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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3712 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3712

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To make a technical correction in the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici 
         Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION IN MENTAL HEALTH PARITY EFFECTIVE DATE.

    Section 512(e)(2)(B) of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental 
Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (subtitle B of title V 
of division C of Public Law 110-343) is amended by striking ``January 
1, 2009'' and inserting ``January 1, 2010''.

            Passed the Senate November 20, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3712

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To make a technical correction in the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici 
         Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.
```
EXHIBIT 32.4
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, David L. Sokol, Chief Executive Officer of MidAmerican Funding, LLC (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (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 3, 2004
 
 
 /s/ David L. Sokol
 David L. Sokol
 Chief Executive Officer
Amendment No. 1 to Stand-Alone Restricted Stock Award Agreement


  
 Exhibit 10.1

 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 
 STAND-ALONE RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT 

This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO STAND-ALONE RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into this
12th day of November, 2010, by and between ExpressJet Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Thomas M. Hanley (“Hanley”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and Hanley entered into that certain Stand-Alone Restricted Stock Award Agreement dated as of May 7, 2010 (the
“Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company, SkyWest, Inc., a Utah corporation (“SkyWest”), and
Express Delaware Merger Co., a Delaware corporation and indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of SkyWest (“Merger Sub”), entered into that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 3, 2010 (the “Merger
Agreement”), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the “Merger”); and 

WHEREAS, the Merger Agreement contemplates an amendment to the Agreement to provide that immediately prior to the effective time of the
Merger, 40% of the shares of restricted common stock granted to Hanley pursuant to the Agreement shall be accelerated and vest in full. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the delivery, receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Amendment of Agreement. Section 1(a)(ii) of the Agreement
is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “In connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of August 3, 2010 (the “Merger Agreement”), among SkyWest, Inc., a Utah corporation, Express Delaware Merger Co., a Delaware corporation and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of SkyWest, Inc. and the Company, 40% of the
Covered Shares shall vest immediately prior to the effective time of the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement.” 

2. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which shall be deemed one and the same document. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 






  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
this Amendment has been duly executed and delivered by and on behalf of each of the parties hereto as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	EXPRESSJET HOLDINGS, INC.,
	 a Delaware corporation

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Phung Ngo-Burns

	 Name: Phung Ngo-Burns

	 Title: Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

	
	THOMAS M. HANLEY
	
	 /s/ Thomas M. Hanley
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 529 

To allow modified bloc voting by cooperative associations of milk producers 

in connection with a referendum on Federal Milk Marketing Order reform. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2007 

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

referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To allow modified bloc voting by cooperative associations 

of milk producers in connection with a referendum on 

Federal Milk Marketing Order reform. 

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 The Act may be cited as the ‘‘Democracy for Dairy 

5 Producers Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFIED BLOC VOTING. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding paragraph (12) 

8 of section 8c of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 

9 608c), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural 

10 Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, in the case of the refmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 529 IS

1 erendum conducted as part of the consolidation of Federal 

2 milk marketing orders and related reforms under section 

3 143 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 

4 7253), if a cooperative association of milk producers elects 

5 to hold a vote on behalf of its members as authorized by 

6 that paragraph, the cooperative association shall provide 

7 to each producer, on behalf of which the cooperative asso8 ciation is expressing approval or disapproval, written no9 tice containing— 

10 (1) a description of the questions presented in 

11 the referendum; 

12 (2) a statement of the manner in which the co13 operative association intends to cast its vote on be14 half of the membership; and 

15 (3) information regarding the procedures by 

16 which a producer may cast an individual ballot. 

17 (b) TABULATION OF BALLOTS.—At the time at which 

18 ballots from a vote under subsection (a) are tabulated by 

19 the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary shall adjust the 

20 vote of a cooperative association to reflect individual votes 

21 submitted by producers that are members of, stockholders 

22 in, or under contract with, the cooperative association. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2


                 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

      The undersigned executive officer of Community Investors Bancorp,
Inc. (the "Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-QSB
for the period ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

                                  /s/Robert W. Siegel
                                  ---------------------------
                                  Name: Robert W. Siegel
                                  Title: Vice President,
                                  Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 12, 2004


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


<PAGE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 September 3, 2013

s0826

Order 

Clerk

September 3, 2013

147076

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147076

COA: 307744

Kent CC: 11-005979-FH

ROBERT ROCKWELL MAIER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 14, 2013 

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.
# The Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

N.I.

Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland

# 2014 No. 39

Employment

# The Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

12th February 2014

Coming into operation

16th February 2014

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

F1Order revoked (22.3.2015) by The Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 (S.R. 2015/169), arts. 1(1), **2**
# C_2023121EN.01001501.xml

| 3.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/15

---

Action brought on 17 February 2023 — Chiquita Brands v EUIPO — Jara 2000 (CHIQUITA QUEEN)

(Case T-79/23)

(2023/C 121/20)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Chiquita Brands LLC (Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States) (represented by: R. Dissmann and L. Jones, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jara 2000, SL (Murcia, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark CHIQUITA QUEEN — Application for registration No 18 075 274

