with officials of the Bureau of 
Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, United States Army Corps of 
Engineers and the Fort Peck Dam Interpretive Center and Museum.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section a total of $10,000,000. Funds 
appropriated are available until expended.

            Passed the Senate November 7, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1655 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1655

   To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl-1-
                               propanone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 1998

 Mr. Moynihan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl-1-
                               propanone.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new item:

      

``    9902.32.24     2-hydroxy-2-                                                                               
                      methyl-1-phenyl-                                                                          
                      1-propanone (CAS                                                                          
                      No. 7473-98-5)                                                                            
                      (provided for in                                                                          
                      subheading                                                                                
                      2914.40.40).....  Free              No change        No change        On or before 12/    
                                                                                             31/2000            
                                                                                                              ''

    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by this section applies with 
respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, 
on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40575 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARLOS MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-98-CR-361-1

-------------------- December 22, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The federal public defender appointed to represent Carlos Mendez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mendez has filed a response to counsel’s motion, asserting that the district court erred when it declined to suppress marijuana seized after an illegal stop, that his sentence was in violation of the Sentencing Guidelines, and that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to challenge the district court’sNo. 99-40575 -2- application of the guidelines. Mendez also suggests that he was not permitted to plead guilty. The record is adequately developed for us to reject Mendez’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel argument. See United States v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987); Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 692 (1994). Our independent review of the briefs and the record discloses no nonfrivolous appellate issue. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
First Amendment to Employee Agreement with Kirk A. Benson



 Exhibit 10.60.1 
 Amendment to Employment Agreement 
 This Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”) is
entered into as of 25 September 2007 (“Effective Date”), by and between Kirk A. Benson (the “Executive”) and Headwaters Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). 
 RECITALS 
 Headwaters and Executive entered
into an Employment Agreement effective 1 April 2005 (“Employment Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms and conditions of section 2(D) of the Employment Agreement, Headwaters granted to Executive an award to receive up to 25,000 shares of
Headwaters common stock, contingent on the future performance of Headwaters (“Performance Stock Award”). 
 Headwaters and
Executive wish to cancel the Performance Stock Award. 
 AGREEMENT 
 For good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Headwaters and Executive agree as follows: 
 Headwaters and Executive hereby agree to cancel the Performance Stock Award. Executive hereby releases all right, title, claim, and interest in the
Performance Stock Award and the parties hereby amend the Employment Agreement by deleting section 2(D) in its entirety. 
 Headwaters will
rely upon Executive’s agreement to cancel the Performance Stock Award and release of all rights related thereto. 
 Headwaters makes no
promise, express or implied, that Headwaters will grant any substitute Performance Stock Award or other equity incentive compensation as consideration for the cancelled Performance Stock Award. 
 This Agreement has no effect upon any other incentive compensation award or the Employment Agreement, except the Performance Stock Award referenced
above. All other terms of Employment Agreement remain unchanged. 
 Signatures on next page. 
  

 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above
written. 
  

							
	HEADWATERS INCORPORATED	 		 	
				
		 	/s/ Steven G. Stewart	 		 	/s/ Kirk A. Benson
	Name: 	 	Steven G. Stewart	 		 	Kirk A. Benson
	Title: 	 	CFO	 		 	

  

 2
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 43682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17017]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (21-054)]


Performance Review Board, Senior Executive Service (SES)

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of Membership of SES Performance Review Board.

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

SUMMARY: The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95-454 
(Section 405) requires that appointments of individual members to the 
Performance Review Board (PRB) be published in the Federal Register. 
The performance review function for the SES in NASA is being performed 
by the NASA PRB. The following individuals are serving on the Board:

Performance Review Board

Chairperson, Associate Administrator, NASA Headquarters
Deputy Associate Administrator, NASA Headquarters
Chief Human Capital Officer, NASA Headquarters
Associate Administrator for the Office of Diversity and Equal 
Opportunity, NASA Headquarters
Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, NASA 
Headquarters
Chief Information Officer, NASA Headquarters
Center Director, NASA Glenn Research Center

Cheryl Parker,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-17017 Filed 8-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23



                          Consent of Ernst & Young LLP


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Tuscarora Incorporated of our report dated October 15, 1999 included in the
Annual Report to Shareholders of Tuscarora Incorporated for the fiscal year
ended August 31, 1999.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Tuscarora
Incorporated listed in Item 14(a)(2). This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 33-35373 and 333-06111) pertaining to the 1989 Stock Incentive
Plan of Tuscarora incorporated; Form S-8 (No. 333-57833) pertaining to the 1997
Stock Incentive Plan of Tuscarora Incorporated; and Form S-8 (No. 333-35587)
pertaining to the Tuscarora Incorporated Common Stock Purchase Plan for Salaried
Employees of our report dated October 15, 1999 with respect to the financial
statements incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the
preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Tuscarora Incorporated.



                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                             --------------------------------
                                             Ernst & Young LLP



Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
November 24, 1999
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
 Food for Health of People and the Environment Lab: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC) Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center Food for Health of People and the Environment Lab People & Locations







William  Storey
                        Food for Health of People and the Environment Lab

                        




                        
                        Cook
                        Phone: (301) 504-8411
                        
                        
                        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
#### NOLTE v. LANGE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

January 31, 1896.)

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Board of Education of Dundee Central School District, Respondent, and Douglas Coleman, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[945 NYS2d 924]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Yates County (W. Patrick Falvey, A.J.), dated April 29, 2011. The judgment granted the petition to vacate that part of the Hearing Officer’s award imposing- a penalty of a suspension of six months and remitted the matter to a different hearing officer for the determination of an appropriate penalty.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is affirmed without costs.

*1543Same memorandum as in *Matter of Board of Educ. of Dundee Cent. School Dist. [Coleman]*(96 AD3d 1536 [2012]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey, Carni and Sconiers, JJ. [Prior Case History: 32 Misc 3d. 334.]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Audelis Cruz, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 502]

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered March 15, 2011, resentencing defendant to a term *504of 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]). In any event, the resentencing proceeding was superfluous. Although the original commitment sheet did not mention PRS, the original sentencing court had imposed it orally, notwithstanding the court’s trivial error in terminology *(see People v McFarland,*88 AD3d 547 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 860 [2011]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Freedman and Richter, JJ.