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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1410 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1410

To prohibit gaming activities on certain Indian lands in Arizona until 
               the expiration of certain gaming compacts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 9, 2013

 Mr. Franks of Arizona (for himself, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Schweikert, 
 Mr. Gosar, Mr. Salmon, and Mr. Kildee) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit gaming activities on certain Indian lands in Arizona until 
               the expiration of certain gaming compacts.

    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 ``Keep the Promise Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds as follows:
            (1) In 2002, the voters in the State of Arizona approved 
        Proposition 202, the Indian Gaming Preservation and Self-
        Reliance Act.
            (2) To obtain the support of Arizona voters to approve 
        Proposition 202, the Indian tribes within Arizona agreed to 
        limit the number of casinos within the State and in particular 
        within the Phoenix metropolitan area.
            (3) This Act preserves the agreement made between the 
        tribes and the Arizona voters until the expiration of the 
        gaming compacts authorized by Proposition 202.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    For the purposes of this Act--
            (1) the terms ``Indian tribe'', ``class II gaming'', and 
        ``class III gaming'' have the meanings given those terms in 
        section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703); 
        and
            (2) the term ``Phoenix metropolitan area'' means land 
        within Maricopa County and Pinal County, Arizona, that is north 
        of latitude 33 degrees, 5 minutes, 13 seconds north, east of 
        longitude 113 degrees, 20 minutes, 0 seconds west, and west of 
        longitude 110 degrees, 50 minutes, 45 seconds west, using the 
        NED 1983 State Plane Arizona FOPS 0202 coordinate system.

SEC. 4. GAMING CLARIFICATION.

    (a) Prohibition.--Class II gaming and class III gaming are 
prohibited on land within the Phoenix metropolitan area acquired by the 
Secretary of the Interior in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe 
after April 9, 2013.
    (b) Expiration.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall expire on 
January 1, 2027.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit



        



Exhibit 10.5
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated February 9, 2016 between XPO Logistics, Inc. (the “Company”) and Mario A. Harik (the “Executive”), is made and entered into as of June 5, 2019, by and between the Company and the Executive.  


1.Exhibit A.  Exhibit A to the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as set forth as Exhibit A hereto.
2.    Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and are unmodified hereby.


[Signature page follows.]


















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive and the Company have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.
EXECUTIVE




/s/ Mario A. Harik                    
Mario A. Harik




XPO LOGISTICS, INC.


                
By:  /s/ Meghan Henson                
Name:  Meghan Henson
Title:     Chief Human Resources Officer










        



EXHIBIT A


MARIO A. HARIK
	
		
	Start Date:
	February 9, 2016

	Employee:
	Mario A. Harik

	Position:
	Chief Information Officer of the Company

	Reporting Person:
	President of the Company

	Base Salary:
	$500,000 (effective commencing June 5, 2019)

	2015 Bonus:
	$400,000

	2015 Additional Bonus:
	$900,000

	Target Bonus:
	125% of Base Salary (it being understood that the Target Bonus for 2019 shall be calculated as 125% of Employee’s Base Salary at the rate in effect on December 31, 2019)

	Prior Agreement:
	Employment Agreement effective as of March 14, 2014, by and between the Company and Employee

	Sections of Prior Agreement that survive with respect to Equity Compensation granted under the Prior Agreement:
	Section 3(c) and Section 3(d)
## THEAYTORNEY GENERAL OF'TEXAS

Honorable

Geo. H. Sheppard ColPptmVsr of Publlc'Aooounte Au&in, Texae Dear Sir: opinion 190. O-4101 Re: Are penhemntwaving eolutlons to be olaesifled

ae halr preparatlom uuder S. B. 470, 47U1 Legislature,

Regular Semion? Ue aolmowledge

receiptof your requeetfor (~1 opinionof tble Depslment on whether or not permanent waving eolutlone

exe to be olaee%fled as hair preparations under SenateBill 470, 47th Leglslatare, ReguLar Seaslon. Youadvise us thatpermanentwavlngeolutlone are liquidoh-loals&loh are **applied** to thehairand thatwhen eoapplled andheated, thehair'wlllretain the ehape lnwhloh ltwae woundwhem the application ofheat lemede.

SenateBill 470, enpra, is an emendment to Boaae BIIJ.

