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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4997 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4997

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain suspension system 
                            stabilizer bars.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 16, 2008

Mr. McDermott introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain suspension system 
                            stabilizer bars.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION SYSTEM STABILIZER BARS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.77 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain suspension system 
stabilizer bars) is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting 
``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
38 Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions) 

Lockheed Martin $2.3 B

Georgia Tech Research Corp. $335.3 M

General Dynamics $257.5 M

Northrop Grumman $221.7 M

Longbranch Partners $211.9 M

Leidos $147.4 M

DataPath $145.6 M

Honeywell $117.1 M

Scientific Research Corp. $89.9 M

Meggitt $72.9 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

GEORGIA

#13 #22 2.7% $1,302 #16 #6 #8

$13.7 B SPENT 

IN STATE

2.3% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $7.3 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

126,710 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$6.4 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$6.4 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

126,710

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Muscogee 20,293 4,513 224 682 25,712

Houston 3,348 14,634 1,233 1,234 20,449

Liberty 15,098 2,621 500 143 18,362

Richmond 11,478 3,363 597 1,458 16,896

Chatham 4,131 1,178 1,754 484 7,547

Cobb 265 1,299 2,516 3,265 7,345

Lowndes 4,533 510 94 264 5,401

Camden 2,480 2,411 ND ND

Clayton 50 503 446 2,139 3,138

Dougherty 301 2,007 89 115 2,512

Construction: 4%

Research and 

Development: 5%

Service: 38% Supplies and

Equipment: 53%

Active Duty: 52%

Civilian: 27%

National 

Guard: 11%

Reserve:10%

27%

17%

44%

13%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

63%

11%

24%

2%

$7.7 $7.5

$5.6 $6.2 $5.3

$9.4

$6.5 $7.3

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 39

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Cherokee

Fulton

Gwinnett

Richmond

Chattahoochee

Liberty

Chatham

Camden

FISCAL YEAR 2018 GEORGIA

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Cobb

Houston

Fulton

Richmond

Gwinnett

Chattahoochee

Chatham

Camden

Cherokee

Liberty

(M = millions, B = billions)

$2.5 B

$1.0 B

$699.3 M

$484.3 M

$395.8 M

$346.7 M

$341.8 M

$307.4 M

$245.1 M

$192.9 M

Cobb

Clayton

Richmond

Muscogee

Liberty

Chatham

Dougherty

Camden

Lowndes

Houston

Muscogee

Liberty

Richmond

Chatham

Camden

Lowndes

Cobb

Dougherty

Clayton

$1.3 B

$1.1 B

$1.0 B

$913.3 M

$392.6 M

$297.6 M

$286.5 M

$265.8 M

$161.2 M

$117.1 M

Houston

Houston

Cobb
STATE of North Carolina v. Ernest Junior THAMES.

No. 540P00-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

Ernest Junior Thames, Pro Se.

William B. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 7th day of June 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*196"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th day of August 2005."
Exhibit 31 (d)**CERTIFICATION**I, Craig D. Abolt, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Finance Co. II, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:August 15, 2005         By:       /s/ Craig D. Abolt   Craig D. Abolt   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bank of the James Financial Group, Inc.



|                      |  |                                         |  |                                                                                                                          
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | BANK OF THE JAMES FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
|                      |  |                                        
|Date: August 10, 2005 |  | By                                      |  | /S/ Robert R. Chapman IIIRobert R. Chapman III President and Director (Principal Executive Officer)                      
|                      |  |                                        
|Date: August 10, 2005 |  | By                                      |  | /S/ J. Todd ScruggsJ. Todd Scruggs Secretary and Treasurer (Principal
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)



23
OSC ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Associate Special 

Counsel

Team 1

General Law 

Division (GLD)

Disclosure Unit 

(DU)

Retaliation and 

Disclosure Unit 

(RDU)

Hatch Act Unit 

(HAU)

Case Review 

Division (CRD)

/ Clerk’s Office

Operations 

Division

Administrative 

Services Office 

(ASO)

Human Capital 

Office (HCO)

Finance Office

Information 

Technology 

Office (ITO)

Dallas Field 

Office (DFO)

