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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 439 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 439

To ensure that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority complies 
             with certain Federal regulations and statutes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2013

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the 
  Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority complies 
             with certain Federal regulations and statutes.

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

SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND STATUTES.

    (a) Federal Acquisition Regulation.--The Metropolitan Washington 
Airports Authority shall comply with the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation.
    (b) Employment of Relatives; Restrictions.--Section 3110(a)(1) of 
title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``and'';
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); 
        and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
                    ``(D) the Metropolitan Washington Airports 
                Authority; and''.
                                 <all>
```
Unassociated Document


 


 



Exhibit 10.2

















AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment dated March 13, 2013 (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated August 25, 2008 by and between Republic First Bank (the “Bank”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Republic First Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”), and Rhonda S. Costello (the “Employee”).


 


WHEREAS, the parties thereto desire to change certain terms of the Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises set forth below and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as follows:


 


The following paragraph is added to Section 5.A(1) of the Agreement:


 


“If the Employee’s employment with the Bank ceases due to a termination by the Bank upon a Change in Control, the Employee shall be entitled to a severance payment (the “Severance Payment”) equal to the sum of the Employee’s annual base salary for the preceding 12 months (“Prior Base Salary”). The Severance Payment is payable within fifteen (15) days of such termination, provided, however, that if upon such termination, the Employee is offered a position at a successor to the Company or to the Company’s business with compensation (annual base salary, plus other annual compensation) that is substantially similar to or greater than the Employee’s compensation at the Bank immediately prior to such termination, no Severance Payment is payable by the Bank to the Employee.


 


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank has caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officer, and Employee has executed this Amendment to the Agreement, in each case as of the date first written above.


 



	
                                    

	
BANK:


	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	
By:

	
/s/ Harry D. Madonna


	  	  	
Harry D. Madonna


Chief Executive Officer


	  	  	  
	
                                   

	  
	  	  	  
	  	
EMPLOYEE:


	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	
By:

	
/s/ Rhonda S. Costello


	  	  	
Rhonda S. Costello
Exhibit 32.1  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 Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Tidwell, Chief Executive Officer and 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 to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.  Date: June 12, 2017  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  1
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4232 

To clarify the cancellation of loans of members of the Armed Forces under 

the Federal Perkins Loan Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2014 

Ms. GABBARD (for herself and Mr. GIBSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To clarify the cancellation of loans of members of the Armed 

Forces under the Federal Perkins Loan Program. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Higher Edu5 cation Opportunity Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4232 IH

1 SEC. 2. CANCELLATION OF LOANS OF MEMBERS OF THE 

2 ARMED FORCES MADE FROM STUDENT LOAN 

3 FUNDS. 

4 Section 465(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

5 (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)) is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(8) For the purpose of this subsection, the term 

8 ‘year of service’ where applied to service by a member of 

9 the Armed Forces described in paragraph (2)(D) means 

10 a qualified tour of duty that— 

11 ‘‘(A) is for 6 months or longer; or 

12 ‘‘(B) was less than 6 months because the mem13 ber was discharged or released from active duty in 

14 the Armed Forces for an injury or disability in15 curred in or aggravated by service in the Armed 

16 Forces.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 26 May 2005

in Case C-283/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven A.H. Kuipers v Productschap Zuivel (1)

(Common organisation of the markets - Milk and milk products - Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 - National scheme under which dairies withhold deductions from the price payable to dairy farmers or pay price supplements to them according to the quality of the milk supplied - Incompatibility)

(2005/C 182/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-283/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Adminstrative Court for Trade and Industry) (Netherlands), made by dcision of 27 June 2003, received at the Court on 30 June 2003, in the proceedings between A.H. Kuipers and Productschap Zuivel — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur) and M. Ilešič, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

The common pricing system which forms the basis of the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products instituted by Regulation No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1538/95 of 29 June 1995, prohibits Member States from unilaterally adopting provisions affecting the machinery of price formation at the production and marketing stages established under the common organisation. That is the case with regard to a system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, whatever its alleged or stated objective may be, institutes a mechanism under which:

