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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5816 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5816

   To prohibit assistance for the Carter Center located in Atlanta, 
                                Georgia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 16, 2008

Mr. Knollenberg (for himself and Mr. Boehner) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in 
    addition to the Committee on Appropriations, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit assistance for the Carter Center located in Atlanta, 
                                Georgia.

    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 ``Coordinated American Response To 
Extreme Radicals Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE FOR THE CARTER CENTER.

    (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds made available in any Act may 
be used to provide assistance for the Carter Center located in Atlanta, 
Georgia.
    (b) Rescission and Transfer of Funds.--
            (1) Rescission.--All of the amounts appropriated by the 
        Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
        Appropriations Act, 2008 (division J of Public Law 110-161) for 
        assistance for the Carter Center located in Atlanta, Georgia, 
        are hereby rescinded.
            (2) Transfer.--The amounts rescinded under paragraph (1) 
        shall be made available for programs to provide assistance to 
        United States victims of terrorism.
                                 <all>
```
#### Dav-El Services, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Commonwealth Worldwide Chauffeured Transportation of NY, LLC, et al., Respondents.

[800 NYS2d 642]

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendants from breaching a noncompetition agreement, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated November 15, 2004, which denied their motion, among other things, for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the defendants from using any confidential information obtained from the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their entitlement to a preliminary injunction by showing a likelihood of success on the merits, the danger of irreparable harm, and a balance of the equities in their favor *(see Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso,*75 NY2d 860, 862 [1990]; *Gagnon Bus Co., Inc. v Vallo Transp., Ltd.,*13 AD3d 334, 335 [2004]; *Pearlgreen Corp. v Yau Chi Chu,*8 AD3d 460, 461 [2004]; *Milbrandt & Co. v Griffin,*1 AD3d 327 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion. Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          91,363
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,527,453
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,787,291
<PP&E>                                      20,506,468
<DEPRECIATION>                                 844,163
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,449,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          812,823
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,991
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,834,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,449,596
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,753,288
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,021,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             760,782
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (29,254)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (29,254)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (29,254)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7829

PHILIPE MICHEL LISTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

L. M. SAUNDERS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER IDDINGS;

SERGEANT SANTIAGO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-94-320-R)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Philipe Michel Liston, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting

judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, to two

of the three Defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) claim.

Liston alleged in his complaint that the Defendants' failure to

protect him from a violent attack by another inmate constituted

cruel and unusual punishment and a denial of due process. We have

reviewed the record and the proceedings before the district court

and find no reversible error. Finding that the district court

intended its order to be final and to dispose of the claim against

all three Defendants, we affirm the district court's order as

modified to extend to all Defendants named in the Complaint. 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 AS MODIFIED
Joseph MONA, Appellant, v. Michael L. CRANSTON, Appellee.

Record No. 060205.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

January 12, 2007.

*209Upon consideration of the record, the briefs, and the argument of counsel, the Court is of the opinion that there is reversible error in the judgment of the circuit court.

On July 28, 1986, a default judgment in the amount of $7,000 was entered against Joseph Mona in favor of Michael L. Cranston in the Fairfax County General District Court. On June 2, 1987, Cranston docketed the judgment in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County by filing an abstract of judgment. The judgment remained unsatisfied, and on September 29, 2005, Cranston filed a motion in the circuit court to renew and extend the judgment. The circuit court granted Cranston's motion to extend the judgment. Mona appeals from that judgment.

The judgment against Mona was subject to the provisions of former Code § 16.1-69.55, which specifically addressed limitations on judgments rendered by general district courts. Pursuant to that former statute, the judgment against Mona became unenforceable on July 29, 1996, because Cranston failed to file in the general district court a motion to extend the judgment within ten years of the date the judgment was rendered, as required by former Code § 16.1-69.55. *See* former Code § 16.1-69.55(B)(2) and (4) (1996). The fact that Cranston docketed the judgment in the circuit court was insufficient to render it a judgment of the circuit court because compliance with the statutory requirement of obtaining an extension of judgment, as specified in former Code § 16.1-69.55(B)(4), was mandatory.

The 2005 amendment of Code § 16.1-69.55(B)(4), which extinguished the requirement that a plaintiff file a separate motion to extend in general district court, has no bearing on this case because that amendment took place after the judgment against Mona expired. *See* 2005 Acts ch. 135. Therefore, the circuit court erred in granting Cranston's motion to extend the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and annulled, and final judgment is entered in favor of Joseph Mona.

This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports and shall be certified to the said circuit court.
VI 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 313 

For the relief of Ibrahim Parlak. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 17, 2007 

Mr. LEVIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Ibrahim Parlak. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR IBRAHIM 

4 PARLAK. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Ibrahim Parlak shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of that Act or for adjustment 

12 of status to lawful permanent resident. 


frosa on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 313 IS

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Ibrahim Parlak 

2 enters the United States before the filing deadline speci3 fied in subsection (c), Ibrahim Parlak shall be considered 

4 to have entered and remained lawfully in the United 

5 States and shall be eligible for adjustment of status under 

6 section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

7 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of 

13 this Act. 

14 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

15 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or lawful perma16 nent resident status to Ibrahim Parlak, the Secretary of 

17 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, dur18 ing the current or next following fiscal year, the total num19 ber of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

