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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5543 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5543

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the prohibition on 
 collective bargaining with respect to matters and questions regarding 
 compensation of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs other 
            than rates of basic pay, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 16, 2010

  Mr. Filner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the prohibition on 
 collective bargaining with respect to matters and questions regarding 
 compensation of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs other 
            than rates of basic pay, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH RESPECT 
              TO COMPENSATION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
              EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN RATES OF BASIC PAY.

    Subsections (b) and (d) of section 7422 of title 38, United States 
Code, are amended by striking ``compensation'' both places it appears 
and inserting ``rates of basic pay''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                              STATEMENT REGARDING
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                            ------------------------------------
                                                              1994          1995          1996
                                                            --------      --------      --------
<S>                                                         <C>           <C>           <C>
Net Income................................................   $34,909       $42,465       $30,001
PRIMARY:
Common shares outstanding.................................    18,332        19,173        19,897
Common equivalent shares:
  Common shares under stock options outstanding...........     1,048         1,112           557
                                                             -------       -------       -------
  Common and common equivalent shares used in computing
     net income per share.................................    19,380        20,285        20,454
                                                             =======       =======       =======

Net Income Per Share (Primary)............................     $1.80         $2.09         $1.47
                                                             =======       =======       =======

FULLY DILUTED SHARES:

Common shares outstanding.................................    18,332        19,173        19,897
Common equivalent shares:
  Common shares under stock options outstanding...........     1,072         1,289           634
                                                             -------       -------       -------
  Common and common equivalent shares used in computing
     net income per share, assuming full dilution.........    19,404        20,462        20,531
                                                             =======       =======       =======

Net Income Per Share (Fully Diluted)......................     $1.80         $2.08         $1.46
                                                             =======       =======       =======
</TABLE>
No. 07-16-00009-CV

Weird Times, LLC

 Appellant

v.

Sharon Ma

 Appellee 

§

§

§

§

From the 353rd District Court 

 of Travis County

December 6, 2017

Opinion by Justice Pirtle

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated December 6, 2017, it is ordered, 

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended for which 

let execution issue.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
#### STATE v. SARAH WHITTED.

(Filed 20 April, 1966.)

Infants § 7—

Where the warrant charges defendant with using a minor to assist her in the sale of illicit liquor, but the evidence shows only that the minor was used to carry nontaxpaid liquor from a neighboring shed to defendant’s house, without any finding that defendant sold illicit liquor on the occasion in question, is insufficient to support the particular offense charged in the warrant, and judgment of nonsuit should have been entered.

Mooee, J., not sitting.

Appeal by defendant from *Bailey, J.,*November 1965 Assigned Criminal Session of Wake.

Criminal prosecution on a warrant charging that defendant, on or about August 24, 1965, “did wilfully contribute to the delinquency of Donald Lee Whitted, a minor, age 12, in that she used him to assist her in the sale of illicit liquor,” tried *de novo*in the superior court after appeal by defendant from conviction and judgment in the Domestic Relations Court of Wake County. Upon return of a verdict of guilty as charged, judgment imposing a prison sentence was pronounced. Defendant excepted and appealed, assigning as error, *inter alia,*the denial of her motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit.

*Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Goodwyn for the State.*

*George M. Anderson and E. Ray Briggs for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

A Raleigh Police Officer was the only witness. He testified that defendant and Donald Lee Whitted, defendant’s twelve-year-old grandson, lived at 708 Carroll’s Alley. He also testified to observations made by him on August 24, 1965, about 9:00 *130p.m., when he and other officers had taken a position “across a branch about 25 to 30 feet from the back of the house at 708 Carroll’s Alley.” He also testified to the result of the search some 45-55 minutes later of the shed at the rear of 710 Carroll’s Alley and of the house at 708 Carroll’s Alley and of the person of Donald.

