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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4255 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4255

  To encourage the States to streamline the adoption process and make 
                   their adoption laws more uniform.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 1996

  Mr. Klink introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To encourage the States to streamline the adoption process and make 
                   their adoption laws more uniform.

    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 ``Model Adoption Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. ADOPTION OF CERTAIN LAWS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF RECEIVING 
              GRANTS TO STATE COURTS TO ASSESS AND IMPROVE HANDLING OF 
              PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION.

    Section 13712(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 
(42 U.S.C. 670 note) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) Applications.--
            ``(1) In general.--In order to be eligible for a grant 
        under this section a highest State court shall be in an 
        eligible State and shall submit to the Secretary an application 
        at such time, in such form, and including such information and 
        assurances as the Secretary shall require.
            ``(2) Eligible state defined.--As used in paragraph (1), 
        the term `eligible State' means a State that the Secretary of 
        Health and Human Services determines has in effect and 
        operation the following provisions of the Uniform Adoption Act 
        approved and recommended by the National Conference of 
        Commissioners on Uniform State Laws for enactment in all the 
        States at its annual conference meeting in 1994:
                    ``(A) Article 1.
                    ``(B) Parts 1 and 4 of Article 2.
                    ``(C) Parts 1, 2, 5, and 7 of Article 3.
                    ``(D) Article 7.
                    ``(E) Article 8.
            ``(3) References to excluded provisions not required to be 
        given effect.--To the extent that a provision of the Uniform 
        Adoption Act encompassed by paragraph (2) contains a reference 
        to a provision of the Act not so encompassed, a State shall not 
        be considered not to be an eligible State for purposes of this 
        subsection by reason of the failure of the State to have such 
        provision in effect and operation.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Stanford GREENWOOD, Appellant. Stanford GREENWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 66395, 69049.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Sept. 17, 1996.

Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Joiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before RHODES RUSSELL, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Stanford Greenwood appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury of first degree robbery. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evi-dentiary hearing. We affirm.

An extended opinion would serve no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is *915affirmed pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 230.25(b).
BONJ 10-Q




Exhibit 32




SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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/ Albert F. BuzzettiAlbert F. Buzzetti

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
 
 /s/ Michael LeslerMichael Lesler

Chief Operating Officer
 
 August 13, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 418 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 418

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 19, 1995

  Received, read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                For the relief of Arthur J. Carron, Jr.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS.

    The time limitations set forth in section 3702(b) of title 31, 
United States Code, shall not apply with respect to a claim by Arthur 
J. Carron, Jr., of Bark River, Michigan, for amounts due to him by the 
Department of the Navy. The amounts due are represented by the 
following checks that were received but not negotiated by Arthur J. 
Carron, Jr.:
            (1) Treasury check number 2,831,843, dated October 18, 
        1966, in the amount of $10,850.74 for salary and expenses.
            (2) Treasury check number 10,445,856, dated January 29, 
        1971, in the amount of $1,361.00 for salary and expenses.
            (3) Treasury check number 71,681,041, dated April 1, 1971, 
        in the amount of $562.25 for retirement pay.

SEC. 2. DEADLINE.

    Section 1 shall apply only if Arthur J. Carron, Jr., or his 
authorized representative, submits a claim pursuant to such section 
before the expiration of the 3-month period beginning on the date of 
the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 19, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22E0027. PETER CHATEL v. LESLIE P. CARROLL

The Applicant in the above-styled case hasfiled an emergencymotion pursuant

to Court Rule 40(b) entitled Motion To Extend Time to File Application For

Discretionary Appeal. Upon consideration and review, said motion is hereby

GRANTED pursuant toCourtRules 16(c) and 31(i). The application for discretionary

review, currently due on January 20, 2022, must be filed on or before January 27,

2022. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

January 19, 2022

01/19/2022
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 21, 2016

t0914

Order 

Clerk

September 21, 2016

153375

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 153375

COA: 315774 

Wayne CC: 12-001086-FC

ANTON T. BLEVINS,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 11, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

cases of People v Steanhouse (Docket No. 152849) and People v Masroor (Docket Nos. 

152946-8) are pending on appeal before this Court and that the decisions in those cases 

may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that 

the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decisions in those cases.
#### J. W. KOHN et al., Appellants, v. CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, Inc., etc., Appellees.

No. 8003.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 12, 1938.

Smith, Schuberth & Cook, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellants.

