alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2496 

AN ACT 

To extend the authorization for the replacement of the existing Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in 

Denver, Colorado, to make certain improvements in the 

Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2496 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Construction Author3 ization and Choice Improvement Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION FOR MAJOR MED5 ICAL FACILITY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 

6 PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

8 may carry out the replacement of the existing Department 

9 of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Denver, Colorado, 

10 in fiscal year 2015, in an amount not to exceed 

11 $900,000,000. 

12 (b) LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS.—Not13 withstanding section 8104(c) of title 38, United States 

14 Code, or any other provision of law, funds may not be obli15 gated or expended for the project described in subsection 

16 (a) in an amount that would cause the total amount obli17 gated for that project to exceed the amount specified in 

18 the law for that project (or would add to total obligations 

19 exceeding such specified amount). 
3 

•HR 2496 EH

1 SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FOR 

2 EXPANDED AVAILABILITY OF HOSPITAL 

3 CARE AND MEDICAL SERVICES FOR VET4 ERANS THROUGH THE USE OF AGREEMENTS 

5 WITH NON-DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AF6 FAIRS ENTITIES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 101(b)(2) of the Veterans 

8 Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (Public 

9 Law 113–146; 38 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended— 

10 (1) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘(as cal11 culated based on distance traveled)’’ after ‘‘40 

12 miles’’; and 

13 (2) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by striking sub14 clause (II), and inserting the following new sub15 clause (II): 

16 ‘‘(II) faces an unusual or exces17 sive burden in traveling to such a 

18 medical facility of the Department 

19 based on— 

20 ‘‘(aa) geographical chal21 lenges; 

22 ‘‘(bb) environmental factors, 

23 such as roads that are not acces24 sible to the general public, traf25 fic, or hazardous weather; 
4 

•HR 2496 EH

1 ‘‘(cc) a medical condition 

2 that impacts the ability to travel; 

3 or 

4 ‘‘(dd) other factors, as de5 termined by the Secretary.’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact8 ment of this Act and apply with respect to care or services 

9 provided on or after such date. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2496 

AN ACT 

To extend the authorization for the replacement of 

other purposes. Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, and for tain improvements in the Veterans Access, Medical Center in Denver, Colorado, to make certhe existing Department of Veterans Affairs
#### Blaylock & Partners, L.P., Respondent, v 609 Fifth Avenue Partners L.L.C., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Submitted November 20, 2006;

decided January 16, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### William Breeding v. The State.

Where the defendant was convicted of an offense and appealed, but the recognizance did not state the offense, nor any offense known to the law, this court has no jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2731, Note 708; Horton v. The State, 30 Tex., 191.)

Appeal from Fayette. The case was tried before Hon. Isaac B. McFarland, one of the district judges.

*95The appellant, a freedman, was found guilty of adultery, and fined $100. He appealed, but the recognizance did not state the offense.

*M B. Turner, Attorney General,*

moved to dismiss the appeal, because the recognizance did not state the offense.

*Moore Ledbetter,*for appellant,

argued upon the merits.

Morrill, O. J.

— The attorney general, in behalf of the state, requests that the appeal be dismissed for want of a legal recognizance.

On an examination of the record it appears that the said Breeding gave notice of appeal to this court, but the record does not disclose that he was committed to jail or entered into a recognizance, and without one of them jurisdiction in this court does not attach.

There is in the record what purports to be a recognizance, but inasmuch as it does not contain either the name of the offense with which the appellant is charged, or that of any offense against the laws of the state, it is not a legal recognizance. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2731.)

This is no new principle, but simply a repetition of what has been declared in numerous cases heretofore by this court. (Paschal’s Dig., Note 708.) Motion sustained.

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit 10.14.3**

**AmendmentNo. 8 the “Amendment”) To**

**EmploymentAgreement (the “Employment Agreement”) between**

**C. Douglas Kranwinkle (“Employee”) and Univision Management Co. (“Company”)**

Employeeand Company agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

1.             **Term**.  The Term of the Employment Agreement isextended through December 31, 2009, unless earlier terminated in accordancewith the provisions of the Employment Agreement.

2.             **Base****Salary**.  The annual Base Salary rate willbe Seven Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($770,000) for the period of theTerm from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2009.

3.             **Effective Date of Amendment**.  Upon execution by Employee and Company, thisAmendment will become effective as of January 1, 2007.

