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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1164 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1164

  To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Automated 
                  Defibrillation in Adam's Memory Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 2, 2009

  Mr. Feingold (for himself and Ms. Collins) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Automated 
                  Defibrillation in Adam's Memory Act.

    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 ``Automated Defibrillation in Adam's 
Memory Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

    Section 312 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 244) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (c)(6), after ``clearinghouse'' insert 
        ``, that shall be administered by an organization that has 
        substantial expertise in pediatric education, pediatric 
        medicine, and electrophysiology and sudden death,''; and
            (2) in the first sentence of subsection (e), by striking 
        ``fiscal year 2003'' and all that follows through ``2006'' and 
        inserting ``for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2014''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 97-30785

Summary Calendar

___________________________

TONY B. ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

CHARLES CRENSHAW, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF

THE LAFAYETTE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, LAFAYETTE CITY POLICE

DEPARTMENT, AND CITY OF LAFAYETTE,

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(95-CV-1735)

___________________________________________________ April 1, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The district court granted summary judgment to the appellees

in this case, concl uding that the summary judgment evidence

established that Appel lant failed to file a timely charge of

discrimination with the EEOC.

The appellees submitted evidence that the EEOC had no record

that Alexander had filed a claim. This was sufficient to raise an

inference that the Appellant had not filed a timely charge of2 The EEOC’s letter stated, “[t]he information you provided

is not sufficient for filing a charge of discrimination.

Additional information is needed before we can pursue this matter.”

2 discrimination with the EEOC. The only evidence the Appellant

submitted in response was a letter from the EEOC which stated that

the information Appellant had provided in a letter to the EEOC was

insufficient for purposes of filing a charge of discrimination.

The Appellant asserted that this EEOC l etter established that he

had in fact filed a charge.

Even if the EEOC response letter supported an inference that

the Appellant had filed a charge of discrimination, there is no

basis for a reasonable inference that such a charge was timely.

Coleman v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. , 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir.

1997) (holding that in review of a grant of summary judgment, all

reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the nonmovant).

Appellant’s deadline for filing a discrimination charge with

the EEOC was in August of 1995. The EEOC’s letter to Alexander was

dated Oct. 31, 1995. 2 We agree with the district court that it is

unreasonable to assume that the EEOC waited three months to notify

the Appellant that his letter was insufficient. Moreover, the

inference that Appellant timely filed his charge of discrimination

is particularly unreasonable because it was within the Appellant’s

exclusive ability to establish the date of his alleged filing, and

he offered no affidavit or other proper summary judgment evidence

to establish this date.

We conclude that the district court correctly concluded that3

the summary judgment evidence established that Appellant failed to

file a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC. We therefore

affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 77 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 77

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         March 3, 2009.
Whereas, on March 14, 1908, Virginia Governor Claude A. Swanson signed into law 
        legislation for the establishment of the new State Normal and Industrial 
        School for Women at Fredericksburg, Virginia;
Whereas in 1938, the institution was renamed Mary Washington College in honor of 
        Mary Ball Washington, the mother of President George Washington;
Whereas in 1970, the Virginia General Assembly approved full coeducational 
        status for Mary Washington College, and men were enrolled as resident 
        students for the first time;
Whereas in 2004, the Virginia General Assembly approved university status to the 
        institution, changing its name to the University of Mary Washington;
Whereas the University of Mary Washington enrolls over 5,000 students and 
        employs over 1,000 full-time and part-time faculty and staff;
Whereas in 2008, U.S. News and World Report ranked the University of Mary 
        Washington as third among public, southern, master's degree-granting 
        schools;
Whereas the University of Mary Washington has been led by eight presidents: 
        Edward H. Russell (1908-1919), Algernon B. Chandler, Jr. (1919-1928), 
        Morgan L. Combs (1929-1955), Grellet C. Simpson (1956-1974), Prince B. 
        Woodard (1974-1982), William M. Anderson, Jr. (1983-2006), William J. 
        Frawley (2006-2007), and Judy G. Hample (2008-);
Whereas the University of Mary Washington offers 43 degree programs, including 
        32 undergraduate programs, 4 graduate programs, 7 education specialist 
        programs;
Whereas in its centennial year, the University of Mary Washington conferred more 
        than 1,200 master's and bachelor's degrees;
Whereas the University of Mary Washington Intercollegiate Athletic Program 
        sponsors 23 NCAA Varsity Teams, and the student-athletes on these teams 
        have won five Individual and Team National Championships, produced 245 
        All-America Selections and more than 100 Academic All-Americans, and won 
        more Conference Championships than any other school in the Capital 
        Athletic Conference; and
Whereas in 2009, the University of Mary Washington begins a new century of 
        academic excellence, service to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and 
        leadership to the world in producing people of insight, wisdom, 
        character, and accomplishment: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates the University of 
Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Virginia, for more than 100 years of 
leadership and service to the Fredericksburg area, the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
and the United States.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>

