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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3272 

To make emergency supplemental appropriations for the National Institutes 

of Health for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 16, 2008 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. HARKIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To make emergency supplemental appropriations for the National Institutes of Health for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘NIH Emergency Sup5 plemental Appropriations Act of 2008’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS. 

7 That the following sums are appropriated, out of any 

8 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•S 3272 IS

1 fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other pur2 poses, namely: 

3 (1) For an additional amount for the ‘‘Office of 

4 the Director, National Institutes of Health’’, 

5 $4,000,000,000 which shall be transferred to the In6 stitutes and Centers of the National Institutes of 

7 Health to be used to support additional scientific re8 search. 

9 (2) For an additional amount for the National 

10 Cancer Institute, $1,200,000,000 to be used to sup11 port additional scientific research. 

12 SEC. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 

13 (a) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—No part of the appro14 priation contained in this Act shall remain available for 

15 obligation beyond the current fiscal year. 

16 (b) EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.—Amounts in this 

17 Act are designated as emergency requirements pursuant 

18 to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), and 

19 pursuant to section 501 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Con20 gress) as made applicable to the House of Representatives 

21 by section 511(a)(4) of H. Res. 6 (110th Congress). 

Æ 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3294 

To provide for the continued performance of the functions of the United 

States Parole Commission. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 21 (legislative day, JULY 17), 2008 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. SPECTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To provide for the continued performance of the functions 

of the United States Parole Commission. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States Parole 

5 Commission Extension Act of 2008’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING REFORM ACT OF 

7 1984. 

8 For purposes of section 235(b) of the Sentencing Re9 form Act of 1984 (18 U.S.C. 3551 note; Public Law 98– 

10 473; 98 Stat. 2032), as such section relates to chapter 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 3294 CPS

1 311 of title 18, United States Code, and the United States 

2 Parole Commission, each reference in such section to ‘‘21 

3 years’’ or ‘‘21-year period’’ shall be deemed a reference 

4 to ‘‘24 years’’ or ‘‘24-year period’’, respectively. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998             FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998             FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                       6,235,000                 763,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,763,000               2,374,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    196,000                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,703,000               3,739,000
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,064,000                 400,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,431,000               5,822,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,723,000               3,310,000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     8,733,000                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,431,000               5,822,000
<SALES>                                     23,183,000              15,416,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,183,000              15,416,000
<CGS>                                       17,287,000              11,415,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,287,000              11,415,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,916,000               2,113,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87,000                  54,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,083,000               1,815,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,633,000                 636,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,450,000               1,179,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,450,000               1,179,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57                     .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53                     .31
        

</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United Stat es District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2187

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Lance Pegues, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 29, 2007 Filed: April 6, 2007

___________ Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Lance Pegues appeals the 24-month prison term imposed by the district court 1 following revocation of his supervised releas e. He argues that it was error for the court to order his sentence to be served consecutively to an undischarged state term of imprisonment. We disagree. At the revocation heari ng, many matters relevant to sentencing were brought to the district court’s atten tion, including Pegues’s repeated violations-2- of the law, his poor response to supervision, and his need for psychological and substance-abuse treatment. The district court heard and rejected Pegues’s lengthy argument for a concurrent sentence, instead choosing to impose a consecutive sentence as advised in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), and commenting in particular that two years of federal custody would afford Pegues an opportunity to get the help he needed. We conclude that the senten ce was not unreasonable. SeeUnited States v. Larison , 432 F.3d 921, 922-23 (8th Cir. 2006) (court reviews revocation sentences for unreasonableness); United States v. Franklin , 397 F.3d 604, 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005) (district court must consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in determining revocation sentence, but need not make specific findi ngs on each factor; all that is required is evidence that court considered rele vant matters in imposing sentence). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
Lease
Agreement


 


This
Lease Agreement is made as of this 11th day of February, 2015 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Cachet
Financial Solutions Inc., with an office at 18671 Lake Drive East, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55317 (“Lessee”) and James
Leroy Davis, with its principal place of business located at 6446 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (“Lessor”)
(together “Parties”).