8, 47th I&jtilaiiirh,

RegularSession,

d&flnliig,'mimg

other.thln@, the 'term' *oiS3keflc~

.I( Hors6 Blll 8, supra, is a tax statute. SenateBill 470 deitiesthe +rm ?oofmetloy" ae meaniagr ~_ _.. "~*The.teim

'oomnetloti~

was used in thleA&$oU meann -' rouge (liquid,

eml-eolld or solid),llpetlok (liquid, eeaW aolld or eolld),feoe powder, face creeme (irrcludln& cleaneing, foundati~,vaniahirrg,lassssgearanyo~~eimiLaroFecnato be used on the skia), lotlone (hand,face, aud skip inoluding aetrlngente),nallpoliih(allklnde) andinmi&ingpre~tlW, eyelmhpreparatlone, eyebrowpenclle, eye ehedowing-prepeSati=, hair oil, hair tonle end other hair pti?XU'atlone:
. . . (RI&aeig 0-1 *Preparation* is defined

by Heb@er .SE

being: "Sonethhing

made, equippedor oompemded for a partloular purpose.* Fmm your request it appears that "permene~twavlng selntloUe" are subatenoes

whlah are made or oaupomxded for tie particalar

plvpos0Of use on thehair.Honorable Geo.H. Sheppard,

Paea 2 (OAlal)

We are, tierefore, of the op9nlontit the tem%alrpreparations*

includes

penuanentwavingsolntlcnm. 'Rustingt$attie foregoing fully e.nfswex-8

your inqalry,we are Yours very truly AllwfmY-oF~

APPROVRD

CCT 18, 19h /a/ &over Sellerf By /a/Rl&ardH. Cooke Bfchard

H. cwke Aaalstant 

### APPRomoPmIoIo COMLTTEE BY /a/ B.W.B.
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 Certification
        of Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
 Pursuant
        to
 18
        U.S.C.
        Section 1350,
 as
        Adopted Pursuant to
 Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  In
        connection with the annual report of New York Health Care, Inc. (the "Company")
        on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Stewart Robinson, Chief Financial
        Officer of the Company from February 5, 2007 to the present, hereby certify
        as
        of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section
        1350 of
        the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)  the
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
        applicable, 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 at the dates
        and for the periods indicated.
   Dated: April 16, 2007By:
                /s/ Stewart W.
                RobinsonStewart
                W. RobinsonChief
                Financial
                Officer
SMITH BARNEY INCOME FUNDS
on behalf of the
Smith Barney Tax-Exempt Income Fund

Supplement dated November 14, 1997
to Prospectus dated November 28, 1996

	The Board of Trustees of Smith Barney Income Funds--Smith 
Barney Tax-Exempt Income Fund (the "Fund") has voted to change the 
name of the Fund to "Smith Barney Municipal High Income Fund," 
effective November 12, 1997.  Management believes that the new 
name better reflects the Fund's investment policy, which continues 
to be to maximize current income exempt from Federal income taxes 
by investing primarily in municipal bonds and notes.





FD 01348
**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**

 

Inconnection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”)of InfoSonics Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2010,each of the undersigned in his capacity as an officer of the Company herebycertifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934  (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 

 

Date:  August 16, 2010

 
| /s/  Joseph Ram                                    |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Joseph  Ram, President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

Date:  August 16, 2010

 
| /s/  Vernon A. LoForti                      |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| Vernon  A. LoForti, Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Daniel A. GROVER, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.

No. 19-671

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 13.1

SHAREHOLDER INFORMATION

Stock Data

Cox
Radios Class A common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, ticker symbol: CXR. Daily newspaper stock table listing: Cox Rad. As of January 31, 2009, there were 110 shareholders of record of Cox Radios Class A
common stock and one shareholder of record of Cox Radios Class B common stock, Cox Media Group, Inc. There is no established trading market for Cox Radios Class B common stock. There have been no stock or cash dividends paid on any of
Cox Radios equity securities. Since August 2005, Cox Radio has returned value to its stockholders through stock repurchase programs. While Cox Radio currently does not intend to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future, the declaration and
payment of future dividends, if any, is within the discretion of the Board of Directors and would depend on Cox Radios earnings, results of operations, capital requirements, financial condition, leverage ratio and such other factors as the
Board of Directors may consider relevant.