                                     Exhibit 3.2

                               CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                          OF
                             CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                          OF
                            KSL RECREATION HOLDINGS, INC.

                        *     *     *     *     *     *     *
                  Pursuant to Section 241 of the General Corporation
                             Law of the State of Delaware

     KSL Recreation Holdings, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the "Corporation"), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY:

     FIRST:  That the Board of Directors of the Corporation, by unanimous
written consent of its members acting without a meeting pursuant to Section
141(f) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, duly adopted
resolutions setting forth a proposed amendment to the Certificate of
Incorporation of said Corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable. 
The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

          RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Corporation hereby deems
     it advisable and in the best interest of the Corporation that the
     Certificate of Incorporation (the "Charter") be amended by changing the
     name of the Corporation to KSL RECREATION GROUP, INC.; and further

          RESOLVED, that Larry E. Lichliter, a director of the Corporation be,
     and he hereby is authorized and directed to make and execute, in the name
     and under the corporate seal of this Corporation, a Certificate of
     Amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation reflecting the foregoing, and
     to file such certificate in the Office of the Secretary of State of the
     State of Delaware.

     SECOND:  That the Corporation has not received any payment for any of its
stock nor have any officers been elected.

     THIRD:  That the amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
provision of Section 241 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said CORPORATION has caused this certificate to be
signed by Larry E. Lichliter, a director of the Corporation, this 2nd day of
April, 1997.



                                        /s/ Larry E. Lichliter
                                   ------------------------------------
                                        Larry E. Lichliter, Director
Exhibit
13.2









CERTIFICATION




Certification
required by Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 of


Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code





In
connection with the report of Vasogen Inc. (the “Company”) on the Form 20-F for
the fiscal year ended November 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Graham D. Neil, Vice
President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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/Graham D.
Neil


Graham
D. Neil


Vice
President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer),


Vasogen
Inc.





February
27, 2008
Amended Schedule 2.1



 Exhibit 10.22 
 Schedule 2.1 
 to the 
 Directors’ Deferred Compensation and Benefits 
 Trust Agreement

 Benefit Plans and Other Arrangements Subject to Trust 
 (1)    Sunoco, Inc. Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan I; 
 (2)    Sunoco, Inc. Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan II; 
 (3)    The entire funding for all the Indemnification Agreements with the directors set forth below shall be Five Million Dollars
($5,000,000.00) in the aggregate upon a Potential Change in Control, and an amount upon a Change in Control calculated on the basis of the Indemnification Agreements with the following directors: 
  

	 	(a)	Robert J. Darnall 


	 	 (b)
	 John G. Drosdick 1 



	 	(c)	Gary W. Edwards 


	 	(d)	Ursula O. Fairbairn 


	 	(e)	Thomas P. Gerrity 


	 	(f)	Rosemarie B. Greco 


	 	(g)	John P. Jones, III 


	 	(h)	James G. Kaiser 


	 	(i)	R. Anderson Pew 


	 	(j)	G. Jackson Ratcliffe 


	 	(k)	John W. Rowe 


	 	(l)	John K. Wulff 

 (4)    Benefits payable
to former directors of the Company (or their beneficiaries) in pay status as of the date of termination of the Sunoco, Inc. Non-Employee Directors’ Retirement Plan. 

					
		
	 	  	

 NOTES: 

	 	1.	Mr. Drosdick resigned as a Director of Sunoco, Inc., effective December 31, 2008.
**
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3No. 333-156652, Form S-8No. 333-189670, Form S-8No. 333-117956 and Form S-8No. 333-79391) of HopFed Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries’ (the “Company”) of ourreports dated March 18, 2019, related to our audit of the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of the Company included in this Annual Report onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018.