Conceding, without deciding, the circumstantial evidence on which the State relied was sufficient to support a finding that Donald left 708 Carroll’s Alley, went to the shed in back of 710 Carroll’s Alley and got two half-gallon jars of nontaxpaid (illicit) liquor from the shed and brought them back to 708 Carroll’s Alley and handed them to defendant, the evidence was insufficient, in our view, to support a finding that defendant *sold*illicit liquor and “used (Donald) to assist her in the sale” thereof, the only accusation in the warrant as to the way and manner in which she wilfully contributed to the delinquency of Donald.

Since the evidence relates solely to what occurred on said occasion on August 24, 1965, and is insufficient to support the particular offense charged in the warrant, the court’s denial of defendant’s motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit constitutes reversible error.

Reversed.

Moore, J., not sitting.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                  Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
                      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 Monadnock Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Karl F. Betz, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002 and in connection with this quarterly report
on Form 10-QSB that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a)
            or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

      2.    The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the company's financial condition and results of
            operations.



Date: May 8, 2007                      /s/ Karl F. Betz
                                       ----------------
                                       Karl F. Betz
                                       Senior Vice President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer

                                      23
Exhibit 32.3 

Written Statement ofthe Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350 

Solely for the purposes of complyingwith 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of WisconsinPower and Light Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge,that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2004(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company. 

/s/ Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 6, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00332

- CV

GUARANTEED INSPECTION SERVICES, INC., Appellant

v.

Patricia B. GATEWOOD and Albert C. Alvarado, Appellee s

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- CI

- 17176 Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellees’ brief was due on July 31, 2018. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(b). After the due
date, Appellees filed an unopposed motion for a twenty

- one day extension of time to file
Appellees’ brief.

Appellees’ motion is GRANTED. Appellees’ brief is due on August 21, 2018.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the s aid

court on this 6th day of August, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 4.2


 


UCOMMUNE INTERNATIONAL LTD


Floor 8, Tower D


No.2 Guang Hua Road


Chaoyang District, Beijing


People’s Republic of China, 100026


 


March 1, 2022


 


JAK Opportunities LLC


17 State Street, 2100


New York, New York 10004






Re: Warrants


 


Dear Sirs and Madams:


 


Reference is made to the Series A Warrant, Series
B Warrant and Series C Warrant, each dated January 26, 2022 (collectively, the “Warrants”), between Ucommune
International Ltd and JAK Opportunities LLC (the “Holder”), as the holder named therein. Capitalized terms not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Warrants.


 


Upon execution of this letter agreement, each of
the Warrants shall be amended to add the following Section 5(o):


 


“o) Floor for Exercise Price
of the Warrant. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Transaction Documents, the Exercise Price of the Warrant shall in
no event be lower than $0.30 (the “Floor Price”). The Floor Price shall be proportionately decreased upon a stock split
or share subdivision of Ordinary Shares, and shall be proportionately increased in the case of a reverse stock split or share combination
of Ordinary Shares. The Company agrees that while the Warrant remains outstanding, it will not issue Ordinary Shares or Ordinary Share
Equivalents at a price per share or with a conversion or exercise price per share, as applicable, that is below the Floor Price without
the prior written consent of the Holder.”


 


Each of the Warrants and this
letter agreement shall be read together and shall have the same effect as if each such Warrant and this letter agreement were contained
in one document. Except as expressly modified by this letter agreement, the terms and obligations of the Warrants and the Transaction
Documents remain unchanged and the Warrants and Transaction Documents shall continue in full force and effect.


 


This letter agreement shall
be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York, without regard to the conflict of laws principles
thereof.


 




     


     


    

 


If you are in agreement with
the foregoing, please have this letter agreement executed by your authorized representative and return a copy to the undersigned.


 


	 	Very Truly Yours,
	 	 	 
	 	UCOMMUNE INTERNATIONAL LTD
	 	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Xin Guan                            
	 	Name: 	Xin Guan
	 	Title:	CEO


 


	Confirmed and Agreed to:	 
	 	 	 
	JAK Opportunities LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Antonio Ruiz-Gimenez	 
	Name: 	Antonio Ruiz-Gimenez	 
	Title:	Managing Partner
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67411-67412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22236]


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

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, November 9th, 2005, 2-4:30 p.m.