Midwest Field 

Office (MFO) Team 2

Team 3

Team 4

Team 5

Associate Special 

Counsel

Associate Special 

Counsel

Chief Operating 

Officer

Special Counsel

Principal Deputy 

Special Counsel

General Counsel 

(OGC)

EEO Director

Alternative 

Dispute 

Resolution (ADR)

Investigation and 

Prosecution Division 

(IPD-HQ)

Investigation and 

Prosecution Division

Field Offices (IPD-FO) 

Uniformed Services 

Employment and 

Reemployment Rights 

Act Unit (USERRA) 

Immediate of 

Office of the 

Special Counsel 

(IOSC)

San Francisco 

Bay Area Field 

Office (SFBAFO)
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1







TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA LLC
 
Summary of Director Compensation
 
	
			
	Annual Retainer for Independent Directors:
	 
	$75,000

	 
	 
	 

	Share Grants for all Directors:
	 
	10,000 annually to be granted on the day of the first board meeting following the Annual Meeting of Shareholders (or, for Directors who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first board meeting attended)

	 
	 
	 

	Lead Independent Director 
	 
	$17,500 per year 

	 
	 
	 

	Chair of the Audit Committee:
	 
	$22,500 per year

	 
	 
	 

	Chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee:
	 
	$12,500 per year

	 
	 
	 

	Chair of the Compensation Committee:
	 
	$12,500 per year

	 
	 
	 

	Board Liaison to the Gaming Compliance Committee
	 
	$12,500 per year

	 
	 
	 




 
The Company generally reimburses all Directors for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Directors and for out of pocket costs incurred in connection with their attending certain continuing education programs.
exv10w2



 








Exhibit 10.2




OXiGENE, Inc.




Description of Director Compensation Arrangements


  Effective with the election of the non-employee directors at OXiGENE’s (the “Company”) Annual
Meeting on July 7, 2005, the Company pays each non-employee director an annual fee of $30,000 for
service as a director of the Company and $1,500 for attendance at each board meeting. The Company
pays each non-employee director who serves as chairman of a committee of the Board an annual fee of
$7,500 and each committee member, including the Chairman, $1,000 for attendance at each committee
meeting. In addition, non-employee directors are eligible to participate in the Company’s 2005
Stock Plan. There are currently 2,500,000 shares of common stock reserved for issuance under the
2005 Stock Plan. The Plan authorizes the issuance of stock grants and other stock-based awards and
the grant of non-qualified stock options to non-employee directors.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5269 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5269

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow additional expenses 
for purposes of determining the Hope Scholarship Credit, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2008

   Mr. Brady of Texas (for himself and Mr. Hinojosa) 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 allow additional expenses 
for purposes of determining the Hope Scholarship Credit, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF HOPE SCHOLARSHIP CREDIT.

