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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 87 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 87

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 27, 2009.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (S. 181) to amend title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify 
the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation 
decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time 
compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or 
other practice, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 10 of 
rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against the 
bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Education and Labor; and (2) one motion to commit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
H. Res. 81 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 15, 2009. 

Whereas hardwood trees grown in the United States are an 

abundant, sustainable, and legal resource, as documented 

by annually by the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program of the United States Forest Service; 

Whereas, despite development pressure and cropland needs, 

Department of Agriculture data show that the inventory 

of United States hardwood has more than doubled over 

the past 50 years; 

Whereas the Department of Agriculture reports that annual 

United States hardwood growth exceeds hardwood removals by a significant margin of 1.9 to 1, and net annual 

growth has exceeded removals continuously since 1952; 

Whereas the World Bank ranks the United States in the top 

10 percent of all countries for government effectiveness, 

regulatory quality, and rule of law with respect to hardwood resources; 

Whereas United States hardwoods have been awarded the 

highest conservation crop rating available under the Department of Agriculture Environmental Benefits Index; 

Whereas United States hardwoods are net absorbers of carbon and are widely recognized to be critical to reducing 

the United States carbon footprint; 
2 

•HRES 81 EH 

Whereas United States hardwoods are a valuable raw material which, when utilized properly, provide an incentive 

for landowners to maintain their land in a forested condition rather than clearing the land for development or 

other alternative land use; 

Whereas United States hardwoods are a renewable resource 

and bio-based material; 

Whereas United States hardwoods are recyclable, and hardwoods used in construction can often be restored and reused in later construction; 

Whereas United States hardwoods are grown primarily in 

those States located along or east of the Mississippi River 

and in the Pacific Northwest, but, with a presence in 

every State, the hardwood industry is one of the major 

sources of economic activity and sustenance in many 

rural communities; 

Whereas United States hardwoods are grown by thousands of 

small family landowners who may harvest trees only once 

or twice in a generation; and 

Whereas United States hardwoods and the products derived 

from United States hardwoods are prized throughout the 

world as a superior and long-lasting building material: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes that United States hardwoods are an 

abundant, sustainable, and legal resource under the 

United States rule of law; and 

(2) urges that United States hardwoods and products derived from United States hardwoods should be 
3 

•HRES 81 EH 

given full consideration in any program directed at constructing environmentally preferable commercial, public, 

or private buildings. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### In re The Marriage of Madeline Marie LOVE, Respondent, v. Quentin Lee LOVE, Appellant.

No. WD 42450.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 1, 1990.

Roxanne J. Pendleton, Kansas City, for appellant.

R. Brian Hall, Gladstone, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P.J., and CLARK and BERREY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from dissolution of marriage.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

OAO 435

AZ Form (Rev. 1/2015)

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

9 APPEAL 9 CRIMINAL

9 NON-APPEAL 9 CIVIL

9 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

9 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER (Specify)

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested.)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

9TESTIMONY (Specify)

9PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

9OTHER (Specify)

9VOIR DIRE

9OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

9OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

9OPINION OF COURT

9JURY INSTRUCTIONS

9SENTENCING

9BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(Check all that apply.)

ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS 9 9 PAPER COPY

PDF (e-mail)

ASCII (e-mail)

14 DAYS 9 9

7 DAYS 9 9

DAILY 9 9

HOURLY 9 9

REALTIME 9 9

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.)

By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING MORE THAN ONE FORMAT, 

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE.

19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 402 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 1
Index of Exhibits 

Exhibits to Declaration of John Brust

Exhibit A Membership Purchase Agreement November 8, 2012 

Exhibit B Borrower Pledge and Security Agreement January 17, 2013

Exhibit C Credit Agreement January 17, 2013

Exhibit D Account Ledger Pertaining to BBVA Compass Account ‘4862, held by 

Cereus Properties from September 2017 to December 2017

Exhibit E Intellectual Property License between Backpage.com, LLC and 

Vermillion Holdings, LLC. April 22, 2015

Exhibit F Assignment of License Agreement between Vermillion Holdings, LLC 

and UGC Tech Group, C.V. April 22, 2015

Exhibit G Purchase and Sale Agreement Between Vermillion Holdings, LLC and 

UCG Tech Group, C.V. April 22, 2015

Exhibit H Loan Agreement between Vermillion Holdings, LLC and UGC Tech 

Group, C.V. April 22, 2015

Exhibit I Note Payable Schedule Regarding the Sale of the Backpage Business

Other Exhibits

Exhibit J Email from AUSA Dan Boyle to Defense Counsel October 13, 2021

Exhibit K Letter from Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. to October 15, 2021

