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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5225 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Propanedioic acid, diethyl ester. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2008 

Mr. BONNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Propanedioic acid, 

diethyl ester. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROPANEDIOIC ACID, DIETHYL ESTER. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Propanedioic acid, diethyl 

ester (CAS No. 105–53–3) 

(provided for in subheading 

2917.19.70) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5225 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021

FY14 

$0.3 $0.3 $0.3

$0.2 $0.2

FY18 FY19 FY20

$0.2

$0.1

FY15

SOUTH DAKOTA 

#49

$0.6 B SPENT IN 

STATE 

#45

1.0% OF STATE GDP

0.1%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING 

$718

PER RESIDENT 

#48

$0.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING 

#47

9,638 NUMBER OF 

PERSONNEL 

#46

$0.4 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Research and

Development: 3%

Service: 27%

Supplies and

Equipment: 62%

By Service 

Army

31%

Navy/Marines

17%

Air Force

29%

Other Defense

22%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 4%

Active Duty: 36%

National 

Guard: 44%

Civilian: 15%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

44%

Navy/Marines

1%

Air Force

55%

Other Defense

0%

Construction: 8%

Top Defense Contractors 

Sterling Computers

Black Hills Ammunition, Inc.

Rosenbauer Beteiligungsverwaltung

Walsh Group

Bristol Bay Native Corp.

National Presto Industries

Board of Regents South Dakota

SAIC

BH Services, Inc.

FSB - Pond, JV

(M = millions)

$75.1 M

$27.2 M

$16.2 M

$8.6 M

$5.5 M

$5.2 M

$4.4 M

$4.1 M

$3.8 M

$3.8 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$0.4

FY16 FY17 FY21

$417.7 MILLION 9,638

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Meade 3,296 11 115 

Minnehaha 26 359 1,547

Pennington ND 867 927 

Codington 0 ND 231 

Brown 0 ND 146

Davison 0 48 170 

Hughes 0 46 151 

Hutchinson 0 0 131 

Lake 0 0 128 

Clay ND ND 99 

Reserve

23 

306

ND 

0 

80 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Total

3,445

2,238

ND 

ND 

ND 

218 

197 

131 

128 

ND 

100
(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

SOUTH DAKOTA FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

FISCAL YEAR 2021 

Codington Meade

Pennington

Buffalo

Aurora

Minnehaha

Davison

Charles Mix

Lincoln

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

Brown

Meade

Deuel Hughes

Pennington Minnehaha

Shannon

Yankton

Union

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (K = thousands, M = millions)

Union

Meade

Pennington

Minnehaha

Deuel

Hughes

Yankton

Brown

Codington

Shannon

(M = millions)

$79.9 M 

$62.1 M

$43.0 M

$23.1 M

$8.8 M 

$3.7 M 

$2.3 M

$482.0 K

$457.0 K

$235.6 K

Meade

Pennington

Minnehaha

Aurora

Hughes

Davison

Lincoln

Codington

Charles Mix

Buffalo

$192.6 M

$84.7 M

$79.9 M 

$8.6 M

$7.6 M

$5.4 M

$4.0 M

$4.0 M

$3.8 M 

$3.7 M 

Hughes

Hughes

Codington

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021 101

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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5481 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5481

To provide an additional 0.5 percent increase in the rates of military 
basic pay for members of the uniformed services above the pay increase 
   proposed by the Department of Defense so as to ensure at least a 
 minimum pay increase of 3.9 percent for members and to further narrow 
  the pay gap that exists between the military and private sector pay 
                                scales.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2008

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide an additional 0.5 percent increase in the rates of military 
basic pay for members of the uniformed services above the pay increase 
   proposed by the Department of Defense so as to ensure at least a 
 minimum pay increase of 3.9 percent for members and to further narrow 
  the pay gap that exists between the military and private sector pay 
                                scales.

    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 ``Military Pay Improvement Act of 
2008''.

SEC. 2. FISCAL YEAR 2009 INCREASE IN MILITARY BASIC PAY.

