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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5182 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5182

To help certain communities adversely affected by FEMA's flood mapping 
                         modernization program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2010

  Mr. Berry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To help certain communities adversely affected by FEMA's flood mapping 
                         modernization program.

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

SECTION 1. FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION AND FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEMS.

    (a) Suspension of Mapping Updates.--Notwithstanding subsections (e) 
and (f) of section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 
U.S.C. 4101(e) and (f)), the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency shall not revise, update, or publish any flood 
insurance rate map under its Flood Map Modernization Program (commonly 
referred to as ``Map Mod'') for any counties that are protected by a 
structure built or maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers unless the 
affected owner of such structure or the community protected by such 
structure--
            (1) has been formally notified of any deficiencies in such 
        structure; and
            (2) has been afforded 7 years to rectify any such 
        deficiencies that would affect the flood insurance rate map for 
        the geographic area in which such structure or community is 
        located.
    (b) Limitation on Required Purchase; Suspension of Premium 
Increases.--Until such time as the owner of a structure described in 
subsection (a) has been afforded 7 years to rectify any identified 
deficiencies in the structure, and notwithstanding the mandatory 
purchase requirements of sections 102 and 202 of the Flood Disaster 
Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4106), the Administrator of 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall not--
            (1) require owners of property located in any county 
        described in subsection (a) who, prior to the date of enactment 
        of this Act were not required to purchase flood insurance, to 
        purchase flood insurance; and
            (2) for owners of property located in any county described 
        in subsection (a) that had purchased flood insurance prior to 
        the date of enactment of this Act, increase the risk premium 
        rate charged for such flood insurance.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 1161

LEO LIONEL PAYNE
,
Plaintiff

- Appellant
,

v.
JESSECA MANGUM, Prosecuting Attorney, in their individual capacity and in their official capacity; REINOLD MARK ADAMS, Police Officer, in their individual capacity and in their official capacity; COLUMBIA, CITY OF
,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. J. Michelle Childs , District Jud ge. ( 3:16

- cv

- 03792

- JMC )

Submitted : May 24, 2018 Decided: May 29, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Leo Lionel Payne, Appellant Pro Se. David Leon Morrison, MORRISON LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Dana Marie Thye, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Leo Lionel Payne appeals the district court’s order s acce pting the recommendation s
of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Payne v. Mangum , No. 3:16

- cv

- 03792

- JMC (D.S.C.

Jan. 30 & Jan. 31, 2018) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>



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

I, Lawrence L. Bartlett, the Chief Financial Officer of Amnis Systems Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

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

Dated: August 14, 2003





/s/  Lawrence L. Bartlett
Name:  Lawrence L. Bartlett
Title: Chief Financial Officer



                                       45
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.8

                            EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PLANS



DATASOUTH COMPUTER CORPORATION
INCENTIVE BONUS PLAN AND KEY EMPLOYEE BONUS PLAN

Incentive Bonus Plan

Eligibility - All employees of Datasouth Computer  Corporation employed at least
ninety days as of each December 31 (with exception for reason of death, military
duty or layoff),  except those  individuals  eligible for the Key Employee Bonus
Plan.

Bonus Pool - Datasouth's  "Income from Operations" before bonus expense,  less a
"Minimum Return", times 20%.

Minimum Return - Datasouth's  "Stockholder's  Equity"  pertaining to the printer
operations ( i.e., excludes the investment in Gray Communications Systems, Inc.,
net of related  liabilities)  times a required rate of return (as  determined by
the Bull Run Corporation Board of Directors)

Allocation  of Bonus  Pool - Based on an  employee's  pro rata  share of  "Bonus
Wages".

Bonus Wages - Equal to gross pay,  less (i) sick pay;  (ii)  commissions;  (iii)
bonuses;  (iv)  bereavement pay over 4 days; (v) overtime and overtime  premium;
and (vi) first 90 day wages and first 20 day wages  during  the fiscal  year for
new hires and rehires, respectively; plus, a disability or workers' compensation
adjustment, if applicable, as determined by management.

Payments  -  Annually,  following  completion  of  the  audit  of the  Bull  Run
consolidated  financial  statements,  but no  later  than  March  15.  3% of the
Incentive Bonus is contributed to the Datasouth Savings and Profit-Sharing  Plan
on behalf of the Bonus recipient.

Key Employee Bonus Plan

Eligibility - Employees of Datasouth Computer Corporation determined by the Bull
Run Board of Directors.

Bonus Pool - Datasouth's  "Income from Operations"  before Key Employee Bonuses,
but  after  Incentive  Bonuses,  times a %  determined  by the Bull Run Board of
Directors.

Allocation  of Bonus Pool - Specified % as  determined  by the Bull Run Board of
Directors.   A  portion  of  the  Key  Employee   Bonus  may  be  allocated  for
discretionary  bonuses to be paid to  employees  not  specified  as Key Employee
Bonus Plan  participants.  Allocation of discretionary  bonuses is determined by
Datasouth's management.

Payments  -  Annually,  following  completion  of  the  audit  of the  Bull  Run
consolidated  financial  statements,  but no later  than March 15. 3% of the Key
Employee Bonus is contributed to the Datasouth Savings and  Profit-Sharing  Plan
on behalf of the Bonus recipient.


                                                    14
##### 



Exhibit 21.1


LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF VESTIN GROUP, INC.


|                               |  |              |         | 
|------------------------------ |  | ------------ | ------- | 
|Name                           |  | Jurisdiction |        
|                               |  |              |        
|JLS Advertising, Inc.          |  |              | Nevada  | 
|Vestin Advisors, Inc.          |  |              | Nevada  | 
|Vestin Capital Inc.            |  |              | Nevada  | 
|Vestin Foundation, Inc.        |  |              | Nevada  | 
|Vestin Mortgage Advisers, Inc. |  |              | Arizona | 
|Vestin Mortgage, Inc.          |  |              | Nevada  |
Exhibit
99.2  Letter from the German
Secretary of Transport, Building and Housing to the members of the Toll Collect
consortium, dated February 17, 2004 (convenience
translation)  [Letterhead of Dr. Stolpe, German Secretary ofTransport, Building and Housing]   Truck toll in Germany Berlin, February 17, 2004   Gentlemen,  The Toll Collect
consortium presented a proposal on January 27, 2004 which is unacceptable to
the German Federal Government in technical, legal and economic terms. This is
also the view of the Parliamentary Budget Committee and of the Parliamentary
Committee for Transport, Building and Housing.  The project plan submitted by the consortium
implies a delay in toll collection of 28 months compared with the operating
agreement. The resulting financial loss to the Federal Republic of Germany
amounts to approximately 6.5 billion.  In view of this situation, the Federal Office
for Goods Transportation will serve you with notification of termination of the
operating agreement.  The Federal Republic of Germany will claim all
applicable damages and penalties arising from guarantee liability pursuant to
Letter S of the operating agreement. The settlement of these claims should be
initiated with the responsible court of arbitration in the near future. The
possibility of referring the matter to a conciliation committee will be waived.  However, I see the possibility that the
termination can be avoided if the consortium agrees to the demands of the
Federal Republic of Germany as listed in the appendix to this letter and discussed
on February 16/17, 2004.  I hope the consortium fulfills these
expectations in order to reach an amicable solution in the interests of Germany
as a location for industry and innovation.  Sincerely yours,Manfred Stolpe  
  Appendix to the letter from Secretary Dr.
Stolpe to the members of the consortium   Demands of the Federal Republic of Germany   ·The technical risks inherent in the two-step model
proposed by the consortium are to be eliminated as far as possible. This means,
among other things:  -a sufficient
timeframe for the achievement of milestones;  -full market
supply of on-board units as of system start OBU 1 (at least 500,000 OBUs);  -Toll Collect
quality management and contractual project controlling of the joint venture  ·We expect significantly higher penalties from the
consortium, expressing the consortiums confidence in the technical
functionality of the system.  ·The consortium withdraws the far-reaching proposed
contractual amendments which are to the disadvantage of the Federal Republic of
Germany. This means: no exclusion of liability with OBU 1, sufficient liability
with OBU 2, reduced compensation in the case of reduced performance, retention
of cost capping, no future contract termination option.  ·If the consortium is not prepared to declare and
demonstrate the functionality of the system as described above, the consortium
must propose an alternative transitional solution in order to minimize losses.
Subcontractors can be used for this purpose.
#### WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a Corporation, Appellant, *v.*NORMAN BILTZ, Respondent.

No. 3155

February 6, 1937.

64 P. (2d) 1048.

*L. D. Summerfield, Lilliek, Olson, Levy & Geary,*for Appellant.

*George S'pringmeyer*and *Douglas A. Busey,*for Respondent.

By the Court,

Ducker, J.:

The issues in this action and in action No. 3154, in which Agricultural Insurance Company of Watertown, N. Y., a corporation, is appellant, and Norman Biltz is respondent, 64 P. (2d) 1042, decided in this court on this date, are identical save as to the amount of the insurance policies involved. They were consolidated and tried as one. In the instant case, judgment was entered for plaintiff that he recover from defendant the sum of $3,000 damages (the amount of the policy) with interest thereon at legal rate from April 6, 1935, the date of award.

The actions were heard as one on appeal and it was stipulated that a separate decision should be rendered in each case.

Therefore, on the authority of said Agricultural Insurance Company of Watertown, N. Y., a corporation v. Norman Biltz (Nev.) 64 P. (2d) 1042, No. 3154, it is ordered that that part of the judgment herein allowing interest from April 6, 1935, is modified so as to allow interest at 7 percent per annum from date of judgment.

It is further ordered that the costs in this case be retaxed by the trial court on the basis ordered in the companion case mentioned.

*389The judgment as so modified and the order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial are affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41107 Conference Calendar

WILLIAM NISWANGER Plaintiff-Appellant

v. ASHL EY POWELL, D.P.O II District Parole Officer; TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES; GLENN GEYER Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:07-CV-297
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * William Niswanger, Texas prisoner # 636282, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above named defendants. On August 22, 2007, the district court entered final judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Niswanger filed a notice of appeal and a motion to reopen time for filing an United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 19, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-41107

2 appeal pursuant to F ED
. R. A PP
. P. 4(a)(6) on November 5, 2007. The district court denied the motion to reopen. If necessary, this court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction sua sponte. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely notice of appeal in a civil case is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Bowles v. Russell , 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2366 (2007). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) requires that the notice of appeal in a civil action be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken. Niswanger’s notice of appeal from the district court’s August 22, 2007, dismissal of his § 1983 complaint was due on September 21, 2007. On appeal, Niswanger does not address the untimely filing ofhis notice of appeal or the district court’s denial of his motion to reopen under F ED
. R. A PP
. P. 4(a)(6). Even if Niswanger had challenged the district court’s denial, he cannot showerror because he has not asserted, on appeal or in the district court, that he did not receive notice ofentry offinal judgment more than 21 days after August 22, 2007. The district court did not err in finding that Niswanger failed to fulfill the requirements of Rule 4(a)(6)(A). Niswanger failed to file a timely noticeofappeal. This court lacks jurisdiction over any appeal from the judgment of August 22, 2007. See Bowles, 127 S. Ct. at 2366. APPEAL DISMISSED.
STATE v. Jesse James LENOIR

194P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 6, 2018

Mr. W. Michael Spivey, Rocky Mount, Attorney at Law, for Lenoir, Jesse James

Ms. Kimberly Grande, Raleigh, Special Counsel, for State of North Carolina

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General

Mr. Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Mr. Ted Bell, District Attorney, for State

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of July 2018 by State of NC to Dissolve Temporary Stay and Withdraw Petition for Writ of Supersedeas:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of July 2018."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61256-61260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21115]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 06-08]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

[[Page 61257]]


ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 06-08 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification.

    October 17, 2005.
L.M. Bynum,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 61258]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21OC05.000


[[Page 61259]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21OC05.001


[[Page 61260]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21OC05.002

[FR Doc. 05-21115 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5051 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5051

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, as the ``Zachary Smith Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ZACHARY SMITH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Zachary Smith Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
or other record of the United States to the facility referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Zachary Smith 
Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 11, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5051

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, as the ``Zachary Smith Post 
                           Office Building''.
```
Exhibit 32.01



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Mark S. Stratton, President of Beacon Management Corporation (USA), the general partner of the Fund, 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 Fund.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                     
|--- |  | --------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Mark S. Stratton
|    |  | Mark S. Stratton    
|    |  | President           
|    |  | August 13, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 84636 

, FILE 

, JUN 2 4 2022 

SOUTHERN HILLS MEDICAL 

CENTER, LLC, D/B/A SOUTHERN 

HILLS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL 

CENTER, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE 

ERIKA D. BALLOU, DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

EMMANUEL GARCIA, 

Real Party in Interest. 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition 

challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a medical 

malpractice action. Having considered the petition and its documentation, 

we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention 

is warranted. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 683, 

476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020) (declining to grant writ relief when a later 

appeal was available); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 

228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief 

bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth 

Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) 

(recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court 

has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). 

Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying 

motions to dismiss, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A allgbs. 2 z.-- 2 oo I o 
general rule applies here. Int? Garne Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. 

Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 558-59 (2008) (discussing writ 

petitions challenging denials of motions to dismiss). We therefore 

ORDER the petition DENIED.' 

Sr.J. 

cc: Hon. Erika D. Ballou, District Judge 

Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas 

Burris & Thomas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the 

decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. 

2 

, C.J. 

Parraguirre 

Aact uy , J 

Pickering