Quarterly Market Information

Class A Common Stock



|               |  |      |       |     |   |      
|-------------- |  | ---- | ----- | --- | - | -----
|2008           |  | High |       | Low
|First Quarter  |  | $    | 12.43 |     | $ | 10.59
|Second Quarter |  |      | 13.05 |     |   | 11.34
|Third Quarter  |  |      | 11.60 |     |   | 9.59 
|Fourth Quarter |  |      | 10.59 |     |   | 4.05 



|               |  |      |       |     |   |      
|-------------- |  | ---- | ----- | --- | - | -----
|2007           |  | High |       | Low
|First Quarter  |  | $    | 16.05 |     | $ | 13.36
|Second Quarter |  |      | 15.31 |     |   | 13.67
|Third Quarter  |  |      | 14.55 |     |   | 12.71
|Fourth Quarter |  |      | 13.79 |     |   | 11.20

Transfer Agent and Registrar

American Stock Transfer & Trust Company

6201 15thAvenue

Brooklyn, NY 11219

1 866 668 6550
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of InfoSonics Corporation (the “Company”) forthe period ended March 31, 2010, Roger Laungani, Interim Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1) the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934  (15 U.S.C. 78m or78o(d)); and

 

(2) the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: May 14, 2010 | /s/ ROGER  LAUNGANI           |
|------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                         | Roger  Laungani,                   |
| * *                     | *Interim  Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
Exhibit
      32.2





**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


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


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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of DAIRY FRESH FARMS INC. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ron Paterson,
      Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that:





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


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





By
            /s/
                Ron EvansRon
              EvansPrincipal
              Accounting Officer


Date:
          May
          20, 2008
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 21.01

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

BOULEVARD MOTEL CORP.
     Arlington Spirits Corp.
     Bay Ridge Spirits Corp.
     Biscayne Land Associates, Inc.
     Biscayne Properties, Inc.
     Bowling Green Inn - Brandywine, Inc.
     Cardinal Beverage Corp.
     Everglades Beverage Corp.
     Fairways Beverage Corp.
     Fairways, Inc.
     First Choice Properties Corp.
          First Choice Capital Corp.
          QI Capital Corp.
     MCH Baltimore Corp.
     MCH Hot Springs Corp.
     MCH Lincoln Corp.
     MCH Roanoke Corp.
     MCH Springfield Corp.
     MCH Wichita Corp.
     MCHD Cypress Creek Corp.
     MCHD Ft. Lauderdale Corp.
     MCHD Hampton Corp.
     Pikesville Hotel Corp.
     Raleigh Hotel Holdings, Inc.
     West Montgomery Hotel Holdings, Inc.
     MCH Shady Grove Corp.
CACTUS HOTEL CORP.
CHOICE MANAGEMENT & REALTY SERVICES, INC.
     Beltway Management Company
COMFORT CALIFORNIA, INC.
GULF HOTEL CORP.
HEFRU FOOD SERVICES, INC.
QCM BEVERAGES, INC.   (49%; 51% Texas resident)
QCM CORPORATION
SUNBURST HOTEL CORP.
THICKET, INC. (THE) (Non-Profit; owned by members)

Subsidiaries are wholly-owned except where indicated.
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5104 

AN ACT 

To extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 15 days. 

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

•HR 5104 EH

1 SECTION 1. 15-DAY EXTENSION OF THE PROTECT AMERICA 

2 ACT OF 2007. 

3 Section 6(c) of the Protect America Act of 2007 

4 (Public Law 110–55; 121 Stat. 557; 50 U.S.C. 1803 note) 

5 is amended by striking ‘‘180 days’’ and inserting ‘‘195 

6 days’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 29, 

2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5104 

AN ACT 

To extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 15 

days.
Eric O'DAY, et al., Individually and on Behalf of the SunEdison, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, Petitioners, v. Ahmad CHATILA, et al.

No. 19-595

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 21, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1503 

To repeal a certain rule relating to nutrition standards in the national 

school lunch and school breakfast programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 11, 2013 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself and Mr. HUELSKAMP) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To repeal a certain rule relating to nutrition standards in 

the national school lunch and school breakfast programs, 

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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Hungry Kids Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RULE. 

6 The rule prescribed by the Food and Nutrition Serv7 ice of the Department of Agriculture relating to nutrition 

8 standards in the national school lunch and school break9 fast programs published on January 26, 2012 (77 Fed. 

10 Reg. 4088 et seq.) and revising parts 210 and 220 of title 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1503 IH

1 7, Code of Federal Regulations, shall have no force or ef2 fect. 

3 SEC. 3. LIMITS ON CERTAIN NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 

4 Section 9(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Richard B. Russell Na5 tional School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(1)(A)(i)) is 

6 amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: 

7 ‘‘, to establish a calorie maximum for individual school 

8 lunches, or to prohibit a child from eating a lunch provided 

9 by the child’s parent or legal guardian’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Alexander F. BOWMAN, Appellant, v. Gerald K. WASHINGTON, Warden, Appellee.

No. 040213.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

December 3, 2004.

Upon consideration of the record, the briefs, and the argument of counsel, the Court is of opinion that there is merit in the petitioner's procedural argument.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleged that petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel for several reasons, including that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely petition for appeal to the Court of Appeals. The petition also alleged various other errors.

In his "Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss" filed in the circuit court, the petitioner asked the circuit court to allow him to file a belated appeal to the Court of Appeals, and to dismiss his remaining claims without prejudice. The warden agreed that the petitioner through no fault of his own was denied his right of appeal to the Court of Appeals, but requested that the petitioner's remaining claims be dismissed with prejudice. The circuit court entered a final order directing the Commonwealth to request that the Court of Appeals grant petitioner leave to pursue a belated appeal from his criminal conviction in the circuit court. However, the circuit court also dismissed the petitioner's remaining claims with prejudice.

The circuit court's dismissal of these remaining claims with prejudice was an abuse of the court's discretion. Although Code § 8.01-654 bars a petitioner from raising new claims in a subsequent petition for habeas corpus, *Dorsey v. Angelone,* 261 Va. 601, 604, 544 S.E.2d 350, 352 (2001), the statute does not prevent a petitioner from reasserting claims that have been dismissed without prejudice in a prior proceeding. *See Daniels v. Warden,* 266 Va. 399, 403, 588 S.E.2d 382, 384 (2003). Had the circuit court granted the petitioner's request to have his remaining claims dismissed without prejudice, he would have been able to pursue and conclude his direct appeal and obtain any appropriate relief before litigating the merits of his collateral action.

Accordingly, the part of the circuit court's order addressing the petitioner's belated appeal to the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the part of the circuit court's order dismissing the petitioner's remaining claims with prejudice is reversed. The cause is remanded to the circuit court for entry of an order dismissing the petitioner's remaining habeas corpus claims without prejudice.

*586It is ordered that the Circuit Court of Stafford County allow counsel for the appellant a fee of $725 for services rendered the appellant on this appeal, in addition to counsel's costs and necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses.

This order shall be certified to the Circuit Court of Stafford County and shall be published in the Virginia Reports.
1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2034

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

Duane Wendall Larson, * of Minnesota.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: January 20, 2004

Filed: February 6, 2004

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Duane Larson appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his petition for a writ of

error coram nobis, in which he sought to vacate his drug conviction and sentence

(from which he has been released). We agree with the district court that Mr. Larson

has not shown he is entitled to coram nobis relief, because he unsuccessfully raised

on direct appeal and in prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions the Fourth Amendment and
-2-

ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims that he raises here. See Azzone v. United

States, 341 F.2d 417, 419-20 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (coram nobis petitioner not

entitled to review of issues that were considered and resolved either on direct appeal

or in § 2255 motion), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 943 (1965); cf. United States v.

Camacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d 1168, 1172-73 (8th Cir. 1996) (coram nobis relief is

“‘substantially equivalent’” to habeas relief, and abuse-of-the-writ principle applies

to coram nobis cases (quoted source omitted)).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Appellant

______________________

2023-1409

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.

86301753.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

March 2, 2023

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 2, 2023

Case: 23-1409 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 03/02/2023
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CertificationPursuant To18 U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant ToSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Hospira, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Terrence C. Kearney, Chief Operating Officer andacting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

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

 
| /s/  TERRENCE C. KEARNEY                                               |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Terrence C. Kearney  Chief Operating Officer and Acting Chief  Financial Officer |
| May 9, 2006                                                                 |

 

29

----