    (a) Allowance of Additional Expenses.--Paragraph (1) of section 
25A(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified tuition 
and related expenses) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(D) Additional expenses allowed for hope 
                scholarship credit.--For purposes of the Hope 
                Scholarship Credit, such term shall include--
                            ``(i) costs incurred for room and board 
                        that are not in excess of the limitation 
                        imposed under section 529(e)(3)(B)(ii),
                            ``(ii) at the election of the taxpayer, 
                        expenses which would be employment-related 
                        expenses (as defined in section 21(b)) if 
                        attendance at an eligible educational 
                        institution were treated as employment, and
                            ``(iii) books, supplies, and equipment 
                        required for courses of instruction at the 
                        eligible educational institution.
                No credit shall be allowed to the taxpayer under 
                section 21 for the taxable year if the taxpayer elects 
                the application of clause (ii) for such taxable 
                year.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to expenses paid after December 31, 2007 (in taxable years ending after 
such date), for education furnished in academic periods beginning after 
such date.
                                 <all>
```
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00717-CV

Alan URESTI,

Appellant

v.

Joann GUTIERREZ,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CI-09548

Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 9, 2011

DISMISSED

The clerk’s record was due on December 1, 2010, and has not been filed. On December 

6, 2010, the trial court clerk filed a notification of late record stating that appellant had failed to 

pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, and appellant is 

not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. On December 21, 2010, this court ordered 

appellant to show cause in writing by January 3, 2011, why this appeal should not be dismissed 

for want of prosecution. Appellant responded by filing a pro se motion requesting 
04-10-00717-CV

- 2 -

reconsideration of the court’s show cause order; appellant asserts he is indigent, and requests that 

the clerk’s record and reporter’s record be filed in this court without the need for payment. On 

January 7, 2011, a certified copy of the trial court’s “Order Sustaining Contests to Affidavit of 

Inability to Pay Costs on Appeal Filed by Alan Uresti and Ordering Alan Uresti to Pay All Costs 

of Appeal” was filed in this court. Because the record shows the appellant is not indigent and 

has failed to pay for preparation of the clerk’s record, the appeal is dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US$

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          14,305
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  264,456
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,193)
<INVENTORY>                                    313,571
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               627,464
<PP&E>                                         591,102
<DEPRECIATION>                                (77,188)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,000,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          465,915
<BONDS>                                      1,170,143
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          133,959
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           210
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,798
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,000,354
<SALES>                                      2,027,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,027,529
<CGS>                                        1,643,636
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,643,636
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,629
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             120,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 87,403
<INCOME-TAX>                                    36,733
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,785
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,617)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,168
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.78


</TABLE>
Advertising Agreement

This will serve as an agreement between Pricester.com, Inc. and
MoreMedia Direct, Inc. for the development of a per-inquiry advertising
campaign for Pricester.com's 28:30 infomercial advertisement titled
"Pricester Complete".

Pricester.com will provide MoreMedia Direct with 15 dubs in various
formats for their 28:30 infomercial. If the initial test is successful
Pricester.com will provide a master of said infomercial.

Compensation to MoreMedia Direct will be $79.98 net per sale generated
by MoreMedia Direct's P.I. Network.   In addition MoreMedia Direct will
receive a share of Pricester stock for every sale generated either by
Live Ops or Distributors for the life of the media relationship, with a
maximum of 100,000 shares. More Media Direct requires a pre-payment
deposit of $3999.00, which represents a pre-payment of 50 orders. This
payment will be made in 2 parts $2,000 to be deposited immediately and
the $1999 to be deposited once the first airing is in place.

MoreMedia Direct will provide invoices to Pricester.com on a weekly
basis for orders generated from the previous week as well as Dubs and
Federal express shipping costs. MoreMedia Direct expects payment of
said invoices by Friday of that same week.   Pricester.com and
MoreMedia Direct reserve the right to discontinue the campaign at any
time with thirty days prior written notice at which time all unused
deposit will be refunded.

Pricester.com will provide MoreMedia Direct with their contact at Live-
Ops Call Center.   MoreMedia Direct will then set up a telemarketing
download or e-mail on a daily basis.   Being that Pricester.com will be
doing a great deal of out bound calling and following up from leads
that are generated from MoreMedia Direct's Per Inquiry network, More
Media Direct will receive a report on sales made for the previous week.
Compensation for these sales will be invoiced separately and will be
paid at the rate of $29.98 due on the following Friday after the sale.
More Media Direct has the right, but not the obligation, to audit
Pricester.com quarterly.

This agreement supercedes any previous agreement.


/s/                     /s/Joe Puentes           /s/Bernard Gutman
MoreMedia Direct, Inc.  Pricester.com, Inc.      Bernard Gutman

DATE: 3/10/05    DATE: 3/10/05
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00002-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF 

CAROLYN E. BARKER AND JASON ROSS BARKER,

AND IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.B., A CHILD,

From the 18th District Court

Somervell County, Texas

Trial Court No. D04560

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, 

the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

FELIPE REYNA

Justice 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 1, 2010

[CV06]
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2016279EN.01009401.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 15.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 279/94 |

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/919 of 27 May 2016 on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the ‘control-command and signalling’ subsystems of the rail system in the European Union

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 158 of 15 June 2016](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2016_158_R_TOC)
)

On page 37, in the Annex, in point 6.1.1.2(4):

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘(4) | specific cases described in point 7.2.9.’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘(4) | specific cases described in point 7.6.’. |

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5113 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5113

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain transaxles 
                  designed for use in hybrid vehicles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2008

 Mr. Hulshof introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain transaxles 
                  designed for use in hybrid vehicles.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN TRANSAXLES DESIGNED FOR USE IN HYBRID VEHICLES.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.10.93 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain transaxles designed 
for use in hybrid vehicles) is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```