Exhibit L Email from Scott M. Garringer Chief, Criminal Division US Attorney’s 

Office, Los Angeles October 18, 2021

Exhibit M Declaration of Daniel J. Quigley October 25, 2021, with Exhibits A 

and B

Exhibit N Affidavit of US Postal Inspector Lyndon Versoza in Central District of 

California Case No. 18-mj-00722 March 28, 2018

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1366-1 Filed 10/26/21 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT B

INFRINGEMENT CLAIM CHART FOR CLAIMS 10-14

Case 2:18-cv-00610-SPL Document 1-2 Filed 02/23/18 Page 1 of 5
US	Patent	US	

RE41,685

FluxSmart	

Bluetooth	

Smart	LED	

Light	Bulb

10. A	light	source

The	FluxSmart	

Bluetooth	

Smart	LED	Light	

Bulb,	2nd	

Generation	

Bulb	is	a	light	

source.

comprising: an	

optical	cavity;

The	opaque	

plastic	dome	

creates	an	

optical	cavity.

a	plurality	of	first	

light-emitting	

diodes	each	of	

which	is	a	

phosphor	lightemitting	diode	

that	emits	white	

light,

The	bulb	has	15

SMD (surface	

mounted	

diodes)	chips.

Each	chip	has	a	

first	phosphor	

LED that	emits

white	light.

Optical cavity.

White phosphor LEDs.

Case 2:18-cv-00610-SPL Document 1-2 Filed 02/23/18 Page 2 of 5
each	first	lightemitting	diode	

comprising	a	diode	

encased	in	a	lighttransmitting	

package;

Each	first	LED	is	

encased	in	a	

light	

transmitting	

package.	

a	plurality	of	

second	lightemitting	diodes	

each	of	which	emits	

non-white	light,	

each	second	lightemitting	diode	

comprising	a	diode	

encased	in	a	lighttransmitting	

package;

Each	bulb	has	

five tri-LED	SMD	

chips.

Each	tri-LED	

chip	has	a	

second	nonwhite	(red)	LED	

encased	in	a	

light	

transmitting	

package.

wherein	the	first	

and	second	lightemitting	diodes	are	

arranged	to	emit	

light	into	the	

optical	cavity	such	

that	mixing	of	

spectral	outputs	

from	the	first	and	

second	lightemitting	diodes	

occurs	in	the	

optical	cavity.

The	White	LED	

diodes and	the	

Tri-LED	red,	

green,	and	blue	

chips are	

arranged	

geometrically	to	

mix	the	light	

spectral	outputs

within	the	

Concentric circle optical	cavity.

arrangement.

Light transmitting 

package.

Red LED.

Case 2:18-cv-00610-SPL Document 1-2 Filed 02/23/18 Page 3 of 5
11. A	light	source	of

claim	10,	further

comprising	at	least

one	third	lightemitting	diode

having	a	spectral

output	different

from	those	of	the

first	and	second

light-emitting

diodes.

Each tri-LED 

SMD chip has a 

third LED 

(green) that has 

a spectral 

output 

different than 

the first (white) 

and second 

(red) LED’s. 

12. A	light	source	of

claim	11,	wherein

the	spectral	output

of	the	second	lightemitting	diodes	is	a

red	output.

Each	tri-LED	

chip	has	a	

second	nonwhite	(red)	LED	

encased	in	a	

light	

transmitting	

package.

13. A	light	source	of

claim	11,	wherein

the	spectral	output

of	the	third lightemitting	diode is	a	

green	output.

Each	tri-LED	

chip	has	a	third	

(green)	LED	

encased	in	a	

light	

transmitting	

package.

Green LED.

Red LED.

Green LED.

Case 2:18-cv-00610-SPL Document 1-2 Filed 02/23/18 Page 4 of 5
14. A	light	source	of

claim	13,	further

comprising	at	least

one	fourth	lightemitting	diode

having	a	blue

output.