----

(1)OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. William Davis WHITAKER

No. 33P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Anne Bleyman, Attorney at Law, for Whitaker, William Davis.

William P. Hart, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

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

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
#### Nancy Davis JUDSON, et al. v. Hall DAVIS, IV, President, Hall Mortuary, Inc.

No. 2003-OC-2587.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 17, 2003.

In re Judson, Nancy Davis, et al.;— Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 32,738; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 1811.

Request for stay denied. The Court of Appeal has represented to this Court that relator’s application will be considered pri- or to the September 19, 2003 hearing in the District Court.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19435]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Madison-Beaverhead Advisory Committee Change of Meeting 
Date and Location

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of change in meeting date and location.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393), the Beaverhead-Deerlodge 
National Forest's Madison-Beaverhead Resource Advisory Committee will 
meet on Tuesday, November 15, 2005, from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. in 
Dillon, Montana, for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the 
public.

DATES: Tuesday, November 15, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the USDA Service Center in 
Dillon, Montana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas W. Heintz, Designated Forest 
Official (DFO), Forest Supervisor, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 
Forest, at (406) 683-3937.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics for this meeting includes 
electing a chair, hearing and deciding on proposals for projects to 
fund under Title II of Public Law 106-393, hearing public comments, and 
other business. If the meeting location changes, notice will be posted 
in local newspapers, including the Dillon Tribune and The Montana 
Standard.

    Dated: September 23, 2005.
Thomas W. Heintz,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05-19435 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 January 2008 – Commission v Spain**

**(Case C‐32/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2001/84/EC – Copyright – Resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the 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. 10)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art (OJ 2001 L 272, p 32). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
STATE of North Carolina v. Ronnie Glen BELL

No. COA17-361

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 17, 2017

NO ERROR.
trtc_ex101.htm



EXHIBIT 10.1


 


July 30, 2014


 


Terra Tech Corp.


18101 Von Karman


Third Floor


Irvine, CA 92612







Re: Amendment to Securities Purchase Agreement (the “Amendment”)







Ladies & Gentlemen:







Reference is made to that certain Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of February 5, 2014, between Dominion Capital LLC (including certain assignees thereto) (“Dominion” or “we”) and Terra Tech Corp. (the “Company” or “you”) (the “SPA”). All capitalized terms not defined herein will carry the same meanings and definitions in the SPA.







The Company has requested and we have agreed to accelerate the remaining amount due pursuant to the SPA, with a final closing and funding date set for July [25], 2014 (the “Ultimate Closing”). To that end, we have agreed to amend each of Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the SPA to specifically provide for a closing of $2,750,000. All Closing Conditions in Section 2.4 of the SPA, and all Representations and Warranties in Article III shall remain unaltered, modified or amended by this Amendment. Furthermore, the Other Agreements of the Parties in Article IV of the SPA will remain in force, and, specifically (without limitation of any other provision or section of Article IV, Section 4.11(b) with the reservation of at least 400% of the Required Minimum in the form of a letter executed by the Company’s transfer agent shall be in force and valid prior to this Ultimate Closing.







Finally the Company and we agree that in consideration of this Amendment and the undertakings thereunder, the Company agrees to file, within two (2) business days of the Ultimate Closing, a registration statement on Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission that will register all shares of the Company’s Common Stock into which the Notes and Warrants convert that have been issued pursuant to the SPA. The parties agree that that number is 95,427,643 shares in respect of the Notes and 11,491,228 in respect of the Warrants or 106,918,871 shares in total.







This Amendment may be executed two or more counterparts, all of which when taken together shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall become effective when counterparts have been signed by each party and delivered to each other party, it being understood that the parties need not sign the same counterpart. In the event that any signature is delivered by facsimile transmission or by e-mail delivery of a “.pdf” format data file, such signature shall create a valid and binding obligation of the party executing (or on whose behalf such signature is executed) with the same force and effect as if such facsimile or “.pdf” signature page were an original thereof.


 


[Signatures follow on next page.]


 




  





1











  




 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to the SPA to be duly executed by their respective authorized signatories as of the date first indicated above.


 


 



	DOMINION CAPITAL LLC	 	TERRA TECH CORP.	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Mikhail Gurevich	 	/s/ Derek Peterson	 
	BY:	Mikhail Gurevich	 	BY:	Derek Peterson	 
	ITS:	Managing Member	 	ITS:	CEO	 





 




  





2
----

Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Rath v OHIM

(Case T-326/05)

(2005/C 281/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant(s): Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) [representative: S. Ziegler, lawyer, C. Kleiner, lawyer and F. Dehn, lawyer]

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation within the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party(ies) to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AstraZeneca AB (Södertälje, Sweden)

Forms of order sought by the claimant(s)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: AstraZeneca AB

Community trade mark affected: The word mark ‘VIXACOR’ in respect of goods in Class 5 (Application No 1 739 697).

Owner of the opposing mark or sign in the opposition proceedings: the claimant.

Opposing mark or sign: The Community mark ‘Vitacor’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 16 and 41 (No 689 018), the Community mark ‘Vitacor Plus’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 16 and 32 (No 1 668 565) and the German trade mark ‘Vitacor Plus’ for goods in Classes 5, 16 and 31 (No 399 65 690).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 since there is a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the opposing marks.

----
STATE v. Bernardo Roberto PENA aka Martin Rangel Pena

8P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 9, 2018

W. Rob Heroy, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Pena, Bernardo Roberto.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*443The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of January 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of January 2018."
EXHIBIT 23


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements 
Nos. 33-90820, 33-90822, 333-42685 and 333-47591 of PennFed Financial Services, 
Inc. on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-20499 of PennFed Financial 
Services, Inc. on Form S-3 and Registration Statement No. 333-36031 of PennFed 
Capital Trust I on Form S-2 of our report dated July  29, 1998, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of PennFed Financial Services, Inc. for the year
ended June 30, 1998.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
September 24, 1998

                                      95
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7996** 

BOBBY MAURICE NICHOLSON, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director; JOHN GARMAN, Western Regional Director; RANDY C. MATHENA; KISER, Asst. Warden; EDDIE L. PETERSON, Warden/Old Warden; P. KELLY, Old Warden; J. BOONE, Asst. Warden; LT. HIGHTH, Intel/Investigator Supervisor; JARRY OATE, III, Unit Manager; R. L. TUELL, Unit Manager; NOTHING, Correctional Officer; F. ADAM, Sgt.; MS. BAKER, Asst. Dentis t , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O’Grady , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv
- 01397

- LO

- IDD )

Submitted : March 27 , 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014

Before MOTZ , Circuit Judge , and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Bobby Maurice Nicholson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bobby Maurice Nicholson, Jr., appeals the district

court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we deny Nicholson’s motion for appointment

of counsel and affirm for the r easons stated by the district

court. Nicholson v. Clarke , No. 1:13

- cv
- 01397

- LO

- IDD (E.D. Va.
Nov. 20, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before th is court and argument w ould not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-350-CV

ELIAS WEHBE, GEORGE WEHBE, APPELLANTS

AND METROPLEX TOWING AND AUTO

V.

PROGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL AUTO APPELLEE

INSURANCE COMPANY

----------

FROM THE 48 DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TH

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

------------

On September 5, 2008 and September 19, 2008, we notified appellants,

in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss

this appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Appellants have not paid the $175 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).
2... See Supreme Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Aug. 28, 2007)

(listing fees in courts of appeals).

2

Because appellants have failed to comply with a requirement of the rules

of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28,

2007,2 we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellants shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ. 

DELIVERED: October 9, 2008
STATE of North Carolina v. David Michael REED

No. 365A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed November 3, 2017

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

Paul E. Smith, Chapel Hill, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and this case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light *671of our decision in *State v. Bullock* , --- N.C. ----, --- S.E.2d ---- (2017).

VACATED AND REMANDED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Anthony CLEGG

No. COA17-76

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 5, 2017

NO ERROR.
1 The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2926

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Lorna Spotted Tail, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 7, 2000 Filed: December 20, 2000

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. While serving the supervised release portion of a sentence she had received for aiding and abetting assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 113(c), and 1153, Lorna Spotted Tail admitted to violating her release conditions. Following a revocation hearing, the district court 1 revoked supervised release and imposeda 9-month term of imprisonment and 15 months supervised release. Spotted Tail appeals, claiming her revocation sentence is excessive.-2-

When a district court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant has violated a release condition, the district court may revoke supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Grimes , 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995). Having reviewed the record and Spotted Tail’s brief, we conclude the district court’s revocation sentence neither exceeds the limits of section 3583, nor constitutes an abuse of discretion

. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3), (h); UnitedStates v. St. John , 92 F.3d 761, 766 (8th Cir. 1996) (maximum

period of time defendant’s freedom can be restrained upon revocation of supervised release is capped by original supervised release term). Accordingly we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.