20 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) 

21 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

22 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant 

23 visas that are made available to natives of the country of 


frosa on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•S 313 IS

1 the alien’s birth under section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 

2 1152(e)). 

Æ 


frosa on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         224,548
<SECURITIES>                                   300,675
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,986
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,454
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               630,906
<PP&E>                                         275,664
<DEPRECIATION>                                (99,587)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,104,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          241,883
<BONDS>                                        736,294
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    397,019
<COMMON>                                     9,312,700
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,642,702)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,104,279
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               336,955
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  143,056
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,664,782
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (15,769)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,457,638)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,457,638)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,457,638)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (4.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.61)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 25, 2010 

s0517 

Order 

 

May 25, 2010 

140546 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140546 

 COA: 289430 

Bay CC: 06-010190-FC 

MARK ANTHONY WILLSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 21, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 12
- 00319
- CR FREDDIE LEE WALLACE , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 05
- 03424
- CRF
- 272
- E

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Freddie Lee Wallace f iled an article 11.07 petition for writ of habeas corpus. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2012). The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed it. In this proceeding, he now attempts to appeal the dismissal of his application for writ of hab eas corpus by the Court of Criminal Appeals. By letter dated September 13, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified Wallace that his appeal was subject to dismissal because it appeared this Court ha d no jurisdiction to review an appeal of
the Court of Crimi nal Appeal’s dismissal of an application for writ of habeas corpus.Wallace v. State Page 2

Wallace was further warned that the Court would dismiss this appeal unless, within 21 days of the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Wall ace filed a response but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. We only have jurisdiction of a criminal proceeding when expressly provided by
law. Abbott v. State , 271 S.W.3d 694, 696

- 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Wallace has not
directed our attention to any statue or constitutional provision that gives us jurisdiction of the proceeding, and we are aware of none. This appeal is dismissed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44.3.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed October 25, 2012 Do not publish [CR25]
Exhibit 10.2 

 

**FIRST AMENDMENT**

**TO THE CLUBCORP, INC.**

**EXECUTIVE STOCK OPTION PLAN**

 

This First Amendment to the ClubCorp, Inc. Executive Stock Option Plan (the “Amendment”) of ClubCorp, Inc.,a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), is executed and delivered as of the 13th day of August,2003 by the Company pursuant to the terms of Section 9 of the Club Corp, Inc. Executive Stock Option Plan, as amended (the “Plan”). 

 

**RECITALS:**

 

WHEREAS, the Company originally established the Plan effective as of August 31, 1995; 

 

WHEREAS, the Plan was previously amended by the First Amendment to the Club Corporation International Executive Stock OptionPlan, effective as of August 31, 1995 and as further amended by Amendment Two to the Club Corporation International Executive Stock Option Plan, effective as of April 14, 1998; 

 

WHEREAS, on December 22, 2000, the Company transferred 1,379,500 shares from the Plan to the Company’s Omnibus StockPlan (“Omnibus Plan”), which shares were previously registered on Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-96568; 

 

WHEREAS, the Plan was restated effective as of January 1, 2001; and 

 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has adopted this Amendment to the Plan by unanimous written consent in lieuof a special meeting of the Board of Directors dated August 15, 2003, to decrease the total number of shares authorized to be issued under the Plan to reflect the total number of shares that the Board of Directors has authorized to be issuedunder the Plan pursuant to its past actions and to reflect the transfer of 1,822,500 unused shares under the Executive Plan to the Omnibus Plan. 

 

**AGREEMENTS:**

 

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority of the Board of Directors of the Corporation under Section 9 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

 

1. Decrease in Authorized Shares. Section 2.1 of thePlan is hereby amended to delete the reference to “four million (4,000,000)” and substitute in lieu thereof “seven hundred ninety eight thousand (798,000).” 

 

2. Effective Date. This Amendment shall be effective as of the date hereof, the date of its adoption by the Board ofDirectors of the Company. 

3. Defined Terms: Effect Upon Plan. All initially capitalized terms used without definition hereinshall have the meanings set forth therefor in the Plan. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 

 

**[signature page follows]**

 

2 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed and delivered as of the date first above written.

 
**CLUBCORP, INC.**By: 
/s/    Thomas T. Henslee        
 
Name:
 
Thomas T. Henslee
 
Title:
 
Secretary
 
 

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K YEARLY REPORT FOR SUCH PERIOD AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          10,735
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,148
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,019
<INVENTORY>                                     20,139
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,161
<PP&E>                                          46,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,116
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 142,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,037
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           184
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   142,155
<SALES>                                        192,985
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               192,985
<CGS>                                          176,353
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,700<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,019
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,651
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,570)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,738
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,034)<F2>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,034)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.19)<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.19)
<FN>
<F1>TOTAL COSTS INCLUDE A ONE-TIME CHARGE OF $12.9 MILLION FOR PURCHASED
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, CHARGED OFF TO INCOME IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE MERGER
WITH DNA PLANT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION.
<F2>NET OF LOSS RELATING TO MINORITY INTERESTS
<F3>BASED ON 14.3 MILLION SHARES OUTSTANDING DURING THE PERIOD WHICH CONSIDERS
THE EFFECT OF THE MERGER WITH DNA PLANT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
</FN>


</TABLE>