 


WHEREAS,
Lessor entered into the Master Equipment Lease with KLC Financial, Inc. (“KLC”) as set forth in Exhibit A hereto (hereinafter
the “Master Equipment Lease”); and


 


WHEREAS,
Lessee desires to the lease from Lessor the Equipment under the Master Equipment Lease according to the same terms as the Master
Equipment Lease; and


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements, covenants, undertakings, representations and conditions as set forth herein and
for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


		1)	Lessee
                                         agrees to lease from Lessor the equipment under the Master Equipment Lease on the same
                                         terms as Master Equipment Lease.



 


		2)	The
                                         term of this Agreement shall be for the same term as the Master Equipment Lease.



 


		3)	The
                                         terms of this Agreement shall not affect any of the terms of the Master Equipment Lease
                                         or any other Agreement entered into between Lessor and Lessee.



 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Lease Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized representative as of the
Effective Date written above.


 





	Lessee: Cachet Financial Solutions, Inc	 	Lessor: James Leroy Davis
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Jeff Mack	 	By:	/s/ James Leroy Davis


 


	Jeff Mack	 	James Leroy Davis
	(Printed Name)	 	(Printed Name)
	 	 	 
	CEO/President	 	 
	(Title)	 	(Title)
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3135 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide for the 

establishment of a production incentive fee for nonproducing leases. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 12, 2008 

Mr. NELSON of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide 

for the establishment of a production incentive fee for 

nonproducing leases. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Outer Continental 

5 Shelf Production Incentive Fee Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PRODUCTION INCENTIVE FEE. 

7 Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

8 (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following: 

10 ‘‘(q) PRODUCTION INCENTIVE FEE.— 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 3135 IS

1 ‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 180 

2 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, 

3 the Secretary shall establish, by regulation, a fee for 

4 any nonproducing oil or gas leases on outer Conti5 nental Shelf land in the Gulf of Mexico that are in 

6 effect on the date of enactment of this subsection. 

7 ‘‘(2) AMOUNT.—The amount of the fee estab8 lished under paragraph (1) shall be at a rate estab9 lished by the Secretary by regulation, but shall be 

10 not less than $5 per acre per year. 

11 ‘‘(3) ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION.—The Sec12 retary shall assess and collect the fee established 

13 under paragraph (1) on an annual basis, in accord14 ance with procedures established by the Secretary by 

15 regulation. 

16 ‘‘(4) DISPOSITION.—Notwithstanding section 9, 

17 any amounts collected under paragraph (3) shall 

18 be— 

19 ‘‘(A) available to the Secretary of the Inte20 rior for use in accordance with the Land and 

21 Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 

22 U.S.C. 460l–4 et seq.); and 

23 ‘‘(B) treated as offsetting receipts.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
#### Elaine Plunkett et al., Appellants, v NYU Downtown Hospital, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 354]

In an action to recover damages for violation of the right of sepulcher, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated September 2, 2004, which granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Contrary to the contention of the defendant and the determination of the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs’ action to recover for the emotional injuries flowing from the defendant’s alleged unwarranted delay in notifying them of their father’s death and its interference with their right to the possession of his remains *1023(see *generally Gostkowski v Roman Catholic Church,*262 NY 320 [1933]; *Darcy v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y.,*202 NY 259 [1911]; *Nesbit v Turner,*15 AD3d 552 [2005]; *Estate of Scheuer v City of New York,*10 AD3d 272 [2004]) was not rendered deficient merely because the plaintiffs did not submit medical evidence to support all of their injuries. While evidence of a specific medical diagnosis or course of treatment may be relevant to the issue of damages, it is not essential to the prosecution of such an inherently genuine claim *(see Garcia v Lawrence Hosp.,*5 AD3d 227, 228 [2004]; *see generally Johnson v State of New York,*37 NY2d 378, 382 [1975]), and its absence does not preclude recovery *(see Massaro v O’Shea Funeral Home,*292 AD2d 349, 351 [2002]; *Maracallo v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*2 Misc 3d 703, 714 [2003]).

