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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4230 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4230

               To limit the retirement of KC-10 aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2014

  Mr. Runyan (for himself and Mr. Garamendi) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To limit the retirement of KC-10 aircraft.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OF KC-10 AIRCRAFT.

    (a) Limitation.--None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or 
otherwise made available for the Department of Defense may be obligated 
or expended to retire, prepare to retire, or place in storage any KC-10 
aircraft until each of the following occurs:
            (1) The Secretary of the Air Force certifies to the 
        congressional defense committees each of the following:
                    (A) The four KC-46A test aircraft are all built and 
                fully operational including their air refueling 
                capability.
                    (B) The initial 18 KC-46A aircraft have been 
                delivered to the Air Force in a fully operational 
                capacity by 2017.
                    (C) The KC-46A aircraft has achieved full 
                operational capability.
                    (D) A sufficient number of KC-46A aircraft exists 
                in the inventory of the Air Force to fully meet the air 
                refueling and cargo support capability and mission 
                requirements of the combatant commands.
            (2) The Comptroller General of the United States submits to 
        the congressional defense committees a report setting forth the 
        following:
                    (A) An assessment whether each certification under 
                paragraph (1) is comprehensive, fully supported, and 
                sufficiently detailed.
                    (B) An identification of any shortcomings, 
                limitations, or other reportable matters that affect 
                the quality or findings of any certification under 
                paragraph (1).
    (b) Deadline for Submission of Comptroller General Report.--The 
report of the Comptroller General under paragraph (2) of subsection (a) 
shall be submitted not later than 90 days after the date of the 
submission of the certification referred to in paragraph (1) of such 
subsection.
    (c) Congressional Defense Committees Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``congressional defense committees'' has the meaning given that 
term in section 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2









CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
connection with the Quarterly Report of CPI International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 3, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Joel A. Littman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:




(1)  
The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.






/s/
      JOEL A. LITTMANJoel
      A. LittmanChief
      Financial OfficerMay
      13, 2009
# C_2008327EN.01004202.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/42

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2008 — Kenitex-Química v OHIM — Chemicals International (Kenitex TINTAS A qualidade da cor)

(Case T-322/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 327/78)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Description of CLR Cash Bonus Plan 
 Adopted February 22, 2013

 On February 22, 2013, the Compensation Committee approved a cash bonus plan that will apply to certain employees of
the Company, including the Company’s executive officers (the “CLR Bonus Plan”). The CLR Bonus Plan is designed to reward the Company’s employees and executive officers for achieving annual performance and strategic goals. The CLR
Bonus Plan provides for the annual payment of cash bonuses, starting with bonuses for 2013, which we expect to pay in 2014. 

Under the CLR Bonus Plan, the bonus pool will be budgeted based on the aggregate target bonus amount of all employees participating in
the CLR Bonus Plan (referred to herein as the “Target Pool Size”). The size of the bonus pool will be initially set within a range based on the following factors: production growth (weighted at 40%); reserve growth (weighted at 35%); and
adjusted earnings per share (weighted at 25%). The Compensation Committee has complete discretion to increase, decrease or leave the size of the pool unchanged. In making the determination whether to adjust the size of the pool, the Compensation
Committee will consider such matters as it deems relevant, including the Company’s performance against key strategic and other initiatives identified by the Compensation Committee in areas such as health, safety and environmental, production
costs and cycle times, maintenance of financial and other ratios, budget compliance and business process improvements. The size of the bonus pool as determined by the Compensation Committee is referred to herein as the “Final Pool Size.”
The ratio of the Target Pool Size to the Final Pool Size will be used to determine the Company multiplier in the calculation of an individual’s bonus amount under the CLR Bonus Plan. 

Individual awards for participants in the CLR Bonus Plan, including CLR’s executive officers, will be calculated utilizing the
following formula: 
 Base Earnings x Target Bonus x Company Multiplier x Individual Multiplier = Initial Bonus Amount

 The target annual cash bonus amounts for CLR’s executive officers under the CLR Bonus Plan will be determined by the
Compensation Committee and in the case of Mr. Hamm, also presented to the Board which retains the discretion to increase or decrease Mr. Hamm’s target annual cash bonus amount. 

