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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3905 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3905

 To improve the response to missing children and victims of child sex 
                              trafficking.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 16, 2014

 Mrs. Beatty introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, 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 improve the response to missing children and victims of child sex 
                              trafficking.

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

SECTION 1. RESPONSE TO MISSING CHILDREN AND VICTIMS OF CHILD SEX 
              TRAFFICKING.

    (a) Missing Children's Assistance Act.--Section 404(b)(1)(P)(iii) 
of the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5773(b)(1)(P)(iii)) 
is amended by striking ``child prostitution'' and inserting ``child sex 
trafficking''.
    (b) Crime Control Act of 1990.--Section 3702 of the Crime Control 
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 5780) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (3)--
                    (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
                subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
                    (B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the 
                following:
                    ``(B) a recent photograph of the child, if 
                available;''; and
            (3) in paragraph (4)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``60 days'' 
                and inserting ``30 days'';
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the 
                end;
                    (C) in subparagraph (C)--
                            (i) by inserting ``State and local child 
                        welfare systems and'' before ``the National 
                        Center for Missing and Exploited Children''; 
                        and
                            (ii) by striking the period at the end and 
                        inserting ``; and''; and
                    (D) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(D) grant permission to the National Crime 
                Information Center Terminal Contractor for the State to 
                update the missing person record in the National Crime 
                Information Center computer networks with additional 
                information learned during the investigation relating 
                to the missing person.''.
                                 <all>
```
MMC 06.30.2014 10Q Ex_10.5

















Exhibit 10.5


June 6, 2014


Julio A. Portalatin
[Address]
[City, State, Zip Code]


Subject:    Terms of Employment




Dear Julio:


This amendment to the Letter Agreement, dated November 21, 2013, between you and Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (the “2013 Letter Agreement”) revises the terms and conditions of your employment by Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.  The 2013 Letter Agreement will continue to govern your employment, except as specified below, effective as of May 14, 2014:


		
	1.
	Exhibit A to the 2013 Letter Agreement shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the attached Exhibit A.




Please acknowledge your agreement with the terms of this letter agreement by signing and dating below and the enclosed copy and returning one executed document to me on or before June 20, 2014.


Sincerely,




/s/ Daniel S. Glaser
Daniel S. Glaser
President and Chief Executive Officer
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.






Accepted and Agreed:




/s/ Julio A. Portalatin            
(Signature)        




June 9, 2014                
(Date)











June 6, 2014
Julio A. Portalatin
Page 2




Exhibit A




 
	
		
	Board or Committee Memberships
	Hofstra University Board of Trustees

	Annual Base Salary
	$900,000 (effective April 1, 2014)

	Annual Target Bonus Opportunity
	Bonus awards are discretionary.  Anticipated target bonus of $1,700,000 commencing with the 2013 performance year (awarded in 2014).  Actual bonus may range from 0% - 200% of target, based on achievement of individual performance objectives, Mercer’s performance and/or Marsh & McLennan Companies’ performance as Marsh & McLennan Companies may establish from time to time.

	Annual Target Long Term Incentive Opportunity
	Long-term incentive awards are discretionary.  Anticipated target grant date fair value of $2,000,000, commencing with the award made in 2015.
(109 So. 921)

No. 25973.

#### WHITE v. GRANT TIMBER & MFG. CO.

(Oct. 5, 1926.)

*(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)*

Logs and logging <&wkey;8(5).

Evidence *held*not to show that defendant agreed to employ plaintiff to cut, haul, and deliver all timber on certain land.

Appeal from Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Grant; J. A. Williams, Judge.

Action by William F. White against the Grant Timber & Manufacturing Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Moss & Peters, of Winnfield, for appellant.

A. L. Burford, of Texarkana, Ark., and White, HoUoman & White, of Alexandria, for appellee.

ST. PAUL, J.

Plaintiff alleges that he had a contract with defendant to cut, haul, and deliver *all*the timber on a certain section of land (No. 30, in township 8 north, range 2 west), but was discharged without being allowed to complete the same. He therefore sues for the profits which he would have made had he been allowed to do so.

The defense is that there was *no such, contract;*that plaintiff was merely employed to cut, haul, and deliver timber from said section, at so much per thousand feet, as long as defendant might require his services, and was paid in full for all timber cut, hauled, and delivered by him until he was discharged.

The only witness who testifies that the contract was to cut, haul, and deliver *all*the timber on said section is plaintiff himself. The only two other persons who were present when the alleged contract was made were one Will Irwin, a witness called by plaintiff, and J. G. Pope, the vice president of the defendant company, with whom the said contract is alleged to have been made. They both testify that it was distinctly understood that plaintiff might be laid off whenever defendant might think fit to do so. The evidence further shows that defendant had never, either before or since, made any other contract with reference to its logging business than just such contract as testified to by these two witnesses. It further shows that at. the time plaintiff was discharged he made no protest whatever against being laid off, nor pretense that he had any right to continue the work, and that it was only several months afterwards that this suit was thought of.

The trial judge found for the defendant, and his judgment appears *to.*us correct.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
In the MATTER OF Bradford Alexander RAWLINSON, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001341

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 24, 2018

**15ORDER

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel asks this Court to place respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). The petition also seeks appointment of the Receiver to protect the interests of respondent's clients pursuant to Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent's license to practice law in this state is suspended until further order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, Receiver, is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent's client files, trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office **16accounts respondent may maintain. Mr. Lumpkin shall take action as required by Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to protect the interests of respondent's clients. Mr. Lumpkin may make disbursements from respondent's trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office accounts respondent may maintain that are necessary to effectuate this appointment.

This Order, when served on any bank or other financial institution maintaining trust, escrow and/or operating account(s) of respondent, shall serve as an injunction to prevent respondent from making withdrawals from the account(s) and shall further serve as notice to the bank or other financial institution that Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, Receiver, has been duly appointed by this Court.

Finally, this Order, when served on any office of the United States Postal Service, shall serve as notice that Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, Receiver, has been duly appointed by this Court and has the authority to receive respondent's mail and the authority to direct that respondent's mail be delivered to Mr. Lumpkin's office.

Mr. Lumpkin's appointment shall be for a period of no longer than nine months unless an extension of the period of appointment is requested.

*/s/ Donald W. Beatty* C.J.

FOR THE COURT
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Subsidiaries of eGain**

**Communications Corporation**

1. eGain Communications Ltd. (UK) 

2. eGain Communications Pty Ltd.(Australia) 

3. eGain (Cayman) Ltd. (Cayman) 

4. InferenceCorporation (Delaware) 

5. eGain Communications Pvt. Ltd. (India) 

6. eGain Communications SrL (Italy) 

7. eGain Communications S.A. (France) 

8. eGain Communications B.V. (Netherlands) 

9. eGain Communications GmbH (Germany) 

10. eGain Communications Ltd. (Ireland) 

11. eGain Communications PacificPte. Ltd (Singapore)
STATE v. David Michael REED

365A16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 6, 2018

E. Burke Haywood, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Paul E. Smith, Attorney at Law, for Reed, David Michael.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 6th of July 2018 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of July 2018."
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60949

Summary Calendar

LAWRENCE A. RAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

RONNIE PENNINGTON, Sheriff, Rankin County Jail,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:07-CV-175

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Lawrence A. Ray filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming

violations of his constitutional rights based on a period of pretrial confinement

in a state criminal case. His case was dismissed in a final judgment. This

appeal is from the November 5, 2009 order denying his motion to reopen the

case. Because that motion sought relief from the final judgment and was filed

more than 10 days after the entry of judgment, it is considered a motion under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d 341,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 3, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-60949 Document: 00511310850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2010
No. 09-60949

347 (5th Cir. 1991). Ray’s notice of appeal was not timely as to the final

judgment dismissing his case. Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the

merits of that judgment. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007); Knapp

v. Dow Corning Corp., 941 F.2d 1336, 1337-38 (5th Cir. 1991). Instead, Ray’s

appeal is limited to review of the order denying his Rule 60(b) motion. See Pryor

v. U.S. Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 284-86 (5th Cir. 1985).

The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). “It is not enough

that the granting of relief might have been permissible, or even

warranted–denial must have been so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of

discretion.” Id. Ray contends that incompetence and misconduct by his counsel

effectively deprived him of all representation in his case. Ray’s case was

dismissed after consideration of the merits of his claims, and Ray has not shown

that there was malfeasance by his counsel warranting relief from the judgment.

See Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 699 F.2d 693, 697 (5th Cir. 1983). The

magistrate judge’s denial of Ray’s Rule 60(b) motion did not constitute an abuse

of discretion.

Ray also reiterates the merits of his claims regarding his pretrial

confinement. Those contentions are unavailing in this appeal, as his Rule 60(b)

motion may not be used as a substitute for a direct appeal of the merits of the

dismissal of his case. See Knapp, 941 F.2d at 1338.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 09-60949 Document: 00511310850 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2010
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

CACI International, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. DASCOI-03-C-0003 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 59382, 59383, 59384 

J. William Koegel, Jr., Esq. 

General Counsel 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Joseph D. Keller, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Chantilly, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 22 April 2015 

~ Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 59382, 59383, 59384, Appeals of 

CACI International, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### STATE ex rel. Jonathan MARTIN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-1826.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Martin, Jonathan;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 382-686; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-K-0585.

Denied.
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

TELE NORTE LESTE PARTICIPAÇÕES S.A.

CERTIFICATION 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), each of the undersigned officers of Tele Norte Leste Participações S.A. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 2003 of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |          |  |                                          
|-------------------- |  | -------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|Dated: June 24, 2004 |  |          |  | /S/    RONALDO IABRUDI
DOS SANTOS PEREIRA
|                     |  | Name:    |  | Ronaldo Iabrudi dos Santos Pereira       
|                     |  | Title  : |  | President and Chief Executive Officer    
|                     |  |         
|Dated: June 24, 2004 |  |          |  | /S/    MARCOS GRODETZKY                  
|                     |  | Name:    |  | Marcos Grodetzky                         
|                     |  | Title  : |  | Chief Financial Officer                  



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form 20-F.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Harry W. Buckley, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report.

August 3, 2010



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ HARRY W. BUCKLEY                 
|Harry W. Buckley                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
exhibit_4-3.htm










Exhibit 4.3












Summary of the Lease Agreement Dated April 30, 2003 (the “Lease Agreement”)








	
1.

	
The Parties: Mazor Robotics Ltd. (“Mazor”) and Hayel Investments and Properties Ltd. (“Hayel”).







 



	
2.

	
Signing Date:  April 30, 2003.







 



	
3.

	
Term: The term of the Lease Agreement is two years. Mazor has an option to extend the term of the Lease Agreement by additional two years.







 



	
4.

	
Premises: 345 square meters at 7 Haeshel Street, Caesarea Industrial Park South, 38900 Israel.







 



	
5.

	
Lease Payments: (1) A monthly lease payment of $2,000; (2) management fees of $276 per month; and (3) the proportionate share of the premises insurance policy of $331 per annum.







 



	
6.

	
Guarantees:  In order to secure its undertakings under this agreement, Mazor shall provide Hayel with a guarantee (the “Guarantee”) in an amount of $8,000.







 



	
7.

	
Amendments to the Lease Agreement:







 



	
  

	
a.

	
On March 27, 2007, the parties amended the Lease Agreement to extend the term of the Lease Agreement by two years.







 



	
  

	
b.

	
On February 28, 2009, the parties amended the Lease Agreement to extend the term of the Lease Agreement by two years.







 



	
  

	
c.

	
On September 16, 2009, the parties amended the Lease Agreement to (i) increase the premises to 569 square meters; (ii) extend the term of the Lease Agreement until April 30, 2011, with an option to extend the term of the Lease Agreement until April 30, 2012; (iii) increase the monthly lease payment  to NIS 18,539 (linked to Israeli Consumer Price Index) through May 1, 2011, and to NIS 19,317 through April 30, 2012; and (iv) increase the Guarantee amount to $15,000.







 



	
  

	
d.

	
On July 10, 2011, the parties amended the Lease Agreement to (i) increase the premises to 769 square meters; (ii) extend the term of the Lease Agreement until December 31, 2014, with an option to extend the term of the Lease Agreement until December 31, 2017; and (iii) increase the monthly lease payment to NIS 27,659 (linked to Israeli Consumer Price Index).







 



	
  

	
e.

	
Subject to the amendments to the Lease Agreement set forth in subsections (a) through (d), all other terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement remains in full force and effect.
**Important legal notice**

*|*

# 12006E030

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Three - Community policies - TITLE I - Free movement of goods - Chapter 2 - Prohibition of quantitative restrictions between Member States - Article 30***Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0053 - 0053 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0047 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0189 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0016 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available)*

Article 30

The provisions of Articles 28 and 29 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.

--------------------------------------------------
**EXHIBIT 16**

 

**KPMG LLP**

Suite 1200 

150 Fayetteville Street Mall 

PO Box 29543 

Raleigh, NC 27626-0543 

 

March 22, 2005 

 

Securities and ExchangeCommission 

Washington, D.C. 20549 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

 

We are currently principal accountants for ECB Bancorp, Inc. and, under the date of March 22, 2005, we reported on the consolidated financial statements of ECB Bancorp, Inc. as of and for the years ended December 31,2004 and 2003. On March 10, 2005, we were notified that ECB Bancorp, Inc. engaged Dixon Hughes PLLC as its principal accountant for the year ending December 31, 2005 and that the auditor-client relationship with KPMG LLP will cease upon completionof the audit of ECB Bancorp, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004, and the issuance of our report thereon. We have read ECB Bancorp, Inc.’s statements included under Item 8 of its Form10-KSB dated March 22, 2005, and we agree with such statements (except that we are not in a position to agree or disagree with ECB Bancorp’s statement that the Audit Committee appointed Dixon Hughes PLLC and that there were no consultationswith Dixon Hughes PLLC of the type of requiring disclosure pursuant to Item 304(a)(2) of Regulation S-K.) 

 

Very truly yours, 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP