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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5582 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5582

 To authorize appropriations for the National Historical Publications 
            and Records Commission through fiscal year 2014.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 2008

  Mr. Clay (for himself and Mr. Larson of Connecticut) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize appropriations for the National Historical Publications 
            and Records Commission through fiscal year 2014.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2014 FOR 
              NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION.

    Section 2504(f)(1) of title 44, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (R), by striking ``and'';
            (2) in subparagraph (S), by striking the period and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
            (3) by adding at the end of the following new subparagraph:
            ``(T) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010, 2011, 
        2012, 2013, and 2014.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner; John V. Bologna, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 163]

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in 1989, was suspended by this Court’s order dated January 6, 2005 for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a (14 AD3d 788 [2005]).

Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that he has complied with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts *(see*22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object to respondent’s application.

Respondent’s application is granted and he is ordered reinstated, effective immediately.

*1251Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
Form of Certificate of Common Stock of the Registrant




	
	 Exhibit 4.1
 




  
 THIS
CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE IN 
 CHARLOTTE, NC AND NEW YORK, NY 
 THIS CERTIFIES that 
 is the owner of 
 FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.01 PER SHARE, OF

 RUTH’S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC. 
 transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid unless
countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. 
 WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the
facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. 
 Dated: 
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
 PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
 CUSIP 783332 10 9 
 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS 
 COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: 
 WACHOVIA BANK, N.A. 
 (Charlotte, NC) 
 BY: TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR 
 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE.
STATE v. KERSEY.

No. COA05-1303.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 20, 2006.

Certification Date July 10, 2006.

Appeal from Guilford (04CRS77618).

Case reported without published opinion. No prejudicial error.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   Exhibit 99

                        Valuation and Qualifying Accounts



CONVERGENCE-COMMUNICATIONS,-INC.

SCHEDULE-II:--VALUATION-AND-QUALIFYING-ACCOUNTS

                                                                     Additions
                                                            ----------------------------
                                                Balance-at-     Charged-     Charged-         Deductions    Balance-at-
                                                 Beginning-     to-Cash-     to-Other                        End-of-
               Description                        of-Year         and         Accounts                          Year
                                                                Expenses
<S>                                            <C>            <C>           <C>                <C>          <C>
Year-ended-December 31, 2001:

Deducted-from-assets-accounts
Accounts-Receivable:
   Allowance                                   $ 1,225,627    $1,074,024                       $420,335     $1,879,316
Inventory:
   Reserve                                         214,654                                      211,654          3,000
Deferred-tax-assets:
   Valuation-allowance                          20,370,100                  $18,189,457                     38,559,557
Year-ended-December 31, 2000:

Deducted-from-assets-accounts
Accounts-Receivable:
   Allowance                                     $ 366,448    $1,387,255                       $528,076     $1,225,627
Inventory:
   Reserve                                         259,579                                       44,925        214,654
Deferred-tax-assets:
   Valuation-allowance                          10,096,368                  $10,273,732                     20,370,100

Year-ended-December 31, 1999:

Deducted-from-assets-accounts
Accounts-receivable:
   Allowance                                       328,283       363,005                        324,840        366,448
Inventory:
   Reserve                                         259,579                                                     259,579
Deferred-tax-assets:
   Valuation-allowance                           5,452,292                    4,644,076                     10,096,368


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7105

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. CARL LAMONT DEAN, a/k/a Jermaine Dean, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:96-cr-00046-FDW-3)

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl Lamont Dean, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Carl Lamont Dean appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Dean asserts that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008), USSG App C, Amend. 706. “Amendment 706 . . . amended § 2D1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines by reducing the offense levels associated with [cocaine base] quantities by two levels.” United States v.

Hood , 556 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed , ___U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Aug. 7, 2009) (No. 09-5868). Because of the statutorily-mandated minimum sentence to which Dean was subject, his Guidelines’ imprisonment range was 240 to 293 months. He was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. On account of the statutory minimum, Amendment 706 did not have the effect of lowering Dean’s Guidelines range. See USSG § 1B1.10, p.s., cmt. n.1(A). Accordingly, a reduction in Dean’s sentence is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Gregory Scott CARPENTER v. Gwendolyn Anne RATLIFF.

No. 688P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

Sofie W. Hosford, Wilmington, doe Gwendolyn Anne Ratliff.