Except for Mr. Hamm, our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, the individual multiplier for bonuses will be based on
the subjective evaluation of each of our executive officer’s supervisor or supervisors. Mr. Hamm’s individual multiplier will be determined based on the subjective evaluation of the Compensation Committee. 

Once our executive officers’ Initial Bonus Amounts are calculated, they will be presented to the Compensation Committee for review,
and in the case of Mr. Hamm also presented to the Board, both of which retain the discretion to increase or decrease individual Initial Bonus Amounts and determine final awards.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
      As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         The undersigned hereby certifies, 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 the undersigned's knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
Aquis Communications Group, Inc. ("Issuer") for the period ending December 31,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"):

         (a)      fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (b)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Issuer.

         This Certification is executed as of March 28, 2003.

                                                     /s/ Alex E. Stillwell
                                                     ---------------------
                                                     Alex E. Stillwell
                                                     Principal Executive Officer






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



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, Respondent, *v.*Rose Brennan et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 3, 1943.

*Morris Weintraub*for appellants.

*Samuel Gottesman*for respondent.

*431
      *Per Curiam.*

A surety company, which executes its bond for an administrator at a premium of fifty-one dollars and fifty cents and requires an indemnity agreement with a clause for payment of its obligation for expense or attorney fees by reason of execution of the bond, is not entitled to payment for attorney fees for supervising, aiding or coercing the performance of duty or making payments required under the law by the administrator. It may not interject itself into the administration of the estate and obtain payment for expense or attorneys’ fees. An attempt to obtain discharge of its bond by requiring the administrator to account does not furnish grounds for such payment. It is only when there is default of performance of his duty under the law by the administrator and *bona fide*demand upon the surety company of performance of its own obligation under the bond that the surety company may assert liability under the indemnity agreement.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for defendants, with costs.

Hammer and IIecht, JJ., concur; Shientag, J., dissents.

Shientag, J. (dissenting).

I dissent. I have no quarrel with the general rule of law enunciated by my learned colleagues. The situation here, however, was most unusual; the surety company was compelled to participate actively in the proceedings.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4132 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the size of employers 

eligible for the credit for employee health insurance expenses of small 

employers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2014 

Mr. MURPHY of Florida (for himself, Mr. PETERS of California, Mr. GARCIA, 

Mr. DELANEY, and Ms. SINEMA) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 

the size of employers eligible for the credit for employee 

health insurance expenses of small employers. 

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 ‘‘Helping Entrepreneurs 

5 Lower Prices Act of 2014’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4132 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF EMPLOYERS ELIGIBLE FOR TAX 

2 CREDIT FOR EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE 

3 EXPENSES OF SMALL EMPLOYERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 45R(d)(1)(A) of the In5 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘25’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘50’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

9 December 31, 2014. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Harry A. WILEY and Gerald D. Gilman v. L3 COMMUNICATIONS VERTEX AEROSPACE, LLC

No. 29P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Garris Neil Yarborough, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, H. Addison Winters, Attorney at Law, M. Nan Alessandra, Attorney at Law, Robert M. Kennedy, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For L3 Communications Vertex Aerospace, LLC.

Lee Tart Malone, Attorney at Law, Dunn, Robert A. Buzzard, Attorney at Law, Lillington, Ryan McKaig, Attorney at Law, For Wiley, Harry A., et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th of January 2017 by Plaintiffs 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:

*18"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0199

IN THE MATTER OF:

S.G.-H.M., JR.,

A Former Youth Under the Age of 18,

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 21, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 16 2020

07/16/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0199
# C_2010024EN.01005201.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/52

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — EREF v Commission

(Case T-94/07) (1)

1

(Actions for annulment - Representation by a lawyer is not a third party - Manifestly inadmissible)

2010/C 24/91

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Renewable Energies Federation (EREF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Fouquet, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Khan, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2006) 4963 final of 24 October 2006, concerning a Syndicated loan and bilateral loan for the construction by Framatome ANP of a nuclear power station for Teollisuuden Voima Oy.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) must bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) must bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 117 of 29.5.2007.

1

---
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

October 22, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

___________________________

No. 07-16001

Non-Argument Calendar

__________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00090-CV-BAE-6

JAMES ANDRE BENTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WARDEN GLENN RICH,

DEPUTY WARDEN R. D. COLLINS,

SERGEANT POTTER,

SERGEANT HOBBY,

OFFICER OSBORN,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Georgia

__________________________________

(October 22, 2008)

Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff is an inmate in a Georgia prison. He brought this suit under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that certain conditions of his confinement are cruel and

unusual in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court,

adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge as the opinion of

the court, dismissed his complaint without prejudice because he failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act before

instituting this lawsuit. He now appeals.

