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

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2613

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to permit duty drawbacks for certain

jewelry exported to the United States Virgin Islands.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 23, 2000

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

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to permit duty drawbacks

for certain jewelry exported to the United States Virgin

Islands.

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

3 SECTION 1. DUTY DRAWBACK FOR CERTAIN JEWELRY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 313 of the Tariff Act of

5 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313) is amended by adding at the end

6 the following new subsection:

7 ‘‘(x) JEWELRY EXPORTED TO THE UNITED STATES

8 VIRGIN ISLANDS.—

9 ‘‘(1) GENERAL RULE.—Merchandise described

10 in paragraph (2) shall be eligible for drawback under
2

•s2613 is

1 subsection (j)(1), if duty was paid on the merchan2 dise upon importation into the United States and

3 the person claiming the drawback demonstrates that

4 the merchandise has been exported and has entered

5 the customs territory of the United States Virgin Is6 lands.

7 ‘‘(2) MERCHANDISE DESCRIBED.—Merchandise

8 described in this paragraph means jewelry, watches,

9 watch straps, bands and bracelets, and parts thereof

10 classifiable under chapter 71 or 91 of the Har11 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States.’’.

12 (b) APPLICATION TO FOREIGN TRADE ZONES.—Sec13 tion 3(a) of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known

14 as the Foreign Trade Zones Act; 19 U.S.C. 81c(a)) is

15 amended by striking the periods at the end and inserting

16 the following: ‘‘: Provided further, That jewelry, watches,

17 watch straps, bands and bracelets, and parts thereof clas18 sifiable under chapter 71 or 91 of the Harmonized Tariff

19 Schedule of the United States may be withdrawn from

20 warehouse for entry into the commerce of the United

21 States Virgin Islands without payment of duty.’’.

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

23 this section shall apply with respect to goods entered, or
3

•s2613 is

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,466
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,026
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,046
<INVENTORY>                                      8,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,536
<PP&E>                                         247,075
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,138
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 276,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,133
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           172
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,799
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   276,843
<SALES>                                        185,728
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               185,728
<CGS>                                          136,765
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  159,755
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,514
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,459
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,267
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,192
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,723
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,915
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14


</TABLE>
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1
Execution Copy


FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "First Amendment"), made as of this 23rd day of May, 2016, is entered into by and between Hexis Cyber Solutions, Inc., a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business at 7740 Milestone Parkway, Suite 100, Hanover, MD 21076 (the "Company") and Philip L. Calamia (the "Employee").


WHERAS, the Company and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement dated August 11, 2014 (the "Employment Agreement"). As used herein, the term Company shall include the Company and all entities now or hereafter controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Company, such term to include The KEYW Holding Corporation, a Maryland Corporation ("HoldCo");


WHEREAS, Employee wishes to pursue professional opportunities outside of the Company; and


WHEREAS, Company and Employee mutually wish to amend and then terminate the Employment Agreement.


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this First Amendment, the parties agree:




		
	1.
	Effective June 12, 2016, Employee shall convert to a part-time on call status and will be available through June 30,2016 to provide services as needed by the Company.




		
	2. 
	The Employment Agreement shall be mutually terminated and employment shall terminate effective at 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2016 ("Agreement Termination Date").




		
	3. 
	Following the Agreement Termination Date, KEYW will pay or reimburse, as the case may be, Employee all amounts due under Section 4.3 of the Employment Agreement, provided that all conditions for such payments have been met, including, but not limited to, the execution and delivery of the General Release.




		
	4. 
	Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this First Amendment or the Employment Agreement, the Company shall not be required to make payments under Section 4.3 of the Employment Agreement if the Employee has breached any of the provisions of Sections 5 or 6, inclusive of all subsections.




		
	5. 
	Section 4.5 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "The provisions of Section 2.2, Subsection 4.2, Section 5, Section 6, and Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Agreement."




		
	6.
	For purposes of Section 5.2, "termination of employment" shall mean the Agreement Termination Date.




		
	7.
	The Employee acknowledges that he has carefully read this First Amendment and understands and agrees to this First Amendment.




		
	8. 
	Capitalized terms used in this First Amendment shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in the Employment Agreement unless otherwise provided in this First Amendment.

















IN WITNESS  WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment as of the day and year set forth above.
	
		
	HEXIS CYBER SOLUTIONS, INC.:
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	By: /s/ William J. Weber
	 

	Name: William J. Weber
	 

	Title: Chief Executive Officer
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	EMPLOYEE:
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	By: /s/ Philip L. Calamia
	 

	Name: Philip L. Calamia
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

COURAGE UHUMWNOMA OSAWE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JENNIFER TINSLEY, DMV Investigator; 

et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16683 

D.C. No. 

3:18-cv-00600-RCJ-WGC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 9, 2020**

Portland, Oregon

Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,*** District 

Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Courage Osawe appeals the district court’s grant of 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the 

Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAY 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees. Reviewing de novo, 

Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cnty., 663 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), we 

affirm.1

The district court properly concluded that Defendants, Nevada Department 

of Motor Vehicle officers, were entitled to qualified immunity. Even assuming a 

reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants did not have probable cause to 

arrest Osawe for violating Nevada Revised Statutes 482.020 and 482.322, it was at 

least reasonably arguable that probable cause existed. See id. at 1078. At the time 

Osawe was arrested, Defendants had evidence that Osawe had personally sold one 

car and was involved in the sale of another. Further, he did not dispute that his 

phone number was listed on advertisements for four vehicles. Osawe had also 

been spotted at vehicle auctions. On the basis of this information, an officer could 

have reasonably believed that Osawe was dealing vehicles without a license. 

Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

AFFIRMED.

1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, 

we do not recount them here.
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATIONS
      OF THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




**CERTIFICATIONS**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Nutrition 21, Inc., a New York
      corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Paul
      Intlekofer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
      pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to
      his knowledge:




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




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




/s/    
        Paul Intlekofer


Paul
        Intlekofer
 President
        and Chief Executive Officer May
          14,
          2007




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Nutrition 21, Inc. and will be retained by Nutrition 21, Inc. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-1710 

LT Case No. 2018-DR-001620-A 

_____________________________

AUSTIN YANKY, 

Appellant,

v.

JENA MILLER, 

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County. 

Christopher S. Ferebee, Judge. 

Rick A. Sichta and Susanne K. Sichta, of The Sichta Firm, LLC, 

Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Adam J. Kohl, of Adam J. Kohl, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee. 

November 14, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., LAMBERT, and MACIVER, JJ., concur. 
2 

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________
1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2360

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Khounxai Phimvongsa, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 3, 2006 Filed: February 8, 2006

___________ Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Khounxai Phimvongsa pleaded guilty to being a felon and an unlawful user of controlled substances in possession of a fir earm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and (g)(3), and possessing mariju ana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court 1 sentenced him to 46 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Phimvongs a’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).-2- Phimvongsa’s plea agreement contains a valid appeal waiver. SeeUnited States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. ) (en banc), cert. denied , 540 U.S. 997 (2003). Having reviewed the record indepe ndently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), for any nonfrivolous issues not covere d by the appeal waiver, we enforce the waiver, dismiss this appeal, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
Modification to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 MODIFICATION TO AGREEMENT 
 The following is a modification to the letter agreement entered into between Glenn K.
Murphy (“Executive”) and The Gap, Inc. (“Company”) dated July 25, 2007 related to Executive’s employment as Chief Executive Officer, as amended by letter agreement dated December 1, 2008 (“Letter”).

 Paragraph 3(a) shall be modified to read in its entirety: 
 Salary. Effective from February 1, 2009 through January 30, 2010, your annual salary will be U.S. $1,275,000, payable every two weeks in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices. Effective on
January 31, 2010, your annual salary will be U.S. $1,500,000, payable every two weeks in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices. The Compensation and Management Development Committee of the Board will review your salary at
least annually. 
 Paragraph 4 shall be modified to read in its entirety: 
 Benefits. During your employment with the Company hereunder, you will be eligible to participate in the Company’s employee benefit plans on terms and conditions generally applicable to other senior
executives of the Company. 
 ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO THIS 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009 
  

	
	/s/ Glenn Murphy
	Glenn Murphy

 ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO THIS 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 
  

	
	/s/ Michelle Banks
	 Michelle Banks
 Senior Vice President, General Counsel

 Gap Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4785 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4785

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and improve the 
                   Indian coal production tax credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 30, 2014

Mr. Daines (for himself and Mrs. Kirkpatrick) 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 extend and improve the 
                   Indian coal production tax credit.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF INDIAN COAL PRODUCTION TAX 
              CREDIT.

    (a) Repeal of Limitation Based on Date Facility Is Placed in 
Service.--Section 45(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 
to read as follows:
            ``(10) Indian coal production facility.--The term `Indian 
        coal production facility' means a facility that produces Indian 
        coal.''.
    (b) Repeal of Limitation on Period During Which Coal Must Be 
Produced and Sold; Treatment of Sales to Related Parties.--Section 
45(e)(10)(A) of such Code is amended by striking ``per ton of Indian 
coal--'' and all that follows and inserting the following: ``per ton of 
Indian coal--
                            ``(i) produced by the taxpayer at an Indian 
                        coal production facility, and
                            ``(ii) sold (either directly by the 
                        taxpayer or after sale or transfer to one or 
                        more related persons) to an unrelated 
                        person.''.
    (c) Repeal of Limitation on Treatment as a Specified Credit.--
            (1) In general.--Section 38(c)(4)(B) of such Code is 
        amended by redesignating clauses (iv) through (ix) as clauses 
        (v) through (x), respectively, and by inserting after clause 
        (iii) the following new clause:
                            ``(iv) the credit determined under section 
                        45 to the extent that such credit is 
                        attributable to section 45(e)(10) (relating to 
                        Indian coal production facilities),''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 45(e)(10) of such Code 
        is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to coal produced and sold after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, in taxable years ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

FRANK SILVA ROQUE, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0104 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2001-095385

The Honorable Christopher A. Coury, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Frank Silva Roque, Buckeye

Petitioner
STATE v. ROQUE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Donn Kessler1 joined.

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Frank Roque petitions this Court for review from the

dismissal of his untimely and successive petition for post-conviction relief. 

We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, 

grant review and deny relief.

¶2 The factual and procedural history has been set forth by this 

Court on more than one occasion and need not be repeated here. See State 

v. Roque, 2 CA-CR 2016-0224-PR, 2016 WL 4098665, at *1, ¶ 2 (Ariz. App. 

July 29, 2016) (mem. decision); State v. Roque, 1 CA-CR 13-0705 PRPC, 2015 

WL 917820, at *1, ¶ 2 (Ariz. App. Mar. 3, 2015) (mem. decision). 

¶3 Roque commenced the present post-conviction relief 

proceeding in October 2015. He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, a 

significant change in the law, and newly discovered evidence. He also 

asserted violations of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79 (1966), and 

the marital privilege rule. Finally, he argued the trial court erroneously 

admitted evidence of an invalid prior conviction. The court summarily 

dismissed his notice of post-conviction relief, and this petition for review 

followed. We review a summary denial of petition for post-conviction relief 

for an abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17 (2006) 

(citation omitted). 

¶4 We find no abuse of discretion here. The trial court dismissed 

Roque’s post-conviction relief proceeding in an order that clearly identified 

and correctly ruled upon the issues raised. Furthermore, the court did so 

in a thorough, well-reasoned manner that will allow any future court to 

understand the court’s rulings. Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful 

purpose would be served by this [C]ourt rehashing the trial court’s correct 

 

1 The Honorable Donn Kessler, Retired Judge of the Court of Appeals, 

Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article 

6, Section 20, of the Arizona Constitution.
STATE v. ROQUE

Decision of the Court

3

ruling in a written decision.” State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993). 

Therefore, we adopt the trial court’s ruling. 

¶5 We grant review and deny relief.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 4, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00064

- C V

IN THE INTEREST OF K.R.E.T., et al children,

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- PA

- 02260

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellee ’ s m o tion for e xtension of t ime to f ile b rief is hereby GRANTED. Time is

extended to June 23, 2015. No further extensions.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 4th day of June, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,223
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,648
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      8,911
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          22,243
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            21,925
<LOANS>                                        156,804
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 201,775
<DEPOSITS>                                     121,793
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,132
<LONG-TERM>                                     66,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,436
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,114
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 201,775
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,321
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,401
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   115
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                14,837
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,893
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,016
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,821
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    6,383
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   9
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,204
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,845)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     (4,845)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,964)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.37)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.89
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,691
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   983
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,983
<RECOVERIES>                                         4
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,387
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,175
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            212


</TABLE>