Donald M. Brown, Jr., Charlotte, for Gregory Scott Carpenter.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 16th day of December 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd day of March 2006."
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

CHRISTINA PAYLAN, M.D., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-186 ) BRIAN BISHOP, in his individual capacity, ) and MARK DETRIO, in his individual ) capacity, ) ) Appellees. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed August 24, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Gregory P. Holder, Judge. Christina Paylan, M.D., pro se. Andrew I. Dayes of Dayes Law Firm, PLLC, Clearwater, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, SLEET, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Montrez Demario CARTER.

No. 290A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Michael Nifong, District Attorney, for State of NC.

George E. Kelly, III, Palmyra, VA, for Montrez Demario Carter.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 1st day of June 2006 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."
STATE V.CASSELMAN.

No. COA04-33.

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed August 2, 2005.

Certification Date August 22, 2005.

Appeal from the McDowell (01CRS3332, 01CRS3333, 01CRS3334, 01CRS3427)

Case reported without published opinion New trial.
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


DIRECTORS COMPENSATION
SUMMARY


 


Outside directors receive compensation for board service.  Payment dates are the last working day of
March, June, September, and December. 
That compensation includes:


 




	
  Annual Retainer:

  	
  $50,000

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Committee Chair Stipend:

  	
  $15,000 annually for Audit Committee chair

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  $10,000 annually for all other committee chairs

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Attendance Fees:

  	
  $1,500 for each board meeting (attended in person,
  conducted by telephone, or written consent in lieu of meeting)

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  $1,500 for each committee meeting (attended in
  person, conducted by telephone, or written consent in lieu of meeting)

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Expenses related to attendance

  






 


Directors who are either employees of the company or representatives of
the company’s two investors, Forest Products Holdings, L.L.C. and OfficeMax
Incorporated, do not receive compensation for their board service.
STATE v. Arris James HINTON.

No. 113P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2006.

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Raleigh, for Arris James Hinton.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of March 2006 by Attorney General for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of March 2006."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

TIMOTHY J. AUBREY, a.k.a. Tim Aubrey, 

a.k.a. Timothy Joel Aubrey, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-50165 

D.C. No. 8:13-cr-00167-JVS-2 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 19, 2019**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

Timothy J. Aubrey appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

the 21-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for mail fraud, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), Aubrey’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 21 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-50165 

relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided 

Aubrey the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental 

brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Aubrey waived his right to appeal most aspects of his sentence. Our 

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United 

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss 

those aspects of Aubrey’s sentencing appeal that are covered by the waiver and 

affirm as to all other issues, with the exception of three supervised release 

conditions—standard conditions five, six, and fourteen—which are 

unconstitutionally vague. See United States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154, 1162-64 (9th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 133 (2018); see also Watson, 582 F.3d at 977 (an 

appeal waiver does not bar a constitutional challenge to a supervised release 

condition). We remand for the district court to modify these conditions consistent 

with our opinion in Evans.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part; REMANDED with 

instructions.
##### 



Exhibit 21.1

Kroll Inc. Subsidiaries



| | Kroll Holdings, Inc. (KHI) (Delaware) (100%)
| | ----------------------------------------------



| | Kroll Associates, Inc. (Delaware) (100%) (conducts business in Arizona under the name Kroll Consulting, Inc.)
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | Kroll Associates (Asia) Limited (Hong Kong) (50%; 50% by KHI)
| | -------------------------------------------------------------



| | Kroll Associates U.K. Limited (England) (100%)
| | ----------------------------------------------



| | Kroll International, Inc. (Delaware) (100%)
| | -------------------------------------------



| | Kroll Associates International Holdings, Inc. (100%)
| | ----------------------------------------------------



| | Kroll Lindquist Avey Company (Nova Scotia) (100% owned by L.A.M.B. Acquisition, Inc. and L.A.M.B. Acquisition II, Inc., which are 100% owned by Kroll)
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | InPhoto Surveillance, Inc. (Illinois) (100%)
| | --------------------------------------------



| | Kroll Information Services, Inc. (Delaware) (100%)
| | --------------------------------------------------



| | Kroll Specialists of America, Inc. (Oklahoma) (100%)
| | ----------------------------------------------------



| | Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc. (Louisiana) (100%)
| | -----------------------------------------------------



| | Kroll Buchler Phillips Ltd. (U.K.) (100%)
| | -----------------------------------------



| | Kroll Background America, Inc. (Tennessee) (100%) (conducts business in Tennessee under the name The Search is On)
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | Kroll Ontrack Inc. (Minnesota) (100%)
| | -------------------------------------



| | Kroll Zolfo Cooper LLC (New Jersey) (100%)
| | ------------------------------------------



| | Kroll Zolfo Cooper Holdings, Inc. (New Jersey) (100%)
| | -----------------------------------------------------



| | Kroll Zolfo Cooper Management LLC (New Jersey) (100%)
| | -----------------------------------------------------



| | All other subsidiaries together do not meet the definition of a Significant Subsidiary.
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE v. SKINNER.

No. COA05-1239.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Richmond (05CRS50191).

Case without published opinion. No error.
| Subsidiary                                                                                    | State      of Organization |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|
|                                                                                          |                       |
| Historic      Discoveries, Inc.                                                               | Pennsylvania               |
|                                                                                          |                       |
| Artifact      Recovery & Conservation Inc.(subsidiary of Historic      Discoveries, Inc.) | Pennsylvania               |
|                                                                                          |                       |
| Sea      Research Inc.(subsidiary of Historic      Discoveries, Inc.)                         | Oklahoma                   |
|                                                                                          |                       |
| Sea      Quest, Inc.(subsidiary of Sea Research,      Inc.)                                   | Oklahoma                   |
|                                                                                          |                       |
| Sovereign      Exploration Associates International of      Spain, Inc.                       | Pennsylvania               |
|                                                                                          |                       |
| Lavelle Holdings,      Inc.                                                                   | Nevada                     |
|                                                                                          |                       |
| LeChameau      Explorations Limited                                                           | Nova  Scotia               |
STATE v. Jeffrey L. WRIGHT.

No. 615P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of November 2005 by Defendant for "Petition for Plain Error Review Pursuant to N.C.G.S 7A-31 (B)(1)(2)(3)":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of January 2006."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5609 

To provide for transitional health care for members of the Armed Forces 

separated from active duty who agree to serve in the Selected Reserve 

of the Ready Reserve. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2008 

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BUYER, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. MILLER

of Florida, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. ELLISON, 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. FILNER, Mr. PASTOR, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mrs. 

NAPOLITANO, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Ms. 

BORDALLO, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. CUMMINGS, 

Mr. LOEBSACK, Mr. COHEN, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. BOYD of Florida, Mr. 

CARNEY, Mr. CRAMER, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. MELANCON, 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. WILSON of Ohio, Mr. 

SENSENBRENNER, Mr. KAGEN, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. 

WALZ of Minnesota, Mr. MICHAUD, and Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed 

Services 

A BILL 

To provide for transitional health care for members of the 

Armed Forces separated from active duty who agree 

to serve in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve. 

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


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5609 IH

1 SECTION 1. TRANSITIONAL HEALTH CARE FOR CERTAIN 

2 MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO 

3 AGREE TO SERVE IN THE SELECTED RE4 SERVE OF THE READY RESERVE. 

5 (a) PROVISION OF TRANSITIONAL HEALTH CARE.— 

6 Section 1145(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara8 graph: 

9 ‘‘(E) A member who is separated from active 

10 duty who agrees to become a member of the Selected 

11 Reserve of the Ready Reserve of a reserve compo12 nent.’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subparagraph (E) of section 

14 1145(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, as added by 

15 subsection (a), shall apply with respect to members of the 

16 Armed Forces separated from active duty after the date 

17 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
Celeste G. BROUGHTON v. COUNTY COMMISSION OF WAKE COUNTY.

No. 262P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 12, 2006.

Celeste G. Broughton, Pro Se.

Shelley Eason, Raleigh, for County Commission of Wake Co.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 12th day of May 2006 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of May 2006."
BOONE v. MOORE.

No. COA05-1321.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 1, 2006.

Certification Date August 21, 2006.

Appeal from Halifax (02CVS657).

Case without published opinion. Dismissed.
----

**EXHIBIT        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY        ACT OF 2002**

| (1)    | the                  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly                  period                  ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange                  Act of                  1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
| (2)    | the                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                  Company.                                                                                                                                                                   |

| Dated:                  August 10, 2005 | /s/                  Todd M. Raba          |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                         | Todd                  M. Raba              |   |
|                                         | President                                  |   |
|                                         | (chief                  executive officer) |   |