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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4026 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4026

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 provide for the eligibility of Transportation Security Administration 
 employees to receive public safety officers' death benefits, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 2014

  Ms. Brownley of California introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 provide for the eligibility of Transportation Security Administration 
 employees to receive public safety officers' death benefits, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Honoring Our Fallen TSA Officers 
Act''.

SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES ELIGIBLE TO 
              RECEIVE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS' DEATH BENEFITS.

    Section 1204(9) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b(9)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
                    ``(E) an employee of the Transportation Security 
                Administration who is performing official duties of the 
                Administration, if those official duties are related to 
                protecting the Nation's transportation systems to 
                ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect as 
if they had been enacted on October 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

TRACY A. KOHUT 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 0988-08-1 PER CURIAM 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 

PIEDMONT REGIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM AND 

 VSBA WORKERS COMPENSATION GROUP 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Patrick R. Bynum, Jr., on brief), for appellant. 

 (Lisa Frisina Clement; Wendy E. Warren; PennStuart, on brief), for 

appellees. 

 Tracy A. Kohut (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission denying her claim for an award of compensation benefits for the period from 

December 5, 2006 through May 25, 2007. On appeal, claimant presents the following two 

questions: (1) Did claimant present evidence of medical causation for her disability; and (2) did 

claimant present sufficient evidence that she adequately marketed her residual capacity during 

requested periods of December 5, 2006 through May 25, 2007, on the ground she was released to 

full duty through January 24, 2007. 

 Claimant presents no argument and cites no authorities in support of her first question, as 

required by Rule 5A:20(e). Rather, the entirety of her argument relates to whether she 

adequately and reasonably marketed her residual work capacity. Because we find her failure to 

comply with Rule 5A:20(e) is significant, this question is waived. See Jay v. Commonwealth, 

275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 311, 317 (2008). Therefore, we need not consider it. 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 With respect to the second question, we have reviewed the record and the commission’s 

opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the commission in its final opinion. See Kohut v. Piedmont Regional Educ. Prog., VWC File 

No. 231-34-87 (Mar. 18, 2008). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.1

Affirmed.

 1

 We note that in summarily affirming the commission’s decision with respect to the issue 

raised by claimant in her second question presented on appeal, we did not consider any evidence 

not properly before the commission when it rendered its decision. Specifically, we did not 

consider evidence of marketing contacts listed in the February 14, 2008 letter filed by claimant 

upon review, which were not already before the commission, and referred to in her opening brief. 

The commission refused to consider the evidence of marketing contacts contained in that letter, 

because claimant failed to prove the criteria necessary to admit it as after-discovered evidence. 

Claimant did not appeal that finding to this Court, and, therefore, it is binding and conclusive 

upon us.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the annual report of the Registrant on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009 (the Report), which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such year and the results of
operations of the Registrant of such year.
  /s/ Deirdre Y. Gillespie

Deirdre Y. Gillespie
President, Chief Executive Officer and
Assistant Secretary/s/ Gail A. Sloan

Gail A. Sloan
Vice President of Finance and Secretary
EX-10.9



 Exhibit 10.9 

PAR PETROLEUM CORPORATION 

NAV UNITS PLAN AWARD 
 Dear
                    : 
 Effective as of
                    (the “Grant Date”) you are awarded an Award of Units under Par Petroleum Corporation NAV Units Plan (the
“Plan”). This Award is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Plan (a copy of which is attached to this Award), any rules and regulations adopted by the Committee, and any additional terms and conditions set forth in
this Award. Unless otherwise defined herein, all terms used in this Award have the meanings set forth in the Plan. In the event there is an inconsistency between the terms of the Plan and this Award, the terms of the Plan will prevail. 

 

	1.	Amount of Award and Determinations. 

  

	 	(a)	This Award is for                     Units under the Plan. 


 

	 	(b)	The Committee shall have the exclusive authority to make all determinations hereunder and to administer the Plan and this Award. The Committee shall have the authority to make any amendments to this Award and the Plan
to comply with Code Section 409A as it shall determine in its sole discretion without your consent even if such amendment has an adverse effect on this Award. The Committee’s determinations hereunder shall be final, conclusive and binding
upon you. 

  

	2.	Vesting. 

 The Units granted under this Award shall become vested in accordance with
Section 6 of the Plan. 
  

	3.	Base Amount. 

 The Base Amount per Unit awarded under this Award is
$        . 
  

	4.	Payment Date. 

 The Units will be paid in accordance with Section 7 of the Plan.

  

	5.	Withholding. 

 This Award and the Plan and any payments made to you hereunder shall also
be subject to all applicable federal, state, local, domestic and foreign, laws including, without limitation, taxes and withholding requirements for taxes. 








	6.	Noncompetition/Confidentiality Agreement. 

 If the Participant violates any
noncompetition or confidentiality agreement between the Participant and the Company or a Company Affiliate, or their successor(s) no amounts will be payable and all Units will be forfeited. 

 

			
	PAR PETROLEUM CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	  

		 	Name:
		 	Title:
STATE of North Carolina v. John Lewis WRAY, Jr.

No. 395P13-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Joseph E. Herrin, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

John L. Wray, Jr., for Wray, John Lewis (Jr.)

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 3rd of February 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Cleveland County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of February 2017 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of February 2017 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

*287"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
# C_2008037EN.01002303.xml

| 9.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 — FMC Chemical and Others v Commission

(Case T-350/07 R)

(Application for interim relief - Directive 91/414/EEC - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - No urgency)

(2008/C 37/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: FMC Chemical SPRL (Brussels, Belgium), Arysta Lifescience SAS (Noguères, France), Belchim Crop Protection NV (Londerzeel, Belgium), FMC Foret, SA (Sant Cugat de Valles, Spain), F&N Agro Slovensko spol. s.r.o. (Bratislava, Slovakia), F&N Agro Ceská republika spol. s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic), F&N Agro Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) and FMC Corp. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and B. Doherty, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2007/416/EC of 13 June 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of carbofuran in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 156, p. 30) pending the full resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
##### 





List of Subsidiaries of

NTL (Triangle) LLC


As of March 31, 2003







|                                             |  |                                            |                 | 
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------ | --------------- | 
|Name                                         |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation/Organization
|                                             |  |                                           
|Cambridge Holding Company Limited            |  |                                            | England & Wales | 
|ntl Cambridge Limited                        |  |                                            | England & Wales | 
|Anglia Cable Communications Limited          |  |                                            | England & Wales | 
|Cambridge Cable Services Limited             |  |                                            | England & Wales | 
|CCL Corporate Communication Services Limited |  |                                            | England & Wales | 
|Credit-Track Debt Recovery Limited           |  |                                            | England & Wales | 
|East Coast Cable Limited                     |  |                                            | England & Wales | 
|Southern East Anglia Cable Limited           |  |                                            | England & Wales | 
|ntl Communications (Ireland) Limited         |  |                                            | Irish Republic  | 
|ntl Communications (Galway) Limited          |  |                                            | Irish Republic  | 
|ntl Communications (Waterford) Limited       |  |                                            | Irish Republic  | 
|ntl Construction Limited                     |  |                                            | Irish Republic  | 
|ntl Dublin Cablesystems Limited              |  |                                            | Irish Republic  | 
|ntl Darlington Limited                       |  |                                            | England & Wales | 
|ntl Teesside Limited                         |  |                                            | England & Wales | 
|XL Debt Recovery Agency Limited              |  |                                            | England & Wales |
NEXT ADVISOR CONTINUED, INC. v. LENDINGTREE, INC., et al.

391A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 19, 2016

Russell F. Sizemore, Attorney at Law, Jonathan M. Watkins, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Mary Cabell Clay, Attorney at Law, Glenn E. Ketner, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Lendingtree, Inc., et al.

Christopher G. Smith, Attorney at Law, Susan H. Hargrove, Attorney at Law, Isaac A. Linnartz, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Next Advisor Continued, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of October 2016 by Defendants to Submit Appellate Filings Under Seal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of October 2016."
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 1

required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-08-00524-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE JAMES M. MAPLES AND KATHY MAPLES

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relators, James M. Maples and Kathy Maples, filed a petition for writ of mandamus

and motion for immediate temporary relief in the above cause on September 3, 2008. On

September 4, 2008, this Court granted the motion for immediate temporary relief and

ordered stayed the trial court’s order of August 29, 2008 setting a show cause hearing.

The Court also requested that real parties in interest, Johnny Partain and Teresa C.

Partain, file a response to relator’s petition for writ of mandamus on or before September

19, 2008. Such response has been duly filed herein.
2

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and the response thereto, is of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves

entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the stay of the trial court's order of August 29,

2008, is hereby ordered LIFTED and the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this 8th day of October, 2008.
Exhibit 32.1





ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Michael J. Schall, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the amendment no. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-K”) of Essex Property Trust, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Essex Property Trust, Inc. at the dates of and for the periods presented.





Date: February 29, 2012
/s/ Michael J. SchallMichael J. SchallChief Executive Officer and President,Director and Vice Chairman of the Board,Essex Property Trust, Inc.
Kendris Richard Brown, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 11, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 6, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable DeAndrea G. Benjamin be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Benjamin shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where she may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Benjamin shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
**Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 – Commission v Spain**

**(Case C‐58/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/110/EC – Assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 7)*

2.                     *Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification
– Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)*

3.                     *Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see paras 11, 13)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (OJ 2003 L 321, p. 26). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
**CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
  In
        connection with this Quarterly Report of Sew Cal Logo, Inc. (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-QSB for the period ending, February 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Judy Songer,
        Chief
        Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of her knowledge,
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1.
        Such
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 29, 2008,
        fully
        complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2.
        The
        information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
        ending February 29, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
        financial condition and results of operations of Sew Cal Logo, Inc.
  Dated:
        April 7, 2008
  **SEW
        CAL LOGO, INC.**
 
 By:
                  /s/ Judy SongerChief
                  Financial Officer,
NO. 07-08-0280-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

OCTOBER 21, 2008

______________________________

LESLIE FOY ACKER, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 110TH DISTRICT COURT OF BRISCOE COUNTY;

NO. 1098; HONORABLE WILLIAM P. SMITH, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before this Court is Leslie Foy Acker’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal in which

he represents he no longer wishes to pursue this appeal. As required by Rule 42.2(a) of

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is signed by Appellant and his

attorney. No decision of this Court having been delivered, the motion is granted and the
2

appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will

issue forthwith.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice

Do not publish.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert N. Wildrick, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|April 15, 2004 |  | /s/ROBERT N. WILDRICKRobert N. Wildrick
Chief Executive Officer
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
State of North Carolina v. Rakeith Lunsford

No. COA16-505

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 1, 2016

REVERSED AND REMANDED.