4.             **Other**.  Except as provided in this Amendment, allother terms and conditions in the Employment Agreement will remain in fullforce and effect, and the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is ratifiedand confirmed.

**UNIVISIONMANAGEMENT COMPANY**

 

 
| By:    |      /s/ Robert Cahill                      |   |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |      Robert Cahill                          |   |
|   |      Vice Chairman and  Corporate Secretary |   |

 

 
| By:    |      /s/ C. Douglas Kranwinkle |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |      C. Douglas Kranwinkle     |

 

----
EX-10.10





 Exhibit 10.10 

AMENDMENT TO THE 
 GINKGO
BIOWORKS, INC. 
 2014 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 

Effective May 1, 2019 
 This
Amendment to the Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc. 2014 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”) is effective as of the date first set forth above, such amendment having been approved by the Board of Directors of Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on April 8, 2019 and approved by the holders of a majority of the Company’s outstanding shares of voting capital stock on April 15, 2019, in each case in accordance with
Section 11(d) of the Plan. Capitalized but undefined terms shall have the meanings provided in the Plan. 
 As of result of the
foregoing approvals, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 1.     Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “(a) Number of Shares. Subject to adjustment under Section 9, Awards may be made
under the Plan (any or all of which Awards may be in the form of Incentive Stock Options (as defined in Section 5(b)) for up to such number of shares of common stock, $0.01 par value per share, of the Company (the “Common
Stock”), as is equal to the sum of: 
 (1) 504,504; and 

(2) the number of shares of Common Stock subject to awards granted under the Existing Plan which awards expire, terminate
or are otherwise surrendered, canceled, forfeited or repurchased by the Company pursuant to a contractual repurchase right (subject, however, in the case of Incentive Stock Options to any limitations of the Code); and. 

If any Award expires or is terminated, surrendered or canceled without having been fully exercised, is forfeited in whole or in part
(including as the result of shares of Common Stock subject to such Award being repurchased by the Company at the original issuance price pursuant to a contractual repurchase right), or results in any Common Stock not being issued, the unused Common
Stock covered by such Award shall again be available for the grant of Awards under the Plan. Further, shares of Common Stock tendered to the Company by a Participant to exercise an Award shall be added to the number of shares of Common Stock
available for the grant of Awards under the Plan. However, in the case of Incentive Stock Options, the two immediately preceding sentences shall be subject to any limitations under the Code. Shares issued under the Plan may consist in whole or in
part of authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares.” 
 The undersigned, being the duly elected and acting Secretary of the
Company, hereby certifies that the foregoing amendment was duly approved and adopted by the Board of Directors and the Stockholders of the Company effective as of the date first referenced above. 

 

			
	By:	 	 /s/  Bartholomew Canton

		 	      Bartholomew Canton, Secretary
#### Raymond M. Gibbons, Jr., et al., Respondents, v Common Council of the City of Buffalo et al., Appellants.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs, for reasons stated at Special Term, Flaherty, J. (Appeals from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — declaratory judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Schnepp, JJ.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50015

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

0.11 ACRES OF LAND, ETC., ET Al., 

 Defendants,

WALTER W. COOPER,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-92-CA-858

- - - - - - - - - -

December 5, 1995

Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Walter W. Cooper, proceeding pro se, appeals the district

court's decision in the condemnation proceeding initiated by the

Solicitor of the Department of the Interior regarding the taking
No. 95-50015

-2-

of his property under the power of eminent domain for use in the

San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. 

Cooper contests the district court's finding that he was

entitled to compensation for only the subject property. He also

contests the method used to appraise the property and the value

determined by the court as "just compensation." 

The district court determined that the United States met its

burden on the issue of eminent domain but that Cooper was

entitled to $1,500 as just compensation. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's memorandum ruling and find no

clear error.

Cooper also contends that he did not acquiesce in the

taking, that he should have been allowed to accompany the

appraiser for the appraisal, and that the United States purchased

property that does not belong to him. Cooper failed to present

these issues to the district court; thus, this court will not

consider them. 

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.

AFFIRMED
#### AmBase Corporation, Appellant, v Pryor Cashman Sherman & Flynn LLP et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 16, 2007;

decided March 22, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
**CERTIFICATION      IN ACCORDANCE WITH**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED BY**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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/ Jennifer S.              LeBlanc                                |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Jennifer S. LeBlanc                                                      |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting              Officer   |
|   |   | Date: May 11,              2007                                          |

----
#### TORREY, Appellant, v. WATERS et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.