 
/s/ HORNE LLPMemphis, TennesseeMarch 18, 2019**
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 626-1 Filed 05/31/19 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 626-1 Filed 05/31/19 Page 2 of 2
#### Robert T. ALLEN, a/k/a Thomas L. Duncan, a/k/a Thomas L. Fitzgerald, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 42206.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 5, 1990.

John A. Klosterman, Columbia, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and GAITAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from denial, after evi-dentiary hearing, of Rule 27.26 (repealed 1-1-88) motion for post-conviction relief.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Linda LYERLA, Appellant.

No. WD 46716.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 25, 1993.

*882Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., F. Martin Dajani, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P.J., and TURNAGE and KENNEDY, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals from conviction of felony stealing, § 570.030, RSMo 1986, and sentence of three years imprisonment.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the iLinc Communications,
Inc.Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-147921 and No. 333-71332),
the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-113380, No. 333-123248 and
No. 333-135623) of our report dated June 27, 2008, on the consolidated balance
sheet of iLinc Communications, Inc. as of March 31, 2008 and March 31, 2007,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the two years then ended, which report
appears in iLinc Communications, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K.




/s/ Moss Adams LLP

Scottsdale, Arizona
June 27, 2008
H. Res. 894 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 15, 2009. 

Whereas, on August 17, 1959, Miles Davis, Jimmy Cobb, Bill 

Evans, Wynton Kelly, Paul Chambers, John Coltrane, 

and Julian ‘‘Cannonball’’ Adderley collaborated to record 

the album ‘‘Kind of Blue’’; 

Whereas ‘‘Kind of Blue’’ ranks 12th on the list of the ‘‘500 

Greatest Albums of All Time’’ published by Rolling Stone 

magazine; 

Whereas ‘‘Kind of Blue’’ was recorded in 1959, the year Columbia Records declared ‘‘jazz’s greatest year’’; 

Whereas ‘‘Kind of Blue’’ marked the beginning of the mass 

popularity of jazz in the United States; 

Whereas in 2008, the Recording Industry Association of 

America awarded ‘‘Kind of Blue’’ quadruple-platinum 

status, meaning 4,000,000 copies of the album had been 

sold; 

Whereas in 2002, the Library of Congress added ‘‘Kind of 

Blue’’ to the National Recording Registry; 

Whereas ‘‘Kind of Blue’’ was recognized as the bestselling 

record in the history of jazz; 

Whereas 50 years after the release of ‘‘Kind of Blue’’, MOJO 

magazine honored the Legacy Edition of the album by 
2 

•HRES 894 EH 

giving it the ‘‘Best Catalogue Release of the Year’’ 

award; 

Whereas ‘‘Kind of Blue’’ both redefined the concept of jazz 

for musicians and changed the perceptions of jazz held 

by many fans; 

Whereas today, the sole surviving member of the Miles Davis 

Sextet, Jimmy Cobb, is performing and touring with his 

So What Band in tribute to the 50th anniversary of 

‘‘Kind of Blue’’; and 

Whereas ‘‘Kind of Blue’’ continues to be the standard masterpiece of jazz for American musicians and audiences: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) honors the 50th anniversary of ‘‘Kind of Blue’’ 

and recognizes the unique contribution the album has 

made to American jazz; 

(2) directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to transmit enrolled copies of this resolution to Columbia Records; 

(3) encourages the United States Government to 

take all appropriate steps to preserve and advance the 

art form of jazz music; 

(4) recommits itself to ensuring that musical artists 

such as Miles Davis and his Sextet receive fair protection under the copyright laws of the United States for 

their contributions to culture in the United States; and 
3 

•HRES 894 EH 

(5) reaffirms the status of jazz as a national treasure. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

**Interwoven, Inc. has the following subsidiaries:**

 

Interwoven UK Ltd 

 

Interwoven Australia Pty. Ltd 

 

Interwoven Software Pte. Ltd 

 

Interwoven Hong Kong Ltd 

 

Interwoven GmbH 

 

Interwoven Japan KK 

 

Interwoven BV 

 

Interwoven Canada Ltd 

 

Interwoven SAS 

 

Interwoven Korea Inc. 

 

Interwoven AB 

 

Interwoven Software SL 

 

Interwoven Srl 

 

Interwoven AS 

 

Interwoven Software Do Brasil LTDA
1 WO 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

8 

9 United States of America, 

10 Plaintiff, 

11 v. 

~ 12 Jordan Marshall, Sr., 

13 Defendant. 

14 

No. CR18-08014-001-PCT-DMF 

ORDER 

15 The defendant appeared in court with counsel. The defendant's probable cause 

16 .hearing was waived and the detention hearing was submitted on the record. The Court 

17. finds probable cause to believe the defendant violated the terms of his supervised release 

18 as alleged in the petition. The Court further finds, pursuant to Rule 32.l(a)(6), that 

19 defendant has failed to show by clear and· convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk 

20 or a danger. 

21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant shall be bound over for further 

22 proceedings on the petition to revoke his supervised release. 

23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is detained as a flight risk and a 

24 danger, pending further revocation proceedings. 

25 Dated this 27th day of September, 2018. 

26 

27 

28 

~~-~ Honorable Bruce G. Macdonald 

United States Magistrate Judge 

(
Exhibit 10.21









PROJECT ASSIGNMENT





This Project Assignment is issued under the Independent Contractor Services Agreement (“Original Agreement”) dated August 14, 2008, between Scientific Learning Corporation of Oakland, California (“SLc”) and School Executive Consulting, Inc. of Dallas, Texas (“Contractor”).





Services to be performed:


Under the direction of the CEO or the person to whom he delegates this role, provide executive-level marketing and sales consulting services on a nationwide basis, including but not limited to (1) activities nationwide directed toward increasing the awareness about the Fast ForWord products and the research behind the products and (2) assisting in the organization of a team of prominent educational authorities in Texas to support SLC’s marketing and sales activities in Texas under the direction of the Regional Sales Director.





Time Period during which Services will be performed:


The term of this Project Assignment will begin January 1, 2010 and end December 31, 2010.





Fees for Services:


SLC will pay Contractor a consulting fee of $3,333 per month.





Expenses:


SLC will also reimburse Contractor for reasonable travel, lodging, phone, mileage and meal expenses incurred in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement provided that Contractor has obtained prior approval from Contractor’s principal SLC contact and submits verification of such expenses as SLC may require.





Payment Requirements:


SLC will pay Contractor the monthly consulting fee by the 15th of the applicable month, without the need for invoice.  For expenses, Contractor shall invoice SLC.  SLC will pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt.





Note:    This Project Assignment is governed by the terms of an Independent Contractor Services Agreement in effect between SLc and Contractor.  Any item in this Project Assignment which is inconsistent with that Agreement is invalid.





Signed:
/s/ Cheryl Leatherbury

/s/ Mike MosesFor Client Hiring Manager

For ContractorDated:
2/17/2010

2/16/10
Abatement Order filed November 30, 2021

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00524-CV

____________

METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANY, LP, Appellant

V.

BLUE WATER SYSTEMS, LP AND BLUE WATER VISTA RIDGE, LLC,

Appellees

On Appeal from the 21st District Court

Burleson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 37412

ABATEMENT ORDER

Notice was filed on November 22, 2021, that appellant is in bankruptcy. 

Tex. R. App. P. 8.1. According to the notice, on November 22, 2021, appellant

petitioned for voluntary bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy 

Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, under case number 21-

10903. A bankruptcy suspends the appeal from the date when the bankruptcy 
petition is filed until the appellate court reinstates the appeal in accordance with 

federal law. Tex. R. App. P. 8.2. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal abated.

When a case has been suspended by a bankruptcy filing, a party may move 

the appellate court to reinstate the appeal if permitted by federal law or the 

bankruptcy court. Tex. R. App. P. 8.3. If the bankruptcy court has lifted or 

terminated the stay, a certified copy of the order must be attached to the motion. Id. 

A party filing a motion to reinstate shall specify what further action, if any, is 

required from this court when the appeal is reinstated. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a).

For administrative purposes only, and without surrendering jurisdiction, the 

appeal is abated and treated as a closed case until further order of this court.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.