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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4041

To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel of unused

agricultural land in Dos Palos, California, to the Dos Palos Ag Boosters

for use as a farm school.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 10, 1996

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

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel

of unused agricultural land in Dos Palos, California,

to the Dos Palos Ag Boosters for use as a farm school.

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

3 SECTION. 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, UNUSED AGRICULTURAL

4 LAND, DOS PALOS, CALIFORNIA.

5 (a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—Notwithstanding

6 any other provision of law, including section 335(c) of the

7 Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.

8 1985(c)), the Secretary of Agriculture may convey to the

9 Dos Palos Ag Boosters of Dos Palos, California, all right,
2

•HR 4041 IH

1 title, and interest of the United States in and to a parcel

2 of real property (including improvements thereon) held by

3 the Secretary that consists of approximately 22 acres and

4 is located at 18296 Elgin Avenue, Dos Palos, California,

5 to be used as a farm school for the education and training

6 of students and beginning farmers regarding farming. Any

7 such conveyance shall be final with no future liability ac8 cruing to the Secretary of Agriculture.

9 (b) CONSIDERATION.—As consideration for the con10 veyance under subsection (a), the transferee shall pay to

11 the Secretary an amount equal to the fair market value

12 of the parcel conveyed under subsection (a).

13 (c) ALTERNATIVE TRANSFEREE.—At the request of

14 the Dos Palos Ag Boosters, the Secretary may make the

15 conveyance authorized by subsection (a) to the Dos Palos

16 School District.

17 (d) DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AND

18 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.—The Secretary shall determine

19 the fair market value of the parcel to be conveyed under

20 subsection (a). The exact acreage and legal description of

21 the parcels shall be determined by a survey satisfactory

22 to the Secretary. The cost of any such survey shall be

23 borne by the transferee.

24 (e) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The

25 Secretary may require such additional terms and condi-
3

•HR 4041 IH

1 tions in connection with the conveyance under this section

2 as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the inter3 ests of the United States.

Æ
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Alfred Javier CONTRERAS, Appellant.

Nos. WD 48369, WD 50195.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 7, 1995.

James Ochs, Charles Clifford Schwartz, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant.

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

Before LAURA DENVIR STITH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

The defendant appeals from his conviction of stealing property worth at least $150, § 570.030, RSMo 1994, and from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                               AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


    In connection with the Annual Report of TRB Systems International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission  (the  "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 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 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.


Date: October 8, 2003


By: /s/  Byung Yim
-----------------------------------
Byung Yim, Chief Executive Officer
 and Chief Financial Officer
#### The Honorable Frank G. McDONALD, Relator, v. The TENTH COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.

No. 94-0527.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Nov. 10, 1994.

John Robert King, Michael Steven Deck, McAllen, for relator.

Michael L. Scanes, Beverly Willis Bracken, Waco, Bruce Burleson, Temple, Ross S. Crossland, Austin, W.V. Dunnam, Waco, David Deaderick, Austin, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this original mandamus proceeding relator seeks review of an order protecting mental health records from discovery. Both the trial court and the court of appeals rendered decisions prior to our writing in *R.K. v. Ramirez,*887 S.W.2d 836 (Tex.1994). We believe the trial court should have the opportunity to reconsider the rulings of which relator complains in this proceeding in light of *R.K.*Accordingly, without addressing the merits of the petition and without prejudice to either party again requesting relief from the court of appeals and this Court after the trial court has had an opportunity to reconsider its rulings, we conditionally grant the writ and direct the court of appeals to vacate its opinion and order. The writ of mandamus will issue only in the unlikely event the court of appeals does not do so.
Exhibit 10.4


 


SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


 


Compensation: Non-employee directors shall receive the following remuneration:


 



	
Director’s Retainer (except Chairman)

	
$  60,000


	
Committee Chair Retainer

	
$  14,000


	
Chairman of the Board Retainer

	
$125,000


	
Restricted Stock Award Value

	
$  60,000







 








 


Directors may elect to receive their compensation (other than expense reimbursements) in the form of cash, stock or a combination. Directors may elect to defer the receipt of all or part of their cash compensation pursuant to the Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors. The deferral may be in the form of cash or stock units. Cash deferrals receive interest at a rate equal to 1% over the prime commercial rate of U.S. Bank National Association. Deferrals in the form of stock units are credited quarterly with dividend equivalents equal to the dividend rate on Otter Tail Corporation’s common shares and the deferred amount is paid out in common shares.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2009
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: March 31, 2010
    /s/ Ricardo Figueiredo BomenyRicardo Figueiredo BomenyChief Executive Officer and Acting Chief  Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4227 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4227

To temporarily waive the enrollment composition rule under the Medicaid 
         program for certain health maintenance organizations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 1996

Mrs. Thurman (for herself, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Deutsch, and Mr. Bilirakis) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To temporarily waive the enrollment composition rule under the Medicaid 
         program for certain health maintenance organizations.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF 75/25 MEDICAID ENROLLMENT RULE FOR CERTAIN MANAGED 
              CARE ORGANIZATIONS.

    The requirement of section 1903(m)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(m)(2)(A)(ii)) is waived with respect to facilities 
of HealthCare USA, Inc. and Ultