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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5184 

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to improve conservation practice 

standards, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2018 

Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to improve 

conservation practice standards, 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 ‘‘Accelerating Innovative 

5 Conservation Technologies and Practices Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARDS. 

7 The Food Security Act of 1985 is amended— 

8 (1) in section 1242(h) (16 U.S.C. 3842(h))— 

9 (A) by amending paragraph (3) to read as 

10 follows: 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5184 IH

1 ‘‘(3) EXPEDITED REVISION OF STANDARDS.— 

2 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact3 ment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall develop 

4 an administrative process for— 

5 ‘‘(A) expediting the establishment and revi6 sion of conservation practice standards; and 

7 ‘‘(B) considering conservation innovations 

8 with respect to any establishment or revision 

9 under subparagraph (A).’’; and 

10 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(4) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the 

12 date of the enactment of this paragraph, and every 

13 2 years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to 

14 Congress a report on— 

15 ‘‘(A) the administrative process developed 

16 under paragraph (3); 

17 ‘‘(B) conservation practice standards that 

18 were established or expedited under such proc19 ess; and 

20 ‘‘(C) conservation innovations that were 

21 considered under such process.’’; and 

22 (2) in section 1262(c) (16 U.S.C. 3862(c)), by 

23 adding at the end the following: 

24 ‘‘(3) RECOMMENDATIONS TO SECRETARY.— 

25 Each State technical committee shall regularly reVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:29 Mar 09, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5184.IH H5184

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5184 IH

1 view new and innovative technologies and practices, 

2 including processes to conserve water, and make rec3 ommendations to the Secretary for further consider4 ation of, and possible development of, conservation 

5 practice standards that incorporate such tech6 nologies and practices.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS 

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 0 rn ::.:·:· · ".~-~ U.S.POSTAGE»PITNEYBOWES 

STATEOFTEXAS .·~s· ...•.... ~ 4%?: (~'i;:,--~~F~ PENALTYFOR ,> ~u ' ~"""""""'~ 

PRIVATE USE .. · .. ~·~ . ~~ ;~701 $ 000.27: 

6/29/2015 . ' . 0. LL 0001401623 JUL. 02. 20 1:J 

FORD, DARREN Tr. Ct. No~'132776S01 01 0-A WR-83,320-Q" 

On this day, this Court has denied "APPLICA.~T'S MOTION REQUESTING AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING HIS MOTION REQUESTING EN BANC 

REHEARING". / 

1

. d}. . Y (L ;W ~~ Abel Acosta, Clerk 

\}-1.\ 5::2 \ ;y v DARREN FORD 

---· liT - TDC # 1789075 

( 

" 

'': .. :.:: 

·:.\
Director Compensation






Exhibit 10.1


DSW INC. SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Our current director compensation policies provide that each director who does not otherwise receive compensation from DSW will receive:
		
	•
	An annual cash retainer of $60,000;


		
	•
	An annual equity retainer of $120,000; and


		
	•
	An additional annual retainer for committee service for each committee on which such director serves (provided that the committee chairs do not receive such additional retainer) as follows:


		
	•
	Audit Committee — $15,000


		
	•
	Compensation Committee — $11,500


		
	•
	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee — $10,000


		
	•
	Technology Committee — $10,000


The annual retainers are paid as follows:
		
	•
	The annual cash retainer and the additional annual retainer for committee service are payable in quarterly installments on the last day of each fiscal quarter; and


		
	•
	The annual equity retainer is payable on the date of each annual meeting of the shareholders for the purpose of electing directors, determined by dividing the amount of the retainer by the share price of our Class A Common Shares on the grant date.


Directors do not receive any additional compensation for attending board meetings or board committee meetings. However, the chairmen of the Audit Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, Compensation Committee, and Technology Committee each receive an additional $35,000, $25,000, $30,000, and $25,000 in cash or stock units (as they may elect) per year, respectively.  We pay this compensation on a quarterly basis. All members of our Board of Directors are reimbursed for reasonable costs and expenses incurred in attending meetings of our Board of Directors and its committees.
Non-management directors may elect to have any of the cash portion of their compensation paid in the form of stock units in lieu of cash.
Stock units issued to a director are fully vested on the date of grant.  Beginning in calendar year 2012, the director may elect to have the stock units distributed (i) 30 days following the grant date, (ii) at a specified future date more than 30 days following the grant date, or (iii) when the director leaves the Board (for any reason). Stock units are settled in DSW Class A Common Shares, unless the director’s award agreement provides for a cash settlement. The stock units are settled in a lump sum.
Directors have no voting rights in respect to the stock units, but they will have the power to vote the DSW Class A Common Shares received upon settlement of the award. In general, directors have equivalent rights to receive dividends paid on DSW Class A Common Shares. Each director is “credited” with the same dividend that would be issued if the stock unit was a DSW Class A Common Share. The amounts associated with the dividend equivalent rights will not be distributed until the director’s stock unit award is settled.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3902

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Joanna Rae Dungy

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: May 4, 2016

 Filed: May 9, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Joanna Rae Dungy directly appeals the district court’s judgment revoking her

1

supervised release and sentencing her to two months in prison and three years of

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern 1

District of Iowa. 
supervised release with a special condition that she reside in a residential re-entry

program for up to 120 days following her incarceration. On appeal, Dungy argues

that the court lacked statutory authority to order placement in the residential re-entry

program and that the court abused its discretion in imposing this condition.

After careful review, this court affirms. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (court may

order special release condition that is reasonably related to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors, involves no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary, and is

consistent with policy statements); United States v. Wiedower, 634 F.3d 490, 493

(8th Cir. 2011) (court has broad discretion when imposing release conditions; when

crafting special condition, court must make individualized inquiry into facts and

circumstances underlying case and make sufficient findings on record so asto ensure

condition satisfies statutory requirements).

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

-2-
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 13, 2021

b0810 

# Order

Clerk August 13, 2021

163170

In re DAVIS/ORR/URSERY/WALLER/

CUNINGAN, Minors. SC: 163170

COA: 354120

Wayne CC Family Division:

2013

- 514697

- NA

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 2021 judgment

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 on Form 10-Q of Soy Energy, LLC (the
Company) for the quarter ended April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles Sand,
President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and                    
| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
 Company.

| |                                                     
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Charles
 Sand                                   
| |                                                     
| | Charles
 Sand, President and Chief Executive Officer
| | (Principal
 Executive Officer)                      
| |                                                     
| | Dated: June
 14, 2010                               

---
**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 **

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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 financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Robert H. Daskal    |
|----------------------------------------|
| Robert                H. Daskal        |
| Chief                Financial Officer |
| December                10, 2007       |

----
EX-10.4



 EXHIBIT 10.4 

SECURED CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE 

Date:                      

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Xenonics, Inc., a Nevada corporation, (the “Borrower”), promises to pay to the order of
                     (“Holder”) at such place as Holder may from time to time designate, in lawful money of the United States, the
principal sum of                      Dollars ($ 0.00), together with accrued interest on the unpaid principal balance thereof from and after the
date of this Note at the rate of thirteen percent (13.0%) per annum, payable on a quarterly basis, commencing on                     , 2014.

 The entire unpaid principal balance of this Note and any accrued interest shall be due and payable on
                    , 2017. 
 The
payment of this Note is secured by a security interest in all of the assets of the Borrower. The Borrower has filed a UCC-1 perfecting a security interest in its assets in favor of Holder. This security interest is on a pari passu
basis with secured notes issued to other note holders. 
 The Borrower shall have the privilege of prepaying, without penalty or premium,
the outstanding principal balance hereof in whole or in part at any time or from time to time. 
 The unpaid principal amount of this Note
shall be convertible by the Holder into Common Stock of the Borrower at the rate of $.07 per share. 
 The Borrower’s failure to
pay when due any principal or accrued interest owed under this Note shall constitute an “Event of Default.” Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, the Holder shall have the right at any time thereafter, (i) to declare the
entire balance of principal and accrued interest on this Note to be immediately due and payable, and (ii) to exercise all of its rights as a secured party. 

If any attorney is engaged by the Holder to enforce or construe any provision of this Note as a consequence of the occurrence of an Event of
Default, then the Borrower shall pay immediately on demand all attorneys’ fees and other costs and expenses incurred by Holder in connection therewith. 

The Borrower waives presentment and demand for payment, notice of dishonor, protest and notice of protest, notice of default and any and all
lack of diligence or delay by the Holder in the collection or enforcement of this Note. 
 The Note is being delivered and is intended to be
performed in the State of California and shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of California. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Borrower has executed and delivered this Note as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	 XENONICS, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	  

		 	 Alan Magerman,
 Chairman and
CEO
# FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

# OCT 52009 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NANCY MAYERWHITTINGTON,CLERK U.S. DISTRICTCOURT GREGORY T. HOWARD, Plaintiff, CivilActionNo. 

# 09 

# 1891 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT : FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# ~ This matter is before the Court on consideration ofplaintiffs application to proceed in I forma pauperis andpro secomplaint. The Court will grant the application, and will dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff purports to bring this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), see 28 U.S.C. 

## 5 2671 et seq., against the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, the United States Attorney General, the Administrative Office ofthe United States Courts, and the United States Department of the Treasury. Generally, he objects to the decisions of The Hon. Algenon 

### L. Marbley, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, in a civil action filed in that district. See Compl. 

## 774-5. Because ofJudge Marbley's alleged inappropriate conduct, plaintiff demands damages totalling $27,519,203.43. See id. 

## 77 5-6. Notwithstanding plaintiffs reliance on the FTCA as a basis for this Court's jurisdiction, it is clear that plaintiff demands damages in connection with Judge Marbley7s unfavorable decisions in cases filed by plaintiff in the Southern District of Ohio. A federal judge is absolutelyimmune from a lawsuit arising from actions taken in hisjudicial capacity. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219,225 (1988); Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 355-57 (1978); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the Court dismisses the complaint with prejudice because it seeks monetary damages against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

## 5 191 5(e)(2)(B)(iii); seeHoward v. United StatesDistrict Courtfor the Southern District of Ohio, No. 09-0531 (CKK), 2009 WL 837642 (D.D.C.Mar. 30, 2009) (dismissing sua sponteunder 28 U.S.C. 

## 5 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii)a complaint "seek[ing] damages in connection with various rulings made by Judge Algenon 

### L. Marbley in a case involving Plaintiff in the Federal District Court ofthe Southern District of Ohio" on the ground that "ljludges are absolutely immune from lawsuits predicated on acts taken, as alleged here, in their judicial capacities"), aff'd, No. 09-5139,2009 

### WL 2981979 (D.C. Cir. July 10,2009). 

### An Order consistent with this Memorandum is issued separately on this same date.

United States District Judge
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DADRIAN L. BROWN,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv62-SPM/WCS

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation dated April 18, 2011 (doc. 9). Copies have been sent to

Petitioner at the Leon County jail and the Gadsden County jail, which are the last

addresses of record provided by Petitioner. 

No objections have been filed. Having considered the report and

recommendation, I have determined that the report and recommendation should

be adopted. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 9) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to

Case 4:11-cv-00062-SPM-WCS Document 11 Filed 05/18/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

prosecute.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of May, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

 CASE NO. 4:11cv62-SPM/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00062-SPM-WCS Document 11 Filed 05/18/11 Page 2 of 2
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5438 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow officers and employees 

of the Department of the Treasury to provide to taxpayers information 

regarding low-income taxpayer clinics. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2018 

Mr. HOLDING (for himself and Mr. LEWIS of Georgia) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow officers and employees of the Department of the Treasury 

to provide to taxpayers information regarding low-income 

taxpayer clinics. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROVISION OF INFORMATION REGARDING 

4 LOW-INCOME TAXPAYER CLINICS. 

5 Section 7526(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

6 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 

7 paragraph: 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5438 IH

1 ‘‘(6) PROVISION OF INFORMATION REGARDING

2 QUALIFIED LOW-INCOME TAXPAYER CLINICS.—Not3 withstanding any other provision of law, officers and 

4 employees of the Department of the Treasury may— 

5 ‘‘(A) advise taxpayers of the availability of, 

6 and eligibility requirements for receiving, advice 

7 and assistance from qualified low-income tax8 payer clinics receiving funding under this sec9 tion, and 

10 ‘‘(B) provide information regarding the lo11 cation of, and contact information for, such 

12 clinics.’’. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5461 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5461

 To require records of the national instant criminal background check 
              system to be retained for at least 90 days.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2018

Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York (for herself, Mr. Suozzi, Ms. Meng, 
 Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Espaillat, and Mr. Engel) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require records of the national instant criminal background check 
              system to be retained for at least 90 days.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``NICS Review Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT NICS RECORDS BE RETAINED FOR AT LEAST 90 DAYS.

    Section 511 of division B of the Consolidated and Further 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (34 U.S.C. 40901 note; Public Law 
112-55; 125 Stat. 632) is amended by striking ``no more than 24 hours'' 
and inserting ``no fewer than 90 days''.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ARMANDO J. DOCTOR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:11cv226/MCR/CJK

ARNP NICHOLS,

Defendants.

_____________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation dated November 1, 2011. (Doc. 23). The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B). No objections have been

filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the record, the court

concludes that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 23) is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (doc. 22) is GRANTED, and this cause is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.

4. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of December, 2011.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00226-MCR-CJK Document 24 Filed 12/05/11 Page 1 of 1
# EUR-Lex - - EN

*|*

#

**Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5969 — SCJ/Sara Lee insecticides' business) Text with EEA relevance **

*
Official Journal C 168 , 08/06/2011 P. 0018 - 0018 *

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5969 — SCJ/Sara Lee insecticides' business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 168/09

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

On 3 November 2010, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration by which the undertaking SC Johnson & Son, Inc. ("SCJ", USA) intended to acquire control of part of the undertaking Sara Lee Corporation ("Sara Lee", USA) dedicated to household insect control business.

On 22 December 2010, the European Commission decided to initiate proceedings under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. On 9 May 2011, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification.

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