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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6411 

To provide for the approval of the Agreement Between the Government 

of the United States of America and the Government of Australia Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2010 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. 

FORTENBERRY, Mr. SHERMAN, and Mr. BERMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for the approval of the Agreement Between the 

Government of the United States of America and the 

Government of Australia Concerning Peaceful Uses of 

Nuclear Energy. 

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


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6411 IH

1 SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 

2 GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF 

3 AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF AUS4 TRALIA CONCERNING PEACEFUL USES OF 

5 NUCLEAR ENERGY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the provisions 

7 for congressional consideration of a proposed agreement 

8 for cooperation in subsection d. of section 123 of the 

9 Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153), the Agree10 ment Between the Government of the United States of 

11 America and the Government of Australia Concerning 

12 Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, done at New York, May 

13 4, 2010, may become effective on or after October 8, 2010, 

14 as if all the requirements in such section 123 for consider15 ation of such agreement had been satisfied, subject to sub16 section (b) of this section. 

17 (b) APPLICABILITY OF ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF

18 1954 AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW.—Upon coming 

19 into effect, the agreement referred to in subsection (a) 

20 shall be subject to the provisions of the Atomic Energy 

21 Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) and any other appli22 cable United States law as if such agreement had come 

23 into effect in accordance with the requirements of section 

24 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Thomas M. Sheehan, Appellant-Respondent, v Nancy J. Sheehan, Respondent-Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in preventing plaintiff from taking the parties’ three-year-old child on flights in his private plane when exercising visitation rights. Irrespective of plaintiff’s competence as a pilot, a child of such tender years is less capable of protecting herself in the event of an incident, particularly in a single-engine craft. The court correctly con-*943eluded that, at the current stage of her development, flying in plaintiff’s plane was not in the child’s best interest.

The trial court also properly directed that the parties share, according to their respective incomes, the responsibility for payment of medical and dental expenses not covered by insurance *(see, 'Matter of Rubinstein v Bates,*128 AD2d 536; *Grillo v Grillo,*86 AD2d 965) and that plaintiff be entitled to claim the child as an exemption for income tax purposes *(see, Formato v Formato,*134 AD2d 564). Moreover, the court did not exceed its powers in directing defendant, as custodial parent, to execute a waiver of her right to claim that exemption *(see, Wassif v Wassif,*77 Md App 750, 551 A2d 935; *In re Marriage of Milesnick,*— Mont —, 765 P2d 751; *McKenzie v Jahnke,*432 NW2d 556 [ND]; *In re Marriage of Einhorn,*178 III App 3d 212, 533 NE2d 29; *Hughes v Hughes,*35 Ohio St 3d 165, 518 NE2d 1213; *Hooper v Hooper,*Tenn Ct App, Feb. 9, 1988, *lv denied*— SW2d — [decided May 2, 1988]; *In re Pergolski v Pergolski,*143 Wis 2d 166, 420 MW2d 414; *In re Lincoln v Lincoln,*155 Ariz 272, 746 P2d 13; *Fudenberg v Molstad,*390 NW2d 19 [Minn]). (Appeals from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J. — uninsured medical and dental expenses.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
**Exhibit 10.4**

 

**Tier Technologies, Inc.**

**Senior Vice President—Human Resources’ Compensation**

**For the Fiscal Year Ending September30, 2005**

**(Approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors May 3, 2005)**

 

On May 3, 2005, the Compensation Committee of Tier’s Board of Directors approved a basesalary increase for an executive officer who was named in the Summary Compensation Table of the Company’s 2004 Proxy Statement. Specifically, the base salary of Donald Fairbairn, Senior Vice President Human Resources was increased to $212,000,which represents a 6% increase in base salary.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73
          - [DA 01-929; MM Docket No. 98-155, RM-9082, RM-9133]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Final rule.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document denies a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Ralph Tyler directed to the                         *Report and Order*                         in this proceeding which denied his proposal for to reallot Channel 259C3 from Tishomingo to Tuttle, Oklahoma, and modify his Station KTSH license to specify Tuttle as the community of license.                         *See*65 FR 82296, December 28, 2000. With this action, the proceeding is terminated.                    

# DATES:

Effective May 1, 2001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau (202) 418-2177.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This is a synopsis of the Commission's                     *Memorandum Opinion and Order*                     in MM Docket No. 98-155, adopted April 4, 2001, and released April 13, 2001. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center at Portals ll, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3805, 1231 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.                

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01-10703 Filed 4-30-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Goddard, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered May 10, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the jury should not have believed the prosecution’s witness because of her involvement with illegal drugs, and because of certain inconsistencies in her accounts of the incident. We find that the inconsistencies were neither substantial nor so disparate as to require the negation of the jury’s verdict. In addition, the witness’s use of drugs and her condition at the time of the crime did not render her testimony incompetent, but were factors to be considered by the jury on the issue of her credibility *(see generally,*Annotation, *Competency of Witness—Drug Use,*65 ALR3d 705, 716; 2 Wharton, Criminal Evidence § 357 [Torcía 14th ed]; 3A Wigmore, Evidence § 934 [Chadbourn rev]).

*759Issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be assessed by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal, and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Kooper, J. P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6397 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6397

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend section 101(a)(35) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
provide for a marriage for which the parties are not physically in the 
presence of each other due to service abroad in the Armed Forces of the 
                             United States.

    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 ``Marine Sergeant Michael H. Ferschke, 
Jr. Memorial Act''.

SEC. 2. MILITARY MARRIAGES LACKING PHYSICAL PRESENCE.

    Section 101(a)(35) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(35)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
``(except for failure to consummate the marriage caused by physical 
separation due to the service abroad of one of the contracting parties 
in an active-duty status in the Armed Forces of the United States)''.

SEC. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH PAYGO.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
Representatives, provided that such statement has been submitted prior 
to the vote on passage.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 15, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6397

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend section 101(a)(35) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
provide for a marriage for which the parties are not physically in the 
presence of each other due to service abroad in the Armed Forces of the 
                             United States.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, T. Kendall Hunt,
certify, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for VASCO Data Security International, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, that to the best of 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ T. Kendall Hunt                                           
|T. Kendall Hunt                                               
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
|November 7, 2008
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

In the interest of L.J.H., C.B.B., and * From the 29th District

T.L.H., children, Court of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. C45021

.

No. 11

- 13

- 00299

- CV * March 27, 2014

* Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the

judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 2/21/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM WRIGHT,

Defendant - Appellant. No. 95-7092 (D. Ct. No. CR-95-2-S) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *



### Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge; TACHAand EBEL , Circuit Judges.

William Wright pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court accepted the plea and sentenced Wright to a term of 37 months, three years of supervised release, and a special assessment of $50.00. Wright appeals that sentence as excessive, claiming that the penalty provisionsof 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) establish a scientifically meaningless distinction between “c ocaine” and “cocaine base” and thus the distinction must be ignored by operation of the rule of lenity. We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the sentencing gui delines de novo. United States v. McAlpine , 32 F.3d 484, 487-88 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct.- 2 -

610 (1994). We have repeatedly held that the distinction between cocaine base and cocaine is a rational one. United States v. Williamson , 53 F.3d 1500, 1530 (10th Cir.), cert denied , 116 S. Ct. 218 (1995); United States v. Smith , 24 F.3d 1230, 1235 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 270 (1994); United States v. Thurmond , 7 F.3d 947, 950-53 (10th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 1311 (1994); United States v. Turner , 928 F.2d 956, 959-60 (10th Cir.), cert denied , 502 U.S. 881 (1991). The distinction between the two forms of the drug is based on a policy choice made by Congress. “Congress provided for enhanced penalties for cocaine base offenses because cocaine base (1) has a more rapid onset of action, (2) is more potent, (3) is more highly addic tive, (4) is less expensive than cocaine powder, and (5) has widespread availability.” Thurm ond , 7 F.3d at 952-53. The distinction has a rational basis, and is clear enough that it does not implicat e the rule of lenity. For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRME D. 

### ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge
#### The Singer Manufacturing Company *vs.*Martin.

Whether a case involves more than $50.00, and therefore can be appealed from a justice’s court to the superior court, is to be determined from the summons and the cause of action thereto attached. Where the summons required the defendant to appear and answer to a suit for the recovery of a sewing machine worth $50.00, with no other copy of the cause of action attached thereto, an appeal to the superior court did not lie. Nor was the case rendered appeal-able because the agidavit made to require bail stated that the hire of the property was worth $36.00.

November 17, 1885.

Justice Courts. Appeal. Before Judge Willis. Muscogee Superior Court. May Term, 1885.

Reported in the decision.

Hatcher & Peabody, for plaintiff in error.

B. A. Thornton ; W. A. Little, for defendant.

Hall, Justice.

This appeal from a justice’s court to the superior court was dismissed, because, as alleged, the amount claimed did not exceed fifty dollars. Code, §4157(b). It is insisted, *571however, that the amount claimed in this instance did exceed that sum; that the affidavit requiring bail alleged that the machine sued for was worth fifty dollars, and that its hire was worth thirty-tix dollars, and that the aggregate of these sums ($86) was the amount in controversy. The only pleading in a justice’s court is a summons, to which the justice is required to attach a copy of the cause of action sued on. Code, §4136. To this we must look, not only for the character, but the amount of the claim. In this instance, the summons, to which was attached no copy of the cause of action, required the defendant to appear and answer to a suit for the recovery of a sewing machine worth fifty dollars. Tested by the pleadings, the amount involved did not exceed 1hat sum, and no recovery could have been had in excess of that amount, and from such a judgment rendered by the justice an appeal did not lie to the superior court; consequently there was no error in dismissing the same, either under the law as it stood prior to the act of 1879 (Acts 1878-9 pp., 153,154) or under that act. *Tibbs vs.*Williamson, 61 *Ga.,*74.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Active Power, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph F. Pinkerton, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a or 15d, as applicable, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Joseph F. Pinkerton, IIIJoseph F. Pinkerton, IIIChairman of the Board, Presidentand Chief Executive OfficerJuly 28, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6406 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6406

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to remove the mandate on the Board of 
  Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market 
               Committee to focus on maximum employment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 16, 2010

  Mr. Pence introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Reserve Act to remove the mandate on the Board of 
  Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market 
               Committee to focus on maximum employment.

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

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF DUAL MANDATE.

    Section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 225a) is amended 
by striking ``maximum employment, stable prices,'' and inserting 
``stable prices''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6494 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6494

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to 
         improve the Littoral Combat Ship program of the Navy.

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

SECTION 1. LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP PROGRAM.

    (a) Contract Authority.--Subsection (a) of section 121 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 
111-84; 123 Stat. 2211) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) by striking ``ten Littoral Combat Ships and 15 
                Littoral Combat Ship ship control and weapon systems'' 
                and inserting ``20 Littoral Combat Ships, including any 
                ship control and weapon systems the Secretary 
                determines necessary for such ships,''; and
                    (B) by striking ``a contract'' and inserting ``one 
                or more contracts''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``liability to'' and 
        inserting ``liability of''.
    (b) Technical Data Package.--Subsection (b)(2)(A) of such section 
is amended by striking ``a second shipyard, as soon as practicable'' 
and inserting ``another shipyard to build a design specification for 
that Littoral Combat Ship''.
    (c) Limitation of Costs.--Subsection (c)(1) of such section is 
amended by striking ``awarded to a contractor selected as part of a 
procurement'' and inserting ``under a contract''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 15, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6494

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to 
         improve the Littoral Combat Ship program of the Navy.
```