William Hayes, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Kentucky, for appellees.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.. *

PER CURIAM.

The appellants move the court to be permitted to dismiss their appeal granted herein on April 11, 1938, and upon said motion it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the appeal be and is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM June 30,
2000 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF WORLD SERVICES, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>       1

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Jun-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                   Jul-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                                    67
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      29,121
<PP&E>                                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        39,574
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       140,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                200,958
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                           1,559,630
<OTHER-SE>                                          (445,436)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        (140,315)
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,200
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       (902,127)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    (900,927)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   114,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    1,015,813
<INCOME-TAX>                                             800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                       1,016,613
<EPS-BASIC>                                                .094
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0



</TABLE>
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3695

To prohibit insurers from including provisions in health plans and contracts

with health care providers to indemnify the insurer against any liability.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 20, 1996

Mr. NADLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To prohibit insurers from including provisions in health plans

and contracts with health care providers to indemnify

the insurer against any liability.

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 ‘‘Health Care Account5 ability Act of 1996’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENTS.

7 A health plan, or a contract between an insurer and

8 a health care provider, may not include provisions holding

9 the health plan harmless from liability in any civil action
2

•HR 3695 IH

1 arising out of medical care provided or withheld under the

2 plan.

3 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

4 For purposes of this Act:

5 (1) INSURER.—The term ‘‘insurer’’ means an

6 insurance company, insurance service, or insurance

7 organization licensed to engage in the business of in8 surance in a State, and a health maintenance orga9 nization.

10 (2) HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.—The term

11 ‘‘health care provider’’ means a provider of services

12 (as defined in section 1861(u) of the Social Security

13 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u)), a physician, a supplier, or

14 any other person furnishing health care, including a

15 Federal or State program that provides directly for

16 the provision of health care to beneficiaries.’’.

17 (3) HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—The term

18 ‘‘health insurance coverage’’ means any hospital or

19 medical service policy or certificate, hospital or medi20 cal service plan contract, or health maintenance or21 ganization contract offered by an insurer.

22 (4) HEALTH PLAN.—The term ‘‘health plan’’

23 means a plan that provides health insurance cov24 erage.
3

•HR 3695 IH

1 (5) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each of

2 the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,

3 the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands,

4 American Samoa, and Guam.

Æ
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132181(31) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132181 

 COA: 270373 

St. Joseph CC: 00-010301-FC

COY LEE WHITTEN, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 28, 

2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0319 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk
#### Margery McConnell, Respondent, v. Benton McConnell and McConnell Manufacturing Company, Appellants, Impleaded with Jennie Saxton, Individually and as Sole Executrix, etc., of Floyd T. McConnell, Deceased.

Order reversed, with ten. dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to vacate order granted, *949with ten dollars costs. Held, that the moving affidavit fails to show that the examination is necessary to enable the plaintiff to frame a complaint. All concurred.
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc. 

Amendment No. 1 to the 

Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc. 

2006 Equity Incentive Plan 

Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), by action of its Board of Directors taken in accordance with
the authority granted to it by Section 17.1 of the Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc. 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), hereby amends the Plan in the following respect effective June 26, 2007: 

 

	 	1.	By deleting Section 13.1 of the Plan and inserting in lieu thereof the following: 

  

	 	“13.1	Awards under this Plan may prescribe the extent to which, subject to any reasonable Board discretion, in the case of termination of employment or service by reason of death, disability, redundancy, normal or early
retirement or any other reason, or in the case of hardship or other special circumstances, Share Options and SARs will become vested and exercisable, restrictions on Restricted Shares and Deferred Shares will lapse and performance targets will be
deemed achieved and all other terms and conditions met, and all other awards will be delivered or paid.”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SIGNATURE SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MATTHEW L. STREATER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 09-13092 

POPULAR MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., et 

aI., 

Defendants. 

-----------------,/ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Upon the stipulation of the parties and the parties' representation through their 

respective counsels that they have reached a settlement agreement set forth in a "Loan 

Modification Agreement" which is hereby incorporated by reference; and the court being 

otherwise fully advised in the premises: 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants 

and without costs to any party. 

UI\IITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: December 2,2009 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record 

on this date, December 2,2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk 

(313) 234-5522 

ROBERT H. CLELAND 

2:09-cv-13092-RHC-PJK Doc # 12 Filed 12/03/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 98
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
 

SOUTHERN DIVISION
 

\. .1 

MATTHEW L. STREATER 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 09-13092 

Hon. Robert H. Cleland 

v. 

POPULAR MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. ) 

a foreign corporation, LITTON LOAN ) 

SERVICING LP, a Texas debt collection ) 

agency, PEOPLE'S CHOICE HOME LOAN, ) 

INC., a California corporation (Bankrupt corporation) 

whose legal status is not currently known), ) 

EQUITY ONE, INC, a foreign corporation, ) 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION ) 

SYSTEMS INC, a Virginia corporation ) 

HSBC BANK USA, a National Association ) 

Defendants, 

Jointly and severally 

\._-------------------- .1 

STIPULATION OF DISlVIISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Upon the stipulation ofthe parties and the parties' representation through their respective 

counsels that they have reached a settlement agreement set forth in a "Loan Modification 

Agreement" which is hereby incorporated by reference; and the Court being otherwise 

fully advised in the premises: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice as to all 

Defendants and without costs to any party. 

Stipulated to and Approved as to Form and content by: 

2:09-cv-13092-RHC-PJK Doc # 12 Filed 12/03/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 99
/s/ guy sohou 

Date: Monday, November 30, 2009 

Guy Sohou P-67842 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

/s/ Eric s. Rosenthal 

Date: Monday, November 30, 2009 

Eric S. Rosenthal (P24816) 

Attorney for Defendant Equity One 

/s/ Matthew B. Theunick 

Date: Monday, November 30, 2009 

Matthew B. Theunick (P65014) 

Attorneys for Defendants Litton Loan Servicing LP 

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 

and HSBC Bank USA 

2:09-cv-13092-RHC-PJK Doc # 12 Filed 12/03/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 100
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 23.2

                       (LETTERHEAD OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY)


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


         As independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to (a) the use of
our name and references to our firm in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of 3DX
Technologies Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997 and (b) to the inclusion
of the estimate of proved reserves and present value of the future net revenues
included in our report dated February 9, 1998 in such Annual Report. We further
consent to the incorporation by reference of the information set forth above
which is included in such Annual Report into the Registration Statement on Form
S-8, filed June 27, 1997, (No. 333-30187) pertaining to the stock option plan
of 3DX Technologies Inc.





                                                          RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                                          PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


Houston, Texas
March 27, 1998
1

As noted by the magistrate judge, plaintiff filed a separate case against different

defendants arising out of the same incident. That case is currently pending and is

assigned to the undersigned. Bowen v. Caruso, 08-12877.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID BOWEN,

Plaintiff, 

v.

RICHARD CADY and V. McCABE,

Defendants.

______________________________/ 

Case Number: 09-10414

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND 

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND

DISMISSING CASE

I.

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming violations of

the Eight Amendment. Plaintiff’s claim stems from him falling down 26 steps while

being moved to an upper floor cell and injuring his back. Plaintiff says he has a medical

detail for a ground floor cell. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and declaratory 

relief. The matter has been referred to a magistrate judge for all pre-trial proceedings.1

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to establish personal involvement by

2:09-cv-10414-AC-PJK Doc # 24 Filed 01/13/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 100
2

defendants. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR)

recommending that the motion be granted. Plaintiff has not objected to the MJRR and

the time for filing objections has passed.

II.

Having reviewed the MJRR, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that

plaintiff has not established that defendants were personally involved. In light of this

determination, the Court, as did the magistrate judge, declines to consider whether

plaintiff exhausted his claims as to defendants. 

Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED

as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

 s/ Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 13, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to David L. Bowen,

2123 Mill Road, Flint, MI 48532 and the attorneys of record on this date, January 13,

2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-10414-AC-PJK Doc # 24 Filed 01/13/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 101
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-20105FL 

v. Hon. Sean F. Cox

D-3 TYREE DYE,

Defendant.

___________________________________________/

MEMORANDUM OF STATUS 

CONFERENCE AND ORDER

Counsel for all parties having appeared before Judge Cox on September 4, 2009, for a

Status Conference, and the parties having stipulated to same;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plea cutoff/hearing is set for Friday, September 18,

2009 at 3:45 p.m., in Courtroom 127, 600 Church Street, Flint, MI. Should a plea not be

entered, a Final Pre-Trial Conference will be held.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Trial shall commence on September 29, 2009 at 8:30

a.m.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: September 4, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on 

September 4, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

4:09-cr-20105-LJM-MJH Doc # 46 Filed 09/04/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 257