Each	tri-LED	

chip	has	a	

fourth (blue)	

LED	encased	in	a	

light	

transmitting	

package.

Blue LED.

Case 2:18-cv-00610-SPL Document 1-2 Filed 02/23/18 Page 5 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 507-1 Filed 03/20/19 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 507-1 Filed 03/20/19 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 507-1 Filed 03/20/19 Page 3 of 3
Director Compensation Schedule for 2008 and 2009



 Exhibit 10.53 
 2008 and 2009 Board of Directors Compensation 
  

				
	 Compensation Component
	  	Amount
	 Board Retainer
	  	$	120,000
	 Audit Committee Chair Retainer
	  	$	65,000
	 Audit Committee Member Retainer
	  	$	45,000
	 Compensation Committee Chair Retainer
	  	$	45,000
	 Compensation Committee Member Retainer
	  	$	40,000
	 Investment Committee Chair Retainer
	  	$	45,000
	 Investment Committee Member Retainer
	  	$	40,000
	 Additional Committee Chair Retainer*
	  	$	15,000
	 Additional Committee Member Retainer*
	  	$	10,000
	 Chairman of the Board
	  	$	225,000

  

	*	Excludes Executive Committee.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16288]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


The National Center for Infectious Diseases (NCID), of the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Announces the 
Following Meeting

    Name: Pre-Application Workshop for Program Announcement Number 
620: Prevention of the Complications of Hemophilia through 
Hemophilia Treatment Centers (HTCs).
    Time and Date: 11 a.m.-5 p.m., July 2, 1996.
    Place: CDC, Building 16, Room 1107A 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30333.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. 
The meeting room accommodates approximately 35 people.
    Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to provide an 
opportunity for programmatic and business management technical 
assistance regarding the cooperative agreement, ``Prevention of the 
Complications of Hemophilia through HTCs.'' An important component 
of the workshop will be a question and answer session. A summary of 
the answers will be made available to all eligible applicants upon 
request.

Contact Person for Additional Information: Sarah Wiley, Project 
Officer, Hematologic Diseases Branch, Division of AIDS, STD, and TB 
Laboratory Research, NCID, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, M/S E64, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30333, telephone 404/639-4026.

    Dated: June 20, 1996.
John C. Burckhardt,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 96-16288 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Willie KNIGHTEN, Defendant/Appellant. Willie KNIGHTEN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 63588, 65618.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 20, 1994.

Raymund J. Capelovitch, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Michelle A. Freund, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions by a jury on Count I — first degree assault, § *565.050,*RSMo Supp.1993; Count II — second degree assault, RSMo Supp.1993; and Counts IV and V — armed criminal action respectively relating to Counts I and II, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced defendant in accordance with the jury’s assessment; defendant was sentenced to twelve years imprisonment on Count I, five years on Count II to be served concurrently with Count I, twelve years on Count IV to be served consecutively with Counts I and II, and three years on Count V to be served concurrent with the other counts. Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evidentia-ry hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief which has been consolidated in this review. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32793-32794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16077]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-278-000]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

June 19, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 14, 1996, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 
(Tennessee), tendered for filing the Firm Natural Gas Transportation 
Agreement (Revised) between Tennessee and Commonwealth Gas Company 
(ComGas), dated November 1, 1995, for service under Tennessee's Rate 
Schedule NET, and the following revisions to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1:

Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 181

    Tennessee states that the filing is intended to conform the Fuel 
and Use Quantity for ComGas to the fuel retention methodology under 
Rate Schedule NET, and that the filing does not affect service to any 
shipper other than ComGas. Tennessee requests that its submission be 
accepted for filing effective November 1, 1995, and in that connection, 
seeks waiver of the 30-day notice requirement pursuant to 18 CFR 
154.207.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said filing should file a petition to intervene or protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214. All such petitions or protests must be filed as provided in 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to this 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a petition 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on

[[Page 32794]]

file and available for public inspection at the Commission's Public 
Reference office.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16077 Filed 6-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 263 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 1
### No

.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL AP P EALS



# In Re

John Edward Lewis

MO T IO N FO R L E A V E T O FIL E PE T IT IO N FO R W R IT S O F MA N D A MU S A N D PR O H IB IT IO N

TO THE HONORABLE J UDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIM INAL APPEALS:

NOW COM ES J OHN EDW A RD LEW IS, Rel at o r i n t h is cas e, b y an d t h ro u g h

h i s at t orn ey o f reco rd
, Kei t h S. Ham p t o n , an d p u rs uan t t o R u l e 7 2 .1 of t h e Tex as

Ru l es o f A p p e l l a t e Pro ced u re, m o ves fo r l eav e t o fi l e th is Pet i t i o n f o r W r i t s of

Ma n d a mu s a n d Pr o h i b i t i o n

.