Action by David M. Torrey against Francis A. Waters and others.

Howard A. Sperry (Henry Cooper, of counsel), for appellant.

D. M. De Witt, for respondents.

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial upon, the minutes of the court after the rendition of the verdict. The question involved was before this general term on an appeal from an order of the special term vacating an order of arrest. We then decided that the defendants perpetrated no fraud, and that decision justified the order appealed from now. Torrey v. Waters, 69 Hun, 614, 23 N. Y. Supp. 1145. The order-should be affirmed, with costs.
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Inclement Weather - August 7, 2023

Due to inclement weather, the Court of Federal Claims will close at 3:00pm today August 7, 2023.

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
Order filed August 20, 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00292

- CV

____________ THE CITY OF SUGAR LA ND , Appellant

V. LEON KAPLAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court C ause No. 12

- DCV

- 200051



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed April 24, 2014 . Our review has determined that a relevant
item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain Order Overruling Defendant’s Plea to the J urisdiction dated March 26, 2014.
The Fort Bend County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on or before August 29, 2014, containing Order Overruling Defendan t’s Plea to the Jurisdiction
dated March 26, 2014.

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of
the case file.

P ER CURIAM
Listen

# Commission Business Meetings

The Commission meets monthly to conduct agency business on civil rights matters. Pursuant to the Sunshine Act, meetings of official business of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are open to the public, apart from executive sessions, which may be closed pursuant to the exemptions of the Sunshine Act.

People with disabilities are always encouraged to attend Commission meetings. Those who plan to attend a meeting and require accommodations should notify USCCR via email to access@usccr.gov, as soon as possible to allow time to make arrangements.

Hearing-impaired persons who wish to attend a meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at signlanguage@usccr.gov at least seven business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

If you require additional information on any commission meeting please contact:

Angelia RorisonDirector of Media and Communications(202) 376-8371

View Commission business meeting dates for 2024 as passed by majority vote of USCCR Commissioners.

Commission Subcommittee Meeting on Site Visit to Virginia Regarding Subminimum Wages
Event Date: March 3, 2020

Commission Business Meeting
Event Date: February 28, 2020

Commission Business Meeting
Event Date: January 30, 2020

-    First  
-    Previous  
-   ...  
-  7 
-  8 
-  9 

-  Event Calendar 
-  Public Briefings 
-  Commission Business Meetings 
-  Advisory Committees Meetings 
-  Archives
386 P.2d 85

#### Francis Roy LUTZ and Gladys Pearl Lutz, his wife, Appellants, v. Joe August FAITH and Rose Faith, his wife, Appellees.

No. 7273.

Supreme Court of Arizona. En Banc.

Oct. 30, 1963

Lewis, Roca, Scoville, Beauchamp & Linton, by John P. Frank, Phoenix, for appellants.

Baumann & Rosengren, Scottsdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was defendant in a negligence action. He appeals from a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The only assignment of error is that in his charge on contributory negligence the trial judge used the permissive “may” rather than the mandatory “must” in instructing the jury on whether they should return a verdict for the defendant if they found the plaintiff contributorily negligent.

Appellant concedes that our decision in Layton v. Rocha, 90 Ariz. 369, 368 P.2d 444 is controlling on this point, but asks us to reconsider and overrule that decision. We are of the opinion that our decision in Lay-ton v. Rocha, supra, was correct, adequately explained the reason for the rule, and we are disposed neither to overrule nor to enlarge on the decision in that case.

Affirmed.
BRIAN QUINN
Chief Justice

JAMES T. CAMPBELL Justice

MACKEY K. HANCOCK Justice

PATRICK A. PIRTLE Justice 

# Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas Potter County Courts Building

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 2-A Amarillo, Texas 79101-2449 www.txcourts.gov/7thcoa.aspx VIVIAN LONG
Clerk

MAILING ADDRESS:

P. O. Box 9540

79105-9540

(806) 342-2650

March 18, 2015

Jeffrey S. Ford
Assistant Criminal District Attorney
P.O. Box 10536 Lubbock, TX 79408

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Julie Goen Panger
THE KIECHLER LAW FIRM PLLC
619 Broadway Lubbock, TX 79401

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Numbers: 07-14-00389-CR, 07-14-00410-CR
Trial Court Case Numbers: 2013-437,920, 2013-400,018

Style: Steven Regalado v. The State of Texas

Dear Counsel:

State’s brief is filed Tuesday, March 17, 2015.