We agree with the district court that plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies and is therefore precluded from maintaining this action.

AFFIRMED. 

2
In the MATTER OF: S.W.

No. COA16-1235

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 18, 2017

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jose Daniel GONZALEZ

No. 239A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Alexandra Gruber, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

James R. Parish, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Jose Daniel Gonzalez, Attorney at Law, for Gonzalez, Jose Daniel.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 17th of July 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."
**Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 February 2008 – Tokai Europe v Commission**

**(Case C‐262/07 P)**

Appeal – Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 – Classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature – Person not individually concerned – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1.                     *Procedure – Obligation of the Court of First Instance to open the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility
– None (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 111 to 114) (see paras 24-28)*

2.                     *Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence
– Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice,
Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 119) (see paras 30-32)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2007 in Case T-183/04 | Tokai Europe | v | Commission | , by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible an action for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21) – Requirement to be individually concerned by the contested regulation – Right to a fair hearing. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the appeal; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Tokai Europe GmbH to pay the costs. |
# C_2008008EN.01001203.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/12

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2007 — Vounakis v Commission

(Case T-214/05) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Career Development Report - 2003 Evaluation exercise - Definition of goals to achieve - Duty to state reasons - Inconsistency between points and comments - Manifest error of assessment)

(2008/C 8/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hippocrate Vounakis (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 13 July 2004 adopting the applicant's definitive career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2003

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | annuls the decision of 13 July 2004 adopting the career development report in respect of Mr Hippocrate Vounakis for the period from 1 January until 31 December 2003 as far as concerns the heading ‘Productivity’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of 13 July 2004 adopting the career development report in respect of Mr Hippocrate Vounakis for the period from 1 January until 31 December 2003 as far as concerns the heading ‘Productivity’;

| 2. | dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.

1

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

In re Guardianship of Sallie B. ) 

Stephens, an incapacitated person ) 

(now deceased). ) 

________________________________ ) 

 ) 

DAVID EARL STEPHENS as Personal ) 

Representative of the Estate of Sallie B. ) 

Stephens, and ANDREW BENNETT ) 

SPARK, ) 

 ) 

 Appellants, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D14-1321 

 ) 

OWENS LAW GROUP. P.A.; ALLEN ) 

DELL, P.A.; JABESSA MAJORS ) 

SMITH, as Successor Guardian of the ) 

Property of Sallie B. Stephens; and JOE ) 

ELLEN ROWE, as Former Guardian of the ) 

Property of Sallie B. Stephens, ) 

 ) 

 Appellees. ) 

___________________________________ ) 

Opinion filed January 20, 2016. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Herbert J. Baumann, 

Jr., Judge. 

Andrew Bennett Spark of Spark Law 

Chartered, Tampa, pro se, and for 

Appellant David Earl Stephens as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of Sallie B. 

Stephens. 
- 2 -

James S. Eggert of Owens Law Group, 

P.A., Ruskin, for Appellees Owens Law 

Group, P.A. and Allen Dell, P.A. 

Carl R. Hayes, Tampa, for Appellee 

Jabessa Majors Smith, as Successor 

Guardian of the Property of Sallie B. 

Stephens. 

No appearance for Appellee Joe Ellen 

Rowe, as Former Guardian of the Property 

of Sallie B. Stephens. 

KHOUZAM, Judge. 

 We affirm the issues raised by the Appellants without comment. However, 

Owens Law Group, P.A., and Allen Dell, P.A., concede that the trial court miscalculated 

the interest on the order directing the Guardian to pay them from the restricted 

depository. The Guardian requested that $20,000 be paid to these creditor Appellees. 

It is unclear from the appellate record how the trial court calculated the interest, but it 

appears that it used the wrong time period, used an incorrect interest rate, or made a 

computational error in arriving at a total award of $23,693.53. Accordingly, we reverse 

the order's award of interest and remand to the trial court with directions to recalculate 

its interest award. See §§ 55.03, 687.01, Fla. Stat. (2013). 

 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 

KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.