W HEREFORE, PREM ISES CONSIDERED, Rel at o r p ray s t h at h i s M o t i o n f o r

Lea ve t o Fi l e Pet i t io n f

o r W r i t s o f Ma nd a mu s an d Pr o h i b i t i o n , h i s b e i n al l t h i ng s

GRANTED

.

Res p ect fu l ly s u b m i t t ed
,

KEI TH S. HAMPTONSt at e Bar No

. 0 8 8 7 3 2 3 0 1 1 03 Nu eces St reet Au s ti n, Tex as 7 8 7 0 1 (5 1 2 ) 4 76 -8 4 8 4 (o ) (5 1 2 ) 4 77 -3 5 8 0 (f) (5 1 2 ) 7 62 -6 1 7 0 (c) kei t h s h a mp t o n @ g m a i l .co m ATTORNEY FOR RELATOR

CERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE : By m y s i g n at u re ab o ve, I h ereb y cert i fy t h at a t ru e

an d co rrect co py o f t he ab o ve an d fo re g o i n g , M o t i o n f o r Lea ve t o F

i l e Pet i t i o n f

o r

W r it s o f Ma n d a m u s an d Pr o h i bi t i o n , h as been d el i vered t o t h e fo l l o wi n g p art i es an d

i n t eres t ed p ers o n s : el ect ro n i cal l y t o Sco t t.Tal i aferro @ t r av i s co u nt y t x .g o v , an d

p ers o n al l y

t o J o hn Lewi s o n t h i s d ay , M ay 2 8
, 2 01 5

.
* 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 limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60627 (Summary Calendar)

LOUIS L. COGHLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:96-CV-81-LA

May 28, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Lo uis L. Coghlan appeals from a judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner o f

Social Security denying his claim for disabilit y insurance benefits. He argues that the Commissioner

erred in r elying o n the medical-vocational guidelines rather than the testimony of the vocational

expert and also in determining that Coghlan’s testimony was not credible. He further argues that the

Commissioner’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.2

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and we AFFIRM for essentially the

reasons set forth by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court. S ee Coghlan v. Apfel

, No.

4:96-CV-81-LA (S.D. Miss. Aug. 21, 1997).

AFFIRMED.
ex10_f-5.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10-F-5

     

    Description
of Directors Compensation – Amendment

    as
of March 1, 2009

    


    


    Fees.  On July 13,
2006, the Board of Directors voluntarily reduced Board fees payable to
non-employee directors by half so that the annual Board membership fee was
$100,000.  Pursuant to the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee
Directors, 60% of the annual Board membership must be deferred into common stock
units.  Effective March 1, 2009, the Board of Directors voluntarily
agreed to forego the cash portion of their annual membership
fee.  Consequently, $60,000 will be deferred into common stock units
pursuant to the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors and
directors will receive no cash payments.  Additionally, directors will
not receive annual Committee chair fees ($2,500) and our presiding director will
not receive the annual presiding director fee ($5,000).

    


    Insurance.  Ford
provides non-employee directors with $200,000 of life insurance and $500,000 of
accidental death or dismemberment coverage.  Effective December 31,
2008, the Board amended this plan so that life insurance coverage ends for all
currently retired directors and directors who retire in the future, except for
those currently retired directors who had previously elected the reduction in
life insurance and $15,000 annuity discussed below, in which case only the
annuity would continue.  A director who retired from the Board after
age 70 or, after age 55 with Board approval, and who had served for at
least five years, may have elected to have the life insurance reduced to
$100,000 and receive $15,000 a year for life. The accidental death or
dismemberment coverage may, at the director’s expense, be supplemented up to an
additional $500,000 and ends when the director retires from the
Board.

    


    The
remainder of director compensation remains unchanged from previously disclosed
descriptions.