Similarly, the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to warrant the submission of their claim for punitive damages to a jury *(see generally Gostkowski v Roman Catholic Church, supra; Liendo v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr.,*273 AD2d 445 [2000]; *Liberman v Riverside Mem. Chapel,*225 AD2d 283 [1996]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit *(see Gostkowski v Roman Catholic Church, supra*at 325; *Nesbit v Turner, supra; Weingast v State of New York,*44 Misc 2d 824, 826 [1964]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
II 

Calendar No. 1003 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3158 

To extend the authority for the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory 

Commission. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 19, 2008 

Mr. REID (for Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. KERRY)) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 

Reported by Mr. BINGAMAN, with an amendment and an amendment to the 

title 

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To extend the authority for the Cape Cod National Seashore 

Advisory Commission. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cape Cod National 

5 Seashore Advisory Commission Reauthorization Act’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3158 RS

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CAPE COD NATIONAL 

2 SEASHORE ADVISORY COMMISSION. 

3 Section 8(a) of Public Law 87–126 (16 U.S.C. 459b– 

4 7(a)) is amended in the second sentence by striking 

5 ‘‘2008’’ and inserting ‘‘2018’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CAPE COD NATIONAL 

7 SEASHORE ADVISORY COMMISSION. 

8 Effective September 26, 2008, section 8(a) of Public 

9 Law 87–126 (16 U.S.C. 459b–7(a)) is amended in the sec10 ond sentence by striking ‘‘2008’’ and inserting ‘‘2018’’. 

11 SEC. 3. NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM ADVISORY BOARD. 

12 Section 3(f) of the Act of August 21, 1935 (16. U.S.C. 

13 463(f)), is amended in the first sentence by striking ‘‘2009’’ 

14 and inserting ‘‘2010’’. 

15 SEC. 4. CONCESSIONS MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD. 

16 Section 409(d) of the National Park Service Conces17 sions Management Improvement Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 

18 5958(d)) is amended in the first sentence by striking 

19 ‘‘2008’’ and inserting ‘‘2009’’. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to extend the 

authority for the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory 

Commission and certain other advisory boards.’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Calendar No. 1003 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3158 

A BILL 

To extend the authority for the Cape Cod National 

Seashore Advisory Commission. 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 

Reported with an amendment and an amendment to the 

title 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
TILLMAN v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT.

No. 360A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2006.

John Alan Jones, G. Christopher Olson, Raleigh, for Tillman and Richardson.

Jeffrey M. Young, Research Triangle Park, Richard H. Sinkfield, Atlanta, GA, for Commercial Credit, et al.

Carlene McNulty, Mallam J. Maynard, F. Paul Bland, Washington, DC, for NC Justice Center, et al.

Matthew F. Sawchak, Wendy I. Sexton, Raleigh, Alan S. Kaplinsky, Jeremy T. Rosenblum, Philadelphia, PA, Robert E. McKew, General Counsel and SVP, Washington, DC, for American Financial Ser., et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of November 2006 by Defendant to Admit Christopher J. Willis Pro Hac Vice:

*61"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 16th day of November 2006."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 867/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 867/2013 of 9 September 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 867/2013                     

# of 9 September 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 September 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
CLEMMONS v. SECURITAS, INC.

No. COA06-1346.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 5, 2007.

Certification Date June 25, 2007.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. 424068).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                        10
<SECURITIES>                  3,277,519
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              0 <F1>
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                3,294,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         0 <F1> 
<BONDS>                       3,049,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      10
<OTHER-SE>                    244,051
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  3,294,049
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              52,712
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              674
<LOSS-PROVISION>              1,962
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            47,034
<INCOME-PRETAX>               3,042
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           3,042
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               27,842
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  30,884
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.00

<FN>
<F1>  The Company's balanace sheet is unclassified.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

 

**Summary of Bonus Plan for Bradley S. Powell**

 

On March 19, 2008, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Eden Bioscience Corporation (the “Company”) approved a bonus plan for Bradley S. Powell, the Company’s President and Chief Financial Officer, pursuant to which Mr. Powell will be paid a cash bonus equal to one times his annual base salary upon completion of an acquisition, merger or consolidation to which the Company is a party.  Previously, pursuant to the terms of Mr. Powell’s existing employment agreement with the Company, any such bonus, including the amount thereof, was payable only if approved by the Compensation Committee at its sole discretion.

 

- 19 -

----
**EXHIBIT 23.3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-70965)pertaining to the LNR Property Corporation Savings Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-56734) pertaining to the LNR Property Corporation 2000 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan and (Form S-8 No. 333-58160) pertaining to the LNR Property Corporation 2001Senior Officers Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated January 15, 2003, with respect to the financial statements of Madison Square Company LLC, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of LNR Property Corporation for the year ended November 30,2002 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

ERNST& YOUNG LLP 

 

Miami, Florida 

February 24, 2003