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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 14 

To authorize additional district court judgeships for the northern, middle, 

and southern districts of Florida. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. RUBIO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize additional district court judgeships for the 

northern, middle, and southern districts of Florida. 

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 ‘‘Florida Federal Judi5 cial Relief Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS. 

7 (a) ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIPS.—The President shall 

8 appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Sen9 ate— 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 14 IS

1 (1) 6 additional district judges for the middle 

2 district of Florida; 

3 (2) 1 additional district judge for the northern 

4 district of Florida; and 

5 (3) 3 additional district judges for the southern 

6 district of Florida. 

7 (b) CONVERSION OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS.—The 

8 existing judgeship for the southern district of Florida au9 thorized by section 312(c) of the 21st Century Depart10 ment of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (Public 

11 Law 107–273; 28 U.S.C. 133 note), as of the date of en12 actment of this Act, shall be authorized under section 133 

13 of title 28, United States Code, and the incumbent in that 

14 office shall hold the office under section 133 of title 28, 

15 United States Code, as amended by this Act. 

16 (c) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

17 The table contained in section 133(a) of title 28, United 

18 States Code, is amended by striking the items relating to 

19 Florida and inserting the following: 

‘‘Florida: 

Northern ............................................................................................. 5

Middle ................................................................................................. 21

Southern ............................................................................................. 21’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
#### WILLIAM D. GEDDES, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7424

October 10, 1974

526 P.2d 1180

*Horace Rodlin Goff,*State Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Michael Fondi,*District Attorney, and *Kenneth J. Jordan,*Deputy District Attorney, Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In Count II of the Information against him, appellant was accused of offending NRS 453.401 (3) by inducing a minor to violate provisions of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. The sole issue duly raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that if the minor was found to be an accomplice, corroboration of the minor’s testimony was essential.1

*368In our view, NRS 453.401 (3) is intended to protect minors who might be induced to violate other statutory provisions, and not itself to impose sanctions upon them. Even in proceedings instituted under NRS Chapter 62, which relates to juvenile offenders, a minor could not, we think, be charged with having induced himself to violate the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Thus, as to a charge of violating NRS 453.401(3), we believe the minor concerned was not one liable to prosecution “for the identical offense charged against the defendant,” NRS 175.291(2), and as to that particular charge thus lacked the status of “accomplice.” Cf. State v. Fredrico, 449 P.2d 936 (Ariz. 1969); State v. Valenzuela, 418 P.2d 386 (Ariz. 1966).

Affirmed.

1

The statute on which this contention is based declares:

*“175.291 Testimony of accomplice must be corroborated; sufficiency of corroboration; accomplice defined.*

“1. A conviction shall not be had on the testimony of an accomplice unless be is corroborated by other evidence which in itself, and *368without the aid of the testimony of the accomplice, tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration shall not be sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.

“2. An accomplice is hereby defined as one who is liable to prosecution, for the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial in the cause in which the testimony of the accomplice is given.”

During oral argument before this court, appellant’s counsel belatedly endeavored to raise questions concerning NRS 175.291, in regard to appellant’s conviction under Count I of the information against him. However, it appears to us that appellant’s Opening Brief had conceded:

“The petitioner has and does admit the charges contained in Count One of the Information, but denies that he induced a minor to violate Chapter 453 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, and it is for that reason he pleaded not guilty.”
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, John T. Raymond, Chief Executive Officer and President of Plains Resources Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Plains Resources Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [omitted in accordance with section III.E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986] for the registrant and we have: 

 

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b. [omitted in accordance with section III.E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986]; 

 

c. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on such evaluation; and 

 

d. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5605 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5605

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 47 East Fayette Street in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, as the ``George 
                       C. Marshall Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2010

  Mr. Critz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 47 East Fayette Street in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, as the ``George 
                       C. Marshall Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. GEORGE C. MARSHALL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 47 East Fayette Street in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, shall be 
known and designated as the ``George C. Marshall Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``George C. 
Marshall Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
#### MIRROR IMAGING L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, INC. and ACS Image Solutions, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-1479.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: March 7, 2005.

*ORDER*

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Joint Motion of Plaintiff-Appellant Mirror Imaging, L.L.C. (“Mirror”) and DefendantsAppellees Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. and ACS Image Solutions, Inc. (collectively “ACS”) to Dismiss Appeal and Dismiss Motion for Damages and Costs, it is ORDERED that:

The Motion is GRANTED. The Court hereby (1) dismisses the instant appeal, No. 04-1479, with prejudice, and (2) dismisses ACS’s Motion for Damages and Costs for Defending Against a Frivolous Appeal with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs.
Document

Exhibit 10.9

Summary of Pixelworks Non-Employee Director Compensation




						
	General Board Service - Cash	Annual Retainer: $40,000
	General Board Service - Equity	Initial grant upon election or appointment: $74,000 fair value in stock options (based on Black-Scholes valuation assumptions consistent with the Company’s financial reporting obligations and 30-day average stock price) with a six year term vesting 25% on the first anniversary of the grant date, and ratably on a monthly basis thereafter for the next three years, subject to acceleration on change of control

Annual grant at annual meeting of shareholders: $74,000 fair value in RSUs (based on 30-day average stock price) vesting on first to occur of (1) the day before the next annual meeting of the Company’s shareholders that follows the grant date, or (2) the first anniversary of the grant date, subject to acceleration on change of control
	Committee Member Service - Additional Annual Fees	Committee member annual fees:

Audit: $8,000 (paid quarterly)

Comp: $5,000 (paid quarterly)

Corp Gov/Nom: $3,000 (paid quarterly)
	Committee Chair Service - Additional Annual Fees	Committee Chair fees:

Audit: $19,000 (paid quarterly)

Comp: $10,000 (paid quarterly)

Corp Gov/Nom: $7,500 (paid quarterly)
	Chairman of the Board	Additional annual retainer: $28,000
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Bedford Park, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 24-0094

Issued: November 30, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On November 13, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a November 1, 2022 nonmerit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 24-0094.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the November 1, 2022 decision was April 30, 2023. As this fell 

on a Sunday, appellant had until Monday, May 1, 2023 to file the appeal.3 As appellant did not 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3

Id. at § 501.3(f).
2

file an appeal with the Board until November 13, 2023, more than 180 days after the

November 1, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 24-0094 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

explained his failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 24-0094, must be dismissed.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 24-0094 is dismissed.

Issued: November 30, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
#### ADVERTISING CO. v. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

No. 85 PC.

Case below: 35 N.C. App. 226.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1978.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the interim
consolidated financial statements of the Company for the nine months ended
September 30, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000054291
<NAME> KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                              22
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      264
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        546
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   943
<PP&E>                                           1,126
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,872
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              551
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                2
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                          40
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,872
<SALES>                                          1,652
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,652
<CGS>                                            1,395
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   169
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  68
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     24
<INCOME-TAX>                                         8
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 16
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        16
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
10.1.7









June 27,
2008







Steven
      Helmers, Esq.
            Christopher
      Reitz, Esq.Black
      Hills Corporation
            Aquila,
      Inc.625
      Ninth Street
            20
      West Ninth StreetRapid
      City, SD 57709
            Kansas
      City, MO 64105







Re:
            Partnership
      Interests Purchase Agreement and Asset Purchase Agreement (collectively,
      the "Agreements") by and among Aquila, Inc. ("Aquila"), Black Hills
      Corporation ("Black Hills"), Great Plains Energy Incorporated ("Great
      Plains") and Gregory Acquisition Corp.
  ("Gregory")




Dear
Steve and Chris:




Under the
terms of the Agreements, as modified by those certain letters dated as of June
29, 2007, August 31, 2007, September 28, 2007, November 30, 2007, January 30,
2008, February 28, 2008, March 28, 2008, April 28, 2008, May 29, 2008, and June
19, 2008, Black Hills, Aquila and Great Plains are to attach schedules setting
forth Retained Agreements and Shared Agreements prior to June 27,
2008.  We recognize that this deadline may be implausible and
therefore propose extending the date set forth under section 2.2(1) and 8.5(d)
of the Agreements to July 3, 2008.





If you
are in agreement, please sign below on the attached signature page where
indicated and return a copy of this letter to me by fax or e-mail.








Very
      truly yours,
              Great
      Plains Energy IncorporatedBy:
      /s/ Mark G. English
              Name:
      Mark G. English
              Title:
      General Counsel











ACKNOWLEDGED,
CONSENTED TO, AND ACCEPTED BY:





BLACK
HILLS CORPORATION








By:  /s/
Steven J. Helmers





Name:  Steven
J. Helmers


Title:    Sr.
Vice President and General Counsel








AQUILA,
INC.








By:  /s/
Chris Reitz





Name:  Chris
Reitz


Title:    General
Counsel








GREGORY
ACQUISITION CORP.








By:  /s/
Mark G. English





Name:  Mark
G. English


Title:    Secretary
and Treasurer
II 

Calendar No. 203 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1434 

[Report No. 116–100] 

To prohibit the use of reverse auctions for design and construction services 

procurements, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 13, 2019 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Ms. HIRONO) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of reverse auctions for design and 

construction services procurements, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Construction Con5 sensus Procurement Improvement Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1434 RS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF A REVERSE AUCTION FOR 

2 THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT FOR DESIGN 

3 AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES. 

4 (a) FINDING.—Congress finds that, in contrast to a 

5 traditional auction in which the buyers bid up the price, 

6 sellers bid down the price in a reverse auction. 

7 (b) PROHIBITION.—Not later than 180 days after the 

8 date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition 

9 Regulation shall be amended to prohibit the use of reverse 

10 auctions for awarding contracts for design and construc11 tion services. 

12 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

13 (1) The term ‘‘design and construction serv14 ices’’ means— 

15 (A) site planning and landscape design; 

16 (B) architectural and engineering services 

17 (as defined in section 1102 of title 40, United 

18 States Code); 

19 (C) interior design; 

20 (D) performance of substantial construc21 tion work for facility, infrastructure, and envi22 ronmental restoration projects; 

23 (E) delivery and supply of construction 

24 materials to construction sites; or 

25 (F) construction or substantial alteration 

26 of public buildings or public works. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1434 RS

1 (2) The term ‘‘reverse auction’’ means, with re2 spect to any procurement by an executive agency— 

3 (A) a real-time auction conducted through 

4 an electronic medium among 2 or more offerors 

5 who compete by submitting bids for a supply or 

6 service contract, or a delivery order, task order, 

7 or purchase order under the contract, with the 

8 ability to submit revised lower bids at any time 

9 before the closing of the auction; and 

10 (B) the award of the contract, delivery 

11 order, task order, or purchase order to the of12 feror, in whole or in part, based on the price 

13 obtained through the auction process. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Calendar No. 203 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1434 

[Report No. 116–100] 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of reverse auctions for design 

other purposes. and construction services procurements, and for 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS