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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5703 

To permit the advertising and sale of lottery tickets within certain areas 

of the District of Columbia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 1, 2010 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To permit the advertising and sale of lottery tickets within 

certain areas of the District of Columbia. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMITTING ADVERTISING AND SALE OF LOT4 TERY TICKETS WITHIN CERTAIN AREAS AND 

5 SALE OF TICKETS BY BLIND VENDORS WITH6 IN FEDERAL ENCLAVE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The paragraph under the heading 

8 ‘‘Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund’’ in the 

9 District of Columbia Appropriation Act, 1982 (Public Law 

10 97–91; 95 Stat. 1174), as amended by section 134(a)(1) 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5703 IH

1 of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1990 

2 (Public Law 101–168; 103 Stat. 1282), is amended by 

3 striking the 10th proviso. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

5 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact6 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20649-20650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-513-007]

Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate

April 18, 2001.
    Take notice that on April 13, 2001, Questar Pipeline Company's 
(Questar) tendered for filing a tariff filing to implement a 
negotiated-rate contract as authorized by Commission orders issued 
October 27, 1999, and December 14, 1999, in Docket Nos. RP99-513, et 
al. The Commission approved Questar's request to implement a 
negotiated-rate option for Rate Schedules T-1, NNT, T-2, PKS, FSS and 
ISS shippers. Questar submitted its negotiated-rate filing in 
accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement in Docket Nos. RM95-
6-000 and RM 96-7-000 (Policy Statement) issued January 31, 1996.
    Questar submitted this filing to report an amended negotiated-rate 
contract with Phillips Gas Marketing Company (Phillips) (previously 
River Gas Corporation). After entering into a negotiated-rate contract 
with Questar, Phillips subsequently permanently released a portion of 
its capacity to Texaco Natural Gas, Inc. under Questar's Rate Schedule 
T-1. The Regulatory Department responsible for reporting negotiated-
rate contracts to the Commission only recently became aware of this 
release and, therefore, is late in reflecting this information in its 
tariff. Due to this inadvertent reporting error, Questar requested 
waiver of 18 CFR 154.207 so that the tendered tariff sheet may become 
effective August 1, 2000.
    Questar states that a copy of this filing has been served upon 
Questar's customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the 
Public Service Commission of Wyoming.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance

[[Page 20650]]

with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and 
interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of 
paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the 
Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10034 Filed 4-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2628 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2628

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
     any prizes or awards won in competition in the Olympic Games.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 3, 2015

    Mr. Farenthold (for himself and Mr. Butterfield) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
     any prizes or awards won in competition in the Olympic Games.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tax Exemptions for American 
Medalists Act of 2015'' or the ``TEAM Act''.

SEC. 2. OLYMPIC MEDALS AND USOC PRIZE MONEY EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME.

    (a) In General.--Section 74 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Exception for Olympic Medals and Prizes.--Gross income shall 
not include the value of any medal awarded in, or any prize money 
received from the United States Olympic Committee on account of, 
competition in the Olympic Games.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to prizes and awards received after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Corey L., Appellant.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Gage, J.), dated January 21, 1986, which, upon a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Capilli, J.), dated November 4, 1985, made upon the appellant’s plea of guilty, finding that appellant had committed acts which, if done by an adult, would have constituted the crime of attempted petit larceny, imposed a one-year term of probation. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated November 4, 1985.

Ordered that the order of disposition is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, without costs or disbursements, the fact-finding order is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on the petition.

The allocution which resulted in the appellant’s admission that he had committed acts which, if done by an adult, would have constituted the crime of attempted petit larceny, was legally deficient because the Family Court failed to apprise the appellant of his various constitutional and statutory rights as well as the consequences of waiving those rights *(see,*Family Ct Act § 321.3; *Matter of Yolanda C.,*118 AD2d 778; *Matter of Kim F.,*109 AD2d 706; *Matter of Kelly Sue N.,*94 AD2d 976). As the Corporation Counsel concedes, reversal is, therefore, warranted. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
exh10-81_16709.htm




 



EXHIBIT 10.8.1







FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the 22nd day of February, 2010 by and between NEXX Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“NEXX” or the “Company”) and Philip Villari (“Officer”).


 


WHEREAS, NEXX and the Officer entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of August 11, 2009 (the “Original Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Original Agreement to provide for the vesting of  equity grants and restricted stock unit awards following certain termination events within one year following a “Change of Control” (as defined in the Original Agreement); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Original Agreement to providing for partial vesting upon a termination without Cause (as defined in the “Original Agreement”);


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt whereof are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.   ACCELERATED VESTING FOLLOWING  A CHANGE OF CONTROL.  Notwithstanding anything else contained in the Original Agreement, any option grants, restricted stock, and/or restricted stock unit awards granted to the Officer shall not vest upon any Change of Control but instead shall vest 100% upon any termination of the Officer’s employment without Cause or termination by the Officer for Constructive Termination if such termination occurs within twelve (12) months following a Change of Control.   Constructive Termination shall be deemed to have occurred if, following a Change of Control (a) there is a material diminution in your duties and responsibilities (other than a change of title), (b) your office is relocated more than fifty (50) miles from your office location at the time of the Change of Control, or (c) there is a reduction in your salary or benefits.


 


2.   ACCELERATED VESTING.  Notwithstanding anything else contained in the Original Agreement, an additional 12.5% of any original restricted stock options, restricted stock and stock unit awards granted to the Officer shall vest if the Officer’s employment is terminated by the Corporation without Cause, except that in no event shall more than 100% of any original stock options, restricted stock and restricted stock units be deemed vested under the provisions of this Section 2.


 


3.   RATIFICATION OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT.  Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the date first written above.


 



	
OFFICER:


 


/s/ Phillip Villari





	
NEXX SYSTEMS, INC.


 


By:  /s/ Stanley Piekos








Name: Stanley Piekos








Title:  Chief Financial Officer
* 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. 02-50508

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ESTEBAN MARQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-02-CR-10-1-SS

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

October 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Esteban Marquez appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after

deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Marquez complains

that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) based on his prior deportation following an

aggravated felony conviction. Marquez argues that the sentencing

provision violates the Due Process Clause because it permitted

the sentencing judge to find, under a preponderance of the

evidence standard, a fact which increased the statutory maximum
No. 02-50508

-2-

sentence to which he otherwise would have been exposed. Marquez

thus contends that his sentence is invalid and argues that it

should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment

prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Marquez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### ROULSTON, Appellant, v. ROULSTON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

May 8, 1894.)

Action by Samuel L. Roulston against Arthur Roulston, as executor, etc.

Argued before MAYHAM, P. J., and PUTNAM and HERRICK, JJ.

R. E. Waterman, for appellant.

John C. Keeler, for respondent

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed on the opinion of the court below. 26 N. Y Supp. 667.
----

----

| (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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  April1 15, 2013 |   |                                          |
|----------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                             |   |   /s/ Samuel W. Fairchild                |
|                             |   | Samuel W. Fairchild                           |
|                             |   | President and Interim Chief Financial Officer |

----

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1        SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO        13 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO        SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Enviro Voraxial Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alberto DiBella, Chief Executive Officer and        Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 13 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

Date: November 10, 2009

/s/ Alberto DiBella                       Alberto DiBella

Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5865 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5865

To amend title 44, United States Code, to prohibit the Archivist of the 
  United States from making grants to preserve or publish non-Federal 
                                records.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2010

Mr. Chaffetz (for himself, Mr. Schock, Mr. Flake, Mr. Issa, Mr. Wilson 
of South Carolina, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Coffman of 
  Colorado, and Mr. Bilbray) introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 44, United States Code, to prohibit the Archivist of the 
  United States from making grants to preserve or publish non-Federal 
                                records.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Wasting Archive Grants Act of 
2010''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING THE ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES FROM MAKING 
              GRANTS TO PRESERVE OR PUBLISH NON-FEDERAL RECORDS.

    Section 2504(e) of title 44, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The Archivist may not 
make grants to preserve or publish non-Federal records.''
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
§ 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of Active Power, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Joseph F. Pinkerton, III, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Joseph F. Pinkerton, IIIJoseph F. Pinkerton, IIIChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) October 23, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5937 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5937

To provide Government headstones and markers at private cemeteries for 
                           certain veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2010

 Mr. Fleming introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide Government headstones and markers at private cemeteries for 
                           certain veterans.

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

SECTION 1. GOVERNMENT HEADSTONES AND MARKERS FOR GRAVES OF CERTAIN 
              VETERANS.

    Section 2306(d)(1) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, or any veteran who died before November 1, 1990, in the 
active military, naval, or air service while participating in a 
contingency operation (as defined in section 101(13) of title 10),'' 
before ``who is buried''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

SECTION 906CERTIFICATION

 

CERTIFICATION

 

(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to

 

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009of Hydrogenics Corporation (the “Company”) as filed with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on the date hereof (the “Report”)and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Daryl Wilson, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, that:

 

(1) the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                                         |             |
|----------------------------------------------|------------------|
|                                         |             |
| By:                                          | /s/ Daryl Wilson |   |
|                                         |             |
| Name: Daryl Wilson                           |             |
|                                         |             |
| Title: President and Chief Executive Officer |             |
|                                              |                  |  |

 

Date: March 26, 2010

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Hydrogenics Corporation and will beretained by Hydrogenics Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6903

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GARY L. DETEMPLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-77; CA-00-84-5) Submitted: January 16, 2004 Decided: February 25, 2004 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary L. DeTemple, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).PER CURIAM: Gary L. DeTemple seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a subst antial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that DeTemple has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 the decisional process.

DISMISSED