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2022 in Case R 1811/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the appellant’s costs incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the appellant’s costs incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
IN RE ESTATE OF DIGMAN.

No. COA07-425.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 6, 2008.

Certification Date May 27, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (04CVS5366).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit






FIRST AMENDMENT TO  
CROWN CASTLE INTERNATIONAL CORP. 2013 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


THIS AMENDMENT by Crown Castle International Corp. (“Company”),
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Company previously established the Crown Castle International Corp. 2013 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended (“Plan”);
WHEREAS, Article XIV of the Plan provides in relevant part that the Board of Directors of Crown Castle International Corp. (“Board”) may amend the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to provide that the Compensation Committee of the Board may not, without the approval of the Company’s stockholders, cancel any option or stock appreciation right (“SAR”) issued pursuant to the Plan in exchange for cash if the exercise price or grant price of such option of SAR exceeds the fair market value of a share of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.01 per share, at such time; 
NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of August 2, 2016, the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following as new Section VII(j):


“(j) Restrictions on Buyout of Options and Stock Appreciation Rights.  Except as provided in Section XIII, the Committee may not, without approval of the stockholders of the Company, cancel any Option or SAR in exchange for cash if the option price or SAR grant price of such Option or SAR, as applicable, exceeds the fair market value of a Share at such time.”  




Adopted by the Board
on August 2, 2016 




/s/ Donald J. Reid                  
Donald J. Reid
Corporate Secretary
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 8/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 8/2014 of 20 December 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in areas VIIb-k,            VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Belgium         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 8/2014                     

# of 20 December 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in areas VIIb-k, VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying                        the flag of Belgium                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 39/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for                              certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements(2), lays down quotas for 2013.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2013.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 20 December 2013.

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

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 1.
#### Roberto Alvarez, Appellant, v Cunningham Associates, L.P., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Arlen Maintenance Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 730]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated November 19, 2003, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of the exclusivity of the workers’ compensation remedy and, in effect, denied that branch of his cross motion which was for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

When an employee elects to receive workers’ compensation benefits from his general employer, a special employer is shielded from an action at law commenced by the employee *(see*Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]; *Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp.,*78 NY2d 553, 555 [1991]; *Abuso v Mack Trucks,*174 AD2d 590 [1991]; *Richiusa v Kahn Lbr. & Millwork Co.,*148 AD2d 690, 692 [1989]). A special employee is defined as *518“one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another” *(Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., supra*at 557). Principal factors in determining whether a special relationship exists include the right to control the work of the employee, the method of his or her payment, the furnishing of equipment, the right to discharge the employee, and the relative nature of the work *(see Matter of Shoemaker v Manpower, Inc.,*223 AD2d 787, 787-788 [1996]). The key to the determination is “who controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work” *(Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., supra*at 558).

Under the circumstances, the defendants, Cunningham Associates, L.P (hereinafter Cunningham), and Wen Management Corp. (hereinafter Wen), had exclusive control and direction of the manner, details, and ultimate result of the plaintiffs work on the date of the subject accident. Thus, as a matter of law, the plaintiff was a special employee of Cunningham at that time. Because the plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits, he is barred from maintaining an action at law against Cunningham, his special employer. Moreover, Wen shares the immunity that the Workers’ Compensation Law confers upon Cunningham, because Wen was serving as Cunningham’s managing agent when the accident occurred *(see Seudath v Mott,*202 AD2d 658 [1994]; *Lindner v Kew Realty Co.,*113 AD2d 36 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment.

The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or have been rendered academic in light of our determination. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          944314
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         5771675
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    4619997
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          152357
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            153000
<LOANS>                                       36008229
<ALLOWANCE>                                      86105
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                48783099
<DEPOSITS>                                    35490655
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             341905
<LONG-TERM>                                    6827415
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3317
<OTHER-SE>                                     6119807
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                48783099
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                2020169
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               250307
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                217546
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               2488022
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1106410
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1364457
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          1123565
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    15000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 862115
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 392385
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      270423
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    270423
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .96
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     .06
<LOANS-NON>                                      38000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 92249
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    24277
<RECOVERIES>                                      3133
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                86105
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          86105


</TABLE>
STATE v. REED.

No. COA07-250.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 4, 2007.

Certification Date December 27, 2007.

Appeal from Forsyth (06CRS53839, 06CRS8759).

Case reported without published opinion. No error in part; Vacated in part and remanded for resentencing.