    (a) Waiver of Section 1009 Adjustment.--The adjustment to become 
effective during fiscal year 2009 required by section 1009 of title 37, 
United States Code, in the rates of monthly basic pay authorized 
members of the uniformed services shall not be made.
    (b) Increase in Basic Pay.--Effective on January 1, 2009, the rates 
of monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed services are 
increased by 3.9 percent.
                                 <all>
```
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Michael Matvieshen; Chief Executive Officer of Salamon
Group, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-l4(b) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code that:

|(1) | the Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the
      Registrant for the six month period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report), to
      which this statement is filed as an exhibit, 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.                                                                                                                                                           

|Dated: December 6, 2011 | By: | /s/ Michael
      Matvieshen
|----------------------- | --- | ----------------------------
|                        |     | Michael Matvieshen          
|                        |     | Chief Executive Officer     
|                        |     | Principal Financial Officer 
|                        |     | Principal Accounting Officer

---
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5309 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pepperoncini prepared or 

preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

Mr. PASCRELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pepperoncini 

prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic 

acid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PEPPERONCINI PREPARED OR PRE4 SERVED OTHERWISE THAN BY VINEGAR OR 

5 ACETIC ACID. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5309 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Pepperoncini, prepared or 

preserved otherwise than by 

vinegar or acetic acid (provided for in subheading 

2005.90.55) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
#### Citibank, N.A., Respondent, v Kenneth Grant, Also Known as Kenneth C. Grant, Sr., Also Known as Kenneth C. *925Grant, Appellant. Samuel Stern, Intervenor-Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 59]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barros, J.), dated September 8, 2004, which, after a hearing, denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate the foreclosure sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant failed to adduce any proof that at the time this foreclosure action was commenced, or when the property was ultimately sold in 2002 pursuant to a judgment of foreclosure, he was known, or should have been known, to be an incompetent incapable of protecting his own interests. Moreover, it is undisputed that the purchaser at the foreclosure sale, the intervenor-respondent, Samuel Stern, was a bona fide purchaser for a fair and valid consideration. Finally, contrary to his contention, the defendant failed to show that the equities indisputably favor him. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the foreclosure sale *(see Guardian Loan Co. v Early,*47 NY2d 515, 521-522 [1979]; *Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Hunt,*79 NY 541, 545-546 [1880]; *Hut v Fraser,*12 AD2d 641 [1960]; *see also Bank of N.Y. v Sheik,*279 AD2d 440 [2001]; *cf. Covey v Town of Somers,*351 US 141, 145-147 [1956]; *Blum v Stone,*127 AD2d 549, 551-553 [1987]; *Barone v Cox,*51 AD2d 115, 117-118 [1976]).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.
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 of Spirit Finance Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Morton H. Fleischer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Date: May 10, 2005 |  |                                                                                            
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | /s/MORTON H. FLEISCHERMorton H. Fleischer
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5398 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5398

 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain mixtures containing [3-[(6-
       chloro-3-pridinyl)methyl]-2-thiazolidinylidene]cyanamide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2008

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain mixtures containing [3-[(6-
       chloro-3-pridinyl)methyl]-2-thiazolidinylidene]cyanamide.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURES CONTAINING [3-[(6-CHLORO-3-PRIDINYL)METHYL]-2-
              THIAZOLIDINYLIDENE]CYANAMIDE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended--
            (1) by striking heading 9902.10.35; and
            (2) by inserting in numerical sequence the following new 
        heading:

``      9902.01.00       Mixtures of [3-[(6- Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          chloro-3-                                                          31/2011.......
                          pridinyl)methyl]-
                          2-
                          thiazolidinyliden
                          e]cyanamide
                          (thiacloprid)
                          (CAS No. 111988-
                          49-9) and
                          application
                          adjuvants
                          (provided for in
                          heading
                          3808.91.25)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5364 

To suspend temporarily the duty on in line ground fault circuit interrupters. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2008 

Mr. ACKERMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on in line ground fault 

circuit interrupters. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IN LINE GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT INTER4 RUPTERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.85.37 In line ground fault circuit 

interrupters of 15 amps or 

more (provided for in subheading 8536.30.80) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5364 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
*

 After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that

oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the

record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 10, 2005*

Decided November 14, 2005

Before

Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 05-1203

DARWIN SCHMIDT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MICHELLE EGGERS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

No. 03-C-482-S