Very truly yours, 

# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK
**Exhibit 4.4**

14 May 2015 

Dear Paul 

**PRUDENTIAL PLC - LETTER OF EXTENSION**

As you are aware,the Board of Prudential plc has agreed to extend your appointment as Chairman for a period of three years, to expire at the conclusion of the 2018 Annual General Meeting. Your fee will be £700,000 p.a. with effect from 1 July 2015, and tobe reviewed annually from 2016. 

All other terms and conditions remain as detailed in your letter of appointment dated 28 May 2012 and yourappointment remains subject to annual re-election by shareholders. 

If you have any queries please contact the Company Secretary. 

Yours sincerely 

/s/ P Remnant 

Philip Remnant 

Senior Independent Director 

Prudential plc
#### Samuel L. Earle v. George M. Johnson et al.

The stay law of 1866 is unconstitutional, upon the principle decided in Jones v. McMahan *et al.,*30 Tex., 719.

Error from Smith. The case. was tried before Hon. Reuben A. Reeves, one of the district judges.

Earle, having recovered a small judgment against Payne, ordered an execution, which Johnson, the clerk, refusing to issue, Earle prayed for a mandamus to compel the issuance of the execution.

The defendants filed a demurrer, setting up the stay law as a defense. The court sustained the demurrer, and thus Johnson stood with a judgment for which he could get no execution. Earle prosecuted error.

Ho brief for plaintiff in error has been furnished to the *Reporter.*

*165
      *Stephen JRéaves,*for defendants in error.

— In this case it was insisted by the defendants in error that the constitution does not restrain the legislature from passing laws changing the remedy for enforcing contracts, if the obligation of the contract is not impaired. (13 B. Monr., 285; 4 Cranch, 396; 4 Wheat., 245.) The legislature may vary the nature and extent of the remedy, and prescribe the times and modes in which remedies shall be pursued, &c. (Woodfin v. Hooper, 4 Humph., 13.) An act abolishing imprisonment for debt, by which all persons then imprisoned on process in civil causes were discharged, is constitutional. (Fisher v. Lackey, 6 Blackf., 373; Gray v. Munroe, 1 McLean, 528; Mason v. Hail, 12 Wheat., 370.) A law which regulates the issuing of executions on judgments previously rendered affects the remedy merely, and is not *ex post facto,*nor does it impair the obligation of a contract. (United States Bank v. Longworth, 1 McLean, 35.) The particular attention of the court is invited to the case last cited.

Ho one will doubt the authority of the legislature to grant a stay of execution for sixty or ninety days; then, if it can grant the stay of sixty days, can it not grant a stay of one hundred days, or even one or two years, as necessity might require. It affects the remedy only. This the legislature has a right to do, provided it does not impair the obligation of the contract.

Mobbill, O. J.

—The questions at issue in this case are identical with those in the case of Jones v. McMahan, decided at the present term of the court during the Galveston session. [30 Tex., 719.]

Bor the reasons stated in said cause, it is ordered that the judgment be reversed, and it is further ordered that the clerk of the district court be ordered to issue the execution as requested.

Bevebsed and obdebed acooedingly.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roberto DiLucca, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered November 15, 1984, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Thorp, J.), after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and of certain statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to the police is granted to the extent that all of the defendant’s postarrest statements are suppressed, and a new trial is ordered; the facts have been considered and are determined to have been established.

As the People concede, the *Miranda*warnings administered to the defendant by Officer Simon were insufficient because the defendant was not advised that he had the right to consult with an attorney prior to and during the course of any police questioning *(see, People v Hutchinson,*59 NY2d 923; *People v Bracero,*117 AD2d 740). As a result, all of the defendant’s postarrest statements, including those made to Detective Knox and Officer Simon at the police precinct later in the morning on the day of the crime should have been suppressed *(see, People v Chapple,*38 NY2d 112). Here the prosecution relied heavily upon contradictions in the defendant’s statements as circumstantial evidence of guilt. Therefore, the error may not be considered harmless *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230).

We agree with the People that probable cause to arrest the defendant existed when he was taken into custody *(see, People v Cook,*68 NY2d 830).

In light of our determination herein, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contentions. Niehoff, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Eiber, JJ., concur.