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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2371 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2371

         To suspend temporarily the duty on Cibacron RedLS-BHC.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 6, 2000

   Mr. Helms introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on Cibacron RedLS-BHC.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CIBACRON RED LS-B HC.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new heading:

      

``    9902.32.04     2,7-             Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     Naphthalenedisu                                                         31/2002          ''
                     lfonic acid, 5-                                                                           .
                     [[4-chloro-6-
                     [[3-[[8-[[4-
                     fluoro-6(methyl-
                      phenylamino)-
                     1,3,5-triazin-2-
                     yl] amino]-
                     1hydroxy-3,6-
                     disulfo-2-
                     naphthalenyl]
                     azo]-4-
                     sulfophenyl],
                     amino]-1,3,5-
                     triazin-2-yl]
                     amino]-4-
                     hydroxy-3-[(1-
                     sulfo-2-
                     naphthalenyl)
                     azo]-,sodium
                     salt (CAS No.
                     155522-05-7)
                     (provided for
                     in subheading
                     3204.16.30)....

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act applies with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### LULA G. BENNETT, Respondent, v. ABRAM A. BENNETT, Appellant.

(208 N. W. 846.)

Court — order overruling objection to jurisdiction and setting aside a special appearance is nonappealable.

An order of tlie district court overruling an objection to the jurisdiction of the court and setting aside a special appearance is not appealable.

Opinion filed May 1, 1926.

Divorce, 19 C. J. § 464 p. 188 n. 57.

Appeal from the District Court of Bowman County, *Lembke,*J.

Appeal dismissed.

*F. M. Jackson,*for appellant.

*Mark II. Amundson,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

This appeal is from an order of the district court of Bowman county overruling an objection to the jurisdiction of the court and setting aside a special appearance by the defendant.

The action is an action for divorce. Service was attempted to be made by publication under the provisions of § 7428, Comp. Laws 1913. Defendant made a special appearance and objected to the jurisdiction of the district court of Bowman county on the ground that no proper service of summons had been had. Thereafter the district judge made an order overruling the objection to the jurisdiction of the court and setting aside the special appearance. This appeal is from such an order.

Respondent has moved to dismiss the appeal. Section 7481, Comp. Laws 1913, enumerates the orders that are appealable. We think it plain that the order complained of by the defendant, and sought to be reviewed on this appeal, is not among those enumerated in this section. See Baird v. Lefor, 52 N. D. 155, 201 N. W. 997; Quarton v. O’Neil, 51 N. D. 842, 200 N. W. 1010, and cases cited; De Bord v. Brandt, — S. D. —, 206 N. W. 925; Ryan v. Davenport, 5 S. D. 203, 58 N. W. 568.

The appeal must therefore be dismissed. It is so ordered.

CheistiaNSON, Oh. J., and Nuessle, Birdzell, Buree, and Johnson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       6,965,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,647,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (250,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,738,300
<PP&E>                                       9,653,800
<DEPRECIATION>                              (3,589,500)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,556,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,620,500
<BONDS>                                      1,365,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       772,400
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,458,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,556,000
<SALES>                                     16,321,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,703,300
<CGS>                                        8,996,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,996,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,797,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             159,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                750,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                   231,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            519,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   519,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
exv10w2





EXHIBIT 10.2
 


INTERDIGITAL,
INC.

TERM SHEET FOR RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS

(Discretionary Award)




InterDigital, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby grants to Grantee named below the number of restricted
stock units specified below (this “Award”), upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth
in this Term Sheet, the Plan specified below (the “Plan”) and the Standard Terms and Conditions
(the “Standard Terms and Conditions”) adopted under the Plan and provided to Grantee, each as
amended from time to time. Each restricted stock unit subject to this Award represents the right
to receive one share of the Company’s Common Stock, subject to the conditions set forth in this
Term Sheet, the Plan and the Standard Terms and Conditions. This Award is granted pursuant to the
Plan and is subject to and qualified in its entirety by the Standard Terms and Conditions.
Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Plan or Standard Terms and
Conditions.



	 	 	 
	Plan:

	 	This Award is granted pursuant to
the Company’s 2009 Stock Incentive
Plan.
	 
	 	 
	Name of Grantee:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Grant Date:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Number of restricted stock units
subject to this Award:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Vesting Schedule:

	 	This Award vests with respect to
one-third of the restricted stock
units on each of the Grant Date and
the first two anniversaries of the
Grant Date, provided that this Award
will earlier vest with respect to
100% of the restricted stock units
upon a Change in Control (each date
on which all or a portion of this
Award vests a “Vesting Date”).






By accepting this Term Sheet, Grantee acknowledges that he or she has received and read, and agrees
that this Award shall be subject to, the terms of this Term Sheet, the Plan and the Standard Terms
and Conditions.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	ATTEST:	 	 	 	INTERDIGITAL, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	BY: 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	William J. Merritt, President and CEO
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	ATTEST:	 	 	 	GRANTEE
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 2 2001

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

PATRICK WESLEY

MACCORMACK, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 00-3349

v. (D.C. No. 00-CV-2003-CM)

D. L. SMITH, doing business as

Smith, Brown & Jones, 

(D. Kan.)

Defendant - Appellee.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This appeal arises from a breach of contract action. The district court

dismissed Plaintiff/Appellant’s complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction. On
-2-

appeal, Appellant’s original pro se brief was deemed deficient because it did not

contain a certificate of service. After filing a corrected brief, Appellant filed a

memorandum and motion requesting the court affirm the appeal and grant

summary judgment. The clerk denied the motion pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

27.2(A)(1) and on the same day Appellee filed a memorandum objecting to

Appellant’s motion. A request for attorney fees is contained in Appellee’s

memorandum. Appellant submitted a response, which includes a motion for

affirmative relief pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 27(a)(3)(B).

Although Appellee does not specify a statutory basis for the award of fees,

we retain authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 to award costs and fees when a party

“multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.” The

affirmative relief Appellant requests is that we dismiss Appellee’s previous and

future motions on the grounds that an entry of appearance was not filed for

Appellee’s counsel. Having reviewed the record, we decline to exercise our

authority on either request.

Appellee’s motion for attorney fees and Appellant’s motion for affirmative

relief are DENIED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1681 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1681

    To extend the authority of the Thomas Paine National Historical 
Association to establish a memorial to Thomas Paine in the District of 
                               Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 1999

   Mr. Craig introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the authority of the Thomas Paine National Historical 
Association to establish a memorial to Thomas Paine in the District of 
                               Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF THOMAS PAINE 
              MEMORIAL.

    (a) In General.--Public Law 102-407 (40 U.S.C. 1003 note; 106 Stat. 
1991) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 4. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.

    ``Notwithstanding the time period limitation specified in section 
10(b) of the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1010(b)) or any other 
provision of law, the authority for the Thomas Paine National 
Historical Association to establish a memorial to Thomas Paine in the 
District of Columbia under this Act shall expire on December 31, 
2003.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Applicable law.--Section 1(b) of Public Law 102-407 (40 
        U.S.C. 1003 note; 106 Stat. 1991) is amended by striking ``The 
        establishment'' and inserting ``Except as provided in section 
        4, the establishment''.
            (2) Expiration of authority.--Section 3 of Public Law 102-
        407 (40 U.S.C. 1003 note; 106 Stat. 1991) is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``or upon expiration of the 
                authority for the memorial under section 10(b) of that 
                Act,'' and inserting ``or on expiration of the 
                authority for the memorial under section 4,''; and
                    (B) by striking ``section 8(b)(1) of that Act'' and 
                inserting ``section 8(b)(1) of the Commemorative Works 
                Act (40 U.S.C. 1008(b)(1))''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of FiberTower Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael K. Gallagher,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:March 29, 2007
|        |   | /s/ MICHAEL K.  GALLAGHER |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |   | Michael K. Gallagher      |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer   |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not beconsidered filed as part of the Report.

----
#### Levi Greenblat, Appellant, v. Edward V. Bryant, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

All concurred.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 114,658

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

NICHOLAS TOLAND,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed February 17, 

2017. Appeal from Ford District Court; G. LEIGH HOOD, judge. Opinion filed September 14, 2018.

Petition for review improvidently granted.

Randall L. Hodgkinson, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on the brief for appellant. 

David Belling, assistant county attorney, Natalie Randall, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, 

attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PER CURIAM: We determine that the petition for review in this case was 

improvidently granted. This decision is identical in effect to a denial of the petition for 

review in the first instance, and a "'denial of a petition for review imports no opinion on 

the merit of the case.'" State v. Eisenhour, 305 Kan. 409, 411, 384 P.3d 426 (2016) 

(quoting Supreme Court Rule 8.03[g] [2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 56]).

Petition for review improvidently granted.
93d Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 93 397

AN ACT TO AMEND TARIFF SCHEDULES

OF THE UNITED STATES

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

VETOING

H.R. 6191, AN ACT TO AMEND THE TARIFF SCHEDULES OF

THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN FORMS

OF ZINC BIB ADMITTED FREE OF DUTY, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES

NOVEMBER 26, 1974.-Message and accompanying act ordered

to be printed as a House document.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

93d Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 93-397

38-011 0 WASHINGTON . 1974
To the Houe of Representatives:

I am returning without my approval H.R. 6191, "To amend the

Tariff Schedules of the United States to provide that certain forms

of zinc be admitted free of duty, and for other purposes."

This bill would suspend until June 30, 1977, the present duties on

zinc ores and concentrates and zinc-bearing materials.

Unfortunately, the Congress attached to this desirable provision

unacceptable tax riders which would grant windfall benefits to individuals already compensated for property losses resulting from certain

disasters in 1972. Moreover, the most costly of these riders was added

by the conference committee; and the significance of this rider was

not explored during adoption of the conference report by the two

houses.

Under current tax law, individuals are generally permitted to deduct casualty losses not otherwise compensated for by insurance, tort

compensation, loan forgiveness, or other means. If individuals choose

to deduct these losses, however, and are subsequently reimbursed, the

reimbursement must be included as income in subsequent tax returns.

Otherwise, the individual could receive a tax break for a loss that had

not cost him anything.

H.R. 6191 would provide unwarranted and costly exceptions to the

present law by allowing certain taxpayers who have already deducted

their casualty losses to also exclude from taxable income any amounts

received from tort compensation or Federal loan cancellations based

on those losses. The cost of these benefits to the Government in terms

of revenue loss would be about $130 million.

This would result in favored treatment for a select group of taxpayers relative to others with identical or even larger casualty losses.

The individuals benefiting from this bill have already been treated

more generously by the Federal Government than the present, more

equitable law would allow. Finally, this special tax consideration resulting in a windfall to a limited group of taxpayers would be a very

undesirable precedent.

If the Congress were to reenact this bill without the undesirable tax

riders, I would be glad to approve it.

GERALD R. FORDn.

THE WHiTE HOUSE, November 26, 1974.

(III)
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 231 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 231

 To provide for a special application of section 1034 of the Internal 
                         Revenue Code of 1986.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a special application of section 1034 of the Internal 
                         Revenue Code of 1986.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in the case of 
Rita Bennington--
            (1) who purchased her new principal residence (within the 
        meaning of section 1034 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) 
        in January 1992, and
            (2) who was unable to meet the requirements of such section 
        with respect to the sale of an old principal residence until 
        May 1994, because of unexpected delays caused by Hurricane 
        Iniki,
the Secretary of the Treasury, in the administration of section 1034 of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, shall apply subsection (a) of such 
section by substituting ``2.5 years'' for ``2 years'' each place it 
appears.
                                 <all>
```
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00498-CV

David Barrett

v.

Berry Contracting, L. P., Elite Piping & Civil, Ltd., and Govind Development, LLC

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2016CCV-61599-1

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant, David Barrett.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 3, 2019
exh10-1.htm


  
    March 17, 2009

     

    Paul
Smyth (“Executive”)

    5221
North O’Connor Blvd., Suite 600

    Irving,
TX 75039

     

    
      	
              RE:

            	
              Amendment
      to Executive Employment Agreement

            


    

     

    Dear
Paul:

     

    On
January 1, 2007, you and Centerline Capital Group, Inc.
(the “Company”)
entered into an Executive Employment Agreement (the
“Agreement”).  Pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Agreement, the
Agreement may be amended by a written instrument signed by the Executive and the
Company. The parties hereto wish to amend the Employment Agreement as provided
herein.

     

    THEREFORE,
the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:

     

    1.       Amendment
of Agreement.  Section 3,
entitled Compensation
and Benefits, shall be amended to increase base salary from $300,000 to
$350,000 effective March 9, 2009.   Section 2, entitled Duties, shall be
amended to change the title from Senior Managing Director to Executive Managing
Director.

     

    2.       Effect of
Amendment.  The parties herby
agree and acknowledge that except as provided in this Amendment, the Agreement
remains in full force and effect and has not been modified in any other
respect.

     

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties have executed this Agreement, Centerline Capital Group, Inc. and
Centerline Holding Company acting by their respective duly authorized officers,
effective as of the Effective Date.

     

     

    
      	
              CENTERLINE
      CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

            	 
      	
              EXECUTIVE:

            
	
               

               

              By

            	/s/
      Marc. D. Schnitzer	 
      	/s/
      Paul Smyth
	 
      	
              Name:

            	
              Marc
      D. Schnitzer

            	 
      	
              Name:

            	
              Paul
      Smyth

            
	 
      	
              Title:

            	
              President

            	 
      	 
      	
              Executive
      Managing Director

            
	
               

               

              CENTERLINE
      HOLDING COMPANY

            	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
               

               

              By

            	/s/
      Marc. D. Schnitzer	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
              Name:

            	
              Marc
      D. Schnitzer

            	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
              Title:

            	
              President