John C. Shabaz, 

Judge.

O R D E R

After a Wisconsin court revoked his parole, Darwin Schmidt sued his parole

officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, essentially claiming that she engineered the

revocation to satisfy a personal vendetta. Schmidt lost at summary judgment, and

after two timely but unsuccessful motions for reconsideration, he appealed to this

court in January 2004. We dismissed that appeal after Schmidt failed to pay the

required fees. In January 2005, nearly a year after our dismissal, Schmidt returned

to the district court and filed a third “Motion for Reconsideration.” In that motion—

which because of its timing was actually a motion to vacate the judgment under

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 05-1203 Page 2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), see Talano v. Northwestern Med. Faculty Found., Inc., 273

F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir. 2001)—Schmidt did nothing more than challenge the grant

of summary judgment. The district court denied the motion, and Schmidt now

appeals.

The time to appeal the adverse ruling on summary judgment long ago

expired, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), so the only question before us is whether the

district court abused its discretion in denying Schmidt’s most recent “Motion for

Reconsideration.” In that motion Schmidt attacks only the merits of the order

granting summary judgment in favor of his parole officer, but that legal question

should have been raised in the dismissed appeal and is not a proper ground for

relief under Rule 60(b). See Gleash v. Yuswak, 308 F.3d 758, 761 (7th Cir. 2002). 

What Schmidt actually seeks is another chance at appeal, and we have said before

that a motion under Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for a timely appeal. See Bell v.

Eastman Kodak Co., 214 F.3d 798, 801 (7th Cir. 2000); Neuberg v. Michael Reese

Hosp. Found., 123 F.3d 951, 955 (7th Cir. 1997); Donald v. Cook County Sheriff’s

Dep’t, 95 F.3d 548, 554 (7th Cir. 1996). 

AFFIRMED.
STATE v. COLEMAN.

No. COA05-716.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed March 7, 2006.

Certification Date March 27, 2006.

Appeal from Gaston (04CRS8587, 04CRS52339, 04CRS52341, 04CRS52344, 04CRS52345)

Case without published opinion. No error.
2004 Executive Incentive Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.8 
  
 

 
  

			
	

	 	 Executive and Management
 Incentive Plan
Design










			
	Plan Design	 	



  

	•	 	Business Financials – 60% 

  

	•	 	Individual Performance vs. Annual Objectives – 40% 

  

	•	 	All Incentive Payments subject to Corporate Financial Performance (“Business gate”) 

  

	•	 	Total incentive not “capped”; Comp Committee determines at end of year any “super-bonus” (>100%) based on financial results. 

  
 Page 6 - April 12, 2004 – PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL 








			
	 Individual Performance vs. Annual Objectives
 - M I T’s* - (40%)
	 	



  

	•	 	Agreed upon at beginning of the year and approved by next level of management 

  


	•	 	Paid annually after year end 



	*	Most Important Tasks 

  
 Page 7 - April 12, 2004 – PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL 








			
	Business Financials (60%)	 	



  

			
	 •      Bookings
	  	 60% 

		
	 •      Revenue
	  	 20% 

		
	 •      Operating Profit
	  	 20% 

		
	 •      Paid Quarterly (e.g. 15% per quarter)
	  	 

  
 Page 8 - April 12, 2004
– PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL 








			
	Quarterly Payments	 	



  

	•	 	Based on cumulative financials 

  

	 	•	 	3 months results 

  

	 	•	 	6 months results 

  

	 	•	 	9 months results 

  

	 	•	 	Year end results 

  

	•	 	Quarterly payment cannot exceed 100% 

  

	•	 	On-going review of the plan based upon company performance 

  
 Page 9 - April 12, 2004 – PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL 








			
	Plan Achievement vs Plan Payout	 	



  

					
	 •      Achieve less than 90% of plan:
	 	0% payout	 	 
			
	 •      Achieve 90% of plan:
	 	50% payout	 	 
			
	 •      Achieve 100% or more of plan:
	 	100% payout	 	 
	
	 •      Company reserves the right to limit payment based on overall quarterly
results


  
 Page 10 - April 12, 2004
– PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of ZHONGPIN INC. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), Feng Wang, as Chief Financial 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:




(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
      9, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Feng WangFeng
      WangChief
      Financial Officer




This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Ex.
32.2
March 30, 2000

RNM 135 Main, L.P.
C/o La Salle Partners
135 Main Street, Suite 1140
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attn:  Mr. John McNulty

RE:    LEASE  AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1990, AS AMENDED (THE "LEASE") BY AND
       BETWEEN RNM 135 MAIN, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SUCCESSOR IN
       INTEREST TO WEBB/SAN FRANCISCO VENTURE,  LTD. ("LANDLORD") AND CALIFORNIA
       FEDERAL  BANK,  A FEDERAL  SAVINGS  BANK  SUCCESSOR  IN INTEREST TO FIRST
       NATIONWIDE  BANK, A FEDERAL  SAVINGS BANK ("TENANT") FOR 135 MAIN STREET,
       SAN FRANCISCO, CA, FLOORS 3-8 & 20, SUITE 1030 & 1120 AND PORTIONS OF THE
       BASEMENT AND GROUND FLOOR AS MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN THE LEASE.

Dear Mr. McNulty:

By this letter,  Tenant hereby  notifies  Landlord that Tenant  irrevocably  and
unconditionally  exercises  its  option to extend  the Term of the Lease for the
first five year Renewal Term for all of the premises  presently leased by Tenant
at 135 Main Street, San Francisco,  specifically,  Floors 3 through 8 inclusive,
Floor 20,  Suites 1030 & 1120 and  portions of the basement and the Retail Space
as more  specifically  described in the Lease (the  "Premises"),  as well as all
eight (8) of the parking stalls currently leased by Tenant.

The Minimum Rent payable  during the Renewal Term for all of the Premises  other
than the Parking shall be as stated on the attached Exhibit "A", which is 95% of
the Fair Market  Rental Rate as  determined  under the terms of Paragraph 20b of
the Lease by Mark  McGranahan  (the "Third  Expert") in his letters dated May 3,
2000 and May 4, 2000, respectively.

Please send us a letter acknowledging your receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

California Federal Bank


      /s/Charles W. Kay
-------------------------------
         Charles W. Kay
         Senior Vice President

cc:    Rayburn Tucker
       Edward Murphy, Esq.
       Michael Fleishman, Esq.
       Helen Sedwick, Esq.