PLACE: Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave., SW., 
Washington, DC 20237.

CLOSED MEETING: The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
(BBG) will meet in closed session to review and discuss a number of 
issues relating to U.S. Government-funded non-military international 
broadcasting. They will address internal procedural, budgetary, and 
personnel issues, as well as sensitive foreign policy issues relating 
to potential options in the U.S. international broadcasting field. This 
meeting is closed because if open it likely would either disclose 
matters that would be properly classified to be kept secret in the 
interest of foreign policy under the appropriate executive order (5 
U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would disclose information the premature 
disclosure of which would be likely to significantly

[[Page 67412]]

frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 
552b.(c)(9)(B)) In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely 
to the internal personnel and organizational issues of the BBG or the 
International Broadcasting Bureau. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(2) and (6)).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact either Brenda Hardnett or Carol Booker 
at (202) 203-4545.

    Dated: November 1, 2005.
Carol Booker,
Legal Counsel.
[FR Doc. 05-22236 Filed 11-3-05; 12:39 pm]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
#### Michael Tyrone WEST, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Oscar ESCOBEDO; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-55293.

D.C. No. CV-02-00415-LAB/LSP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.*

Decided April 11, 2005.

Michael Tyrone West, Soledad, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kevin G. Kennedy, Esq., Office of the County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

*187Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Tyrone West appeals pro se the district court’s judgment as a matter of law in favor of San Diego County Sheriffs Department deputies in West’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants used excessive force against him in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion for judgment as a matter of law, *Saman v. Robbins,*173 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

West’s contention that the deputies used excessive force during the course of his arrest lacks merit because the evidence did not raise any question of fact that the deputies used more force than was reasonably necessary or that deputies did not reasonably believe that the force they used was reasonably necessary under the circumstances. *See Monroe v. City of Phoenix,*248 F.3d 851, 861 (9th Cir.2001). West had been fully heard on these issues and there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for West on these issues, so the district court properly granted the motion for judgment as a matter of law against West pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). *See id.*

West’s remaining contentions are also without merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Alliant Energy Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

| William D. Harvey |
|-------------------|

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

August 5, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                         NAME -- STATE OF INCORPORATION

<Table>
<Caption>
COMPANY                                                       STATE OF INCORPORATION
-------                                                       ----------------------
<S>                                                           <C>
American Down and Textile Company                               Wisconsin
Brawn of California, Inc.                                       California
Clearance World Outlets, LLC                                    Delaware
Desius, LLC                                                     Delaware
D.M. Advertising, Inc.                                          New Jersey
D.M. Advertising, LLC                                           Delaware
Domestications, LLC                                             Delaware
Encore Catalog, LLC                                             Delaware
erizon, Inc.                                                    Delaware
Gump's By Mail, Inc.                                            Delaware
Gump's Corp.                                                    California
Hanover Brands, Inc.                                            Delaware
Hanover Company Store, LLC                                      Delaware
Hanover Direct Pennsylvania, Inc.                               Pennsylvania
Hanover Direct Virginia Inc.                                    Delaware
Hanover Gifts, Inc.                                             Virginia
Hanover Home Fashions Group, LLC                                Delaware
Hanover Realty, Inc.                                            Virginia
Keystone Internet Services, Inc.                                Delaware
Keystone Liquidations, Inc.                                     Delaware
LaCrosse Fulfillment, LLC                                       Delaware
San Diego Telemarketing, LLC                                    Delaware
Scandia Down, LLC                                               Delaware
Silhouettes, LLC                                                Delaware
The Company Office, Inc.                                        Delaware
The Company Store Factory, Inc.                                 Delaware
The Horn & Hardart Company, Inc.                                New York
</Table>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7090

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SCOTTIE BALLARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. C. Weston Houck, Senior District

Judge. (CR-01-229; CA-02-2105-3)

Submitted: December 15, 2004 Decided: January 5, 2005

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scottie Ballard, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Scottie Ballard seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Ballard has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny

Ballard’s motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED