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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5015 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

provide that grants awarded pursuant to part Q of title I of that 

Act may be used to hire veterans and other individuals as employees 

of law enforcement agencies for positions that do not require sworn 

authority. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 30, 2014 

Ms. BASS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to provide that grants awarded pursuant 

to part Q of title I of that Act may be used to hire 

veterans and other individuals as employees of law enforcement agencies for positions that do not require 

sworn authority. 

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 ‘‘Help Employ and Re5 cruit Our Excellent Servicemembers Grant Act of 2014’’ 

6 or the ‘‘HEROES Grant Act of 2014’’. 


tjames@gpo.gov on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5015 IH

1 SEC. 2. USE OF COPS GRANTS TO HIRE VETERANS AND 

2 OTHER INDIVIDUALS. 

3 Section 1701(b) of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

4 Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(b)) is amend5 ed— 

6 (1) in paragraph (16), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

7 end; 

8 (2) by redesignating paragraph (17) as para9 graph (18); 

10 (3) in paragraph (18), as so redesignated, by 

11 striking ‘‘(1) through (16)’’ and inserting ‘‘(1) 

12 through (17)’’; and 

13 (4) by inserting after paragraph (16) the fol14 lowing: 

15 ‘‘(17) to hire veterans (as such term is defined 

16 in section 101 of title 38, United States Code) and 

17 other individuals as employees of law enforcement 

18 agencies for positions that do not require sworn au19 thority; and’’. 

Æ 


tjames@gpo.gov on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
cpst_Ex10_9


		
			Exhibit 10.9
		

		
			 
		

		
			AMENDMENT TO THE
		

		
			CAPSTONE TURBINE CORPORATION
		

		
			AMENDED AND RESTATED 2000 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
		

		
			 
		

		
			THIS AMENDMENT to the Capstone Turbine Corporation Amended and Restated 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), is made by Capstone Turbine Corporation (the “Company”) to be effective as provided herein.
		

		
			 
		

		
			RECITALS:
		

		
			 
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Company established the Plan as an equity incentive plan and last amended and restated the Plan effective August 30, 2012 upon approval by the stockholders of the Company at its annual meeting;
		

		
			 
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to modify the dollar value of the automatic award of restricted stock units that are granted each year to the Company’s non-employee directors from $35,000 to $47,500;
		

		
			 
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to authorization of the Company’s board of directors, the Plan is hereby amended effective August 28, 2015 by restating Section 13(a) of the Plan as set forth below:
		

		
			 
		

		
			(a)A Director who is not an employee of the Company or any of its affiliates, including a retired or former employee of the Company or its affiliates, (a “Non-Employee Director”) shall be granted on the date the Non-Employee Director is elected to the Board in the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders, or is otherwise appointed to the Board, an Award of Restricted Stock Units. The number of Shares subject to this annual Award have a Fair Market Value of $47,500 on the date of grant, subject to adjustment from time to time as determined by the Committee in its discretion. The Restricted Stock Units shall become vested upon completion of the annual term of the Board that includes the date of grant (the “Annual Retainer”).
		

		
			 
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officer of the Company has executed this Amendment to the Plan pursuant to authorization from the Company.
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						CAPSTONE TURBINE CORPORATION

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ Darren Jamison

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						Its:

					
					
						President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5058 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5058

  To amend the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to provide for 
State and tribal management and protection of wild free-roaming horses 
                  and burros, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 2014

   Mr. Stewart (for himself, Mr. Bishop of Utah, and Mr. McClintock) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to provide for 
State and tribal management and protection of wild free-roaming horses 
                  and burros, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Wild Horse Oversight Act''.

SEC. 2. STATE AND TRIBAL MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF WILD FREE-ROAMING 
              HORSES AND BURROS.

    Public Law 92-195 (commonly known as the ``Wild Free-Roaming Horses 
and Burros Act'') is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 12. STATE AND TRIBAL MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION.

    ``(a) In General.--Except as provided by subsection (b), at the 
request of the legislature or Governor of a State or the governing body 
of a federally recognized Indian tribe, the Secretary of the Interior 
and the Secretary of Agriculture shall allow the State or federally 
recognized Indian tribe to assume all management and protection 
functions under this Act regarding wild free-roaming horses and burros 
on land within the boundaries of the State or federally recognized 
Indian tribe. After a State or federally recognized Indian tribe 
assumes such functions, wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be 
managed by the State or federally recognized Indian tribe in accordance 
with this Act and in the same manner as any other non-federally 
regulated species regarding functions not specified in this Act.
    ``(b) Inventory.--The Secretary concerned shall continue to 
maintain the inventory required by section 3(b)(1).''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5062 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5062

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to specify that 
privilege and confidentiality are maintained when information is shared 
    by certain nondepository covered persons with Federal and State 
             financial regulators, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Examination and Supervisory 
Privilege Parity Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. PRIVILEGE OF INFORMATION SHARED BY CERTAIN NONDEPOSITORY 
              COVERED PERSONS.

    Section 1024(b)(3) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 
(12 U.S.C. 5514(b)(3)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``regulators and the State bank regulatory 
        authorities'' and inserting ``regulators, the State bank 
        regulatory authorities, and the State agencies that licence, 
        supervise, or examine the offering of consumer financial 
        products or services''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following: ``The sharing of 
        information with such regulators, authorities, and agencies 
        shall not be construed as waiving, destroying, or otherwise 
        affecting any privilege or confidentiality such person may 
        claim with respect to such information under Federal or State 
        law as to any person or entity other than such Bureau, agency, 
        supervisor, or authority.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 29, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. SAMANTHA JO TACKITT,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 13

- 303 54
D.C. No. 1:13

- cr - 00115

- BLW

AMENDED MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 5 , 2014 **

Before: HAWKINS , Mc KEOWN , and FRIEDLAND , Circuit Judges.

Samantha Jo Tackitt appeals from the district court’ s judgment and challenges

the 151

- month s entence imposed following her guilty

- plea conviction for
conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a) and

846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

JAN 13 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 13

- 30354

resentencing

. The government concedes that the government breached the parties’ plea
agreement by using Tackitt’s immunized admissions about her criminal conduct at sentencing

. 1 The parties dispute what standard of review applies and whether
Tackitt was prejudiced by the breach

. We conclude that remand is warranted even under plain error review b ecause there is a reasonable probability that the court’s
choice of a high

- end senten ce was influenced by the immunized admissions

. See
United States v. Whitney , 673 F.3d 965, 972

- 74 (9th Cir. 2012) ( finding plain error where the government’s use of immunized admissions was an implicit argument for

a harsher sentence and , therefore , likel y “ influenced the court's overall view of the appropriate sentence” ). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for resentencing. See

id

. at 976

. We remand to a different judge as required by our circuit law “ although
in doing so we intend no criticism of the district judge

. . . and none should be

inferred. ” Id

. (internal quotations omitted).

VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing
.

1 See Berger v. United States , 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)

.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 20 2 3

- 0606

_____________________________

K ODY M ITCHELL M ONIZ ,
Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA ,
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court of Alachua County

. James M. Colaw , Judge.

June 19, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

.

O STERHAUS , C.J., and R AY and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold , Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Zachary Lawton , Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee

.
Form NFPA

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

California Northern Bankruptcy Court

In Re: PG&E Corporation Case No.: 19−30088 DM 11

 Debtor(s) Chapter: 11

NOTICE OF FAILURE TO PERFECT APPEAL

According to Court records Spiro Jannings, an Appellant or Cross−Appellant in the above−captioned bankruptcy

case has not filed the following documents in accordance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009(a) and

(b):

 Designation of Items for the appeal record

 Statement of Issues on appeal

 Transcript Request Order or a Certification no transcript(s) will be ordered

 Other:

If within seven (7) days of the date stated below the Appellant or Cross−Appellant noted above does not file the

document(s) indicated above, in accordance with Bankruptcy Local Rule 8009−1(b), a Notice of Unperfected Appeal

will be sent to the District Court, and the presiding bankruptcy judge may recommend dismissal of the appeal.

Edward J. Emmons, Clerk

United States Bankruptcy Court

Date: 5/4/23 By: DaWana Chambers

Deputy Clerk

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13694 Filed: 05/04/23 Entered: 05/04/23 10:26:11 Page 1

of 1
----

|   | 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/  JAMES A.    HAYWARD |   |
|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|   | James      A. Hayward              |   |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer       |   |
|   | May      15, 2008                  |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,473
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   85,542
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,668
<INVENTORY>                                    110,471
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               197,954
<PP&E>                                          75,343
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 250,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,306
<BONDS>                                         63,743
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           846
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,483
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   250,345
<SALES>                                        233,769
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               233,769
<CGS>                                          153,903
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  153,903
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,203)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,616
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,942
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,739
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,578
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,161
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,161
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 20, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-30542

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ALLAN ROSS WILHELM

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:03-CR-20104-ALL

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Allan Ross Wilhelm appeals the sentence imposed by the

district court when he pleaded guilty to being a felon in

possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Wilhelm has

not shown clear error in the district court’s factual finding

that he stole the firearm at issue. See United States v.

Angeles-Mendoza, F.3d , No. 04-50118, 2005 WL 950130 (5th

Cir. Apr. 26, 2005). Thus, the district court did not err in
No. 04-30542

-2-

assessing a two-level increase in Wilhelm’s offense level. See

United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d 316, 324-25 (5th Cir. 1999).

Wilhelm argues that his sentence violates Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), because it was increased on

the basis that the handgun was stolen, a finding that was not

made by a jury. After completion of briefing in this case, the

Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738,

756 (2005), which applied the Sixth Amendment holding in Blakely

to the federal sentencing guidelines and made the guidelines

advisory instead of mandatory. 

Because Wilhelm did not raise his Blakely claim in the

district court, it is reviewed only for plain error. See United

States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 513 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for

cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). “[Wilhelm] has

not shown, with a probability sufficient to undermine confidence

in the outcome, that if the judge had sentenced him under an

advisory sentencing regime rather than a mandatory one, he would

have received a lesser sentence.” United States v. Infante, 

F.3d , No. 02-50665, 2005 WL 639619 at *13 (5th Cir. Mar. 21,

2005). Wilhelm has not satisfied his burden of establishing

plain error. Thus, he is not entitled to resentencing on this

ground. See id. 

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-14-00694-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 13-DCV-204732

Style: Diogu Kalu Diogu II

v Yaowapa Ratan-Aporn

Date motion filed*: September 23, 2015

Type of motion: Appellant’s Amended Motion for Rehearing and En Banc Reconsideration

Party filing motion: Appellant Diogu Kalu Diogu II

Document to be filed: n/a

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: 

Judge's signature: /s/ Sherry Radack 

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, Massengale, Brown, Huddle, 

and Lloyd

Date: November 17, 2015
#### Jacob Block et al. v. Max Rehfeld.

*Practice.*

The evidence having been conflicting, this court declines to interfere with the verdict in the case presented.

[Opinion filed January 16, 1891.]

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elliott Anthony, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Blum *&*Blum, for appellants.

Mr. B. M. Shaffner, for appellee.

Waterman, J.

This action was begun before a justice of the peace; after trial and judgment there it was appealed to the Superior Court, and a trial *de novo*was heard; from the judgment of that court this appeal is prosecuted.

The case was one in which there was a dispute as to the facts", and it is because it is insisted that the jury came to a wrong conclusion as to the facts, that we are asked to reverse the judgment below.

We are by no means sure that appellee should have had a finding in his favor, but we see no sufficient reason for overturning the verdict of the jury, and the judgment of the court is therefore affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Order entered October 1 5 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 00 747

- CR

SANTOS ANTONIO , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. F12

- 59381

- U



### O RDER

Both the clerk’s and reporter’s records are overdue in th is appeal. Accordingly, the Court

ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant has been deprived

of the clerk’s and reporter’s records b ecause of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any other

reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the clerk’s and reporter’s records. If app ellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If thetrial court finds appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has

abandoned the appeal.

 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can be filed.

 The trial court shall next determine the date by which the clerk’s record will be filed.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record, containing the written

findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY

DAYS of the date of this order.

The appeal i s AB ATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of MidSouth Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 (the “Report”), I, C.R. Cloutier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:
 
 (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/ C. R. Cloutier
 C.R. Cloutier
 Chief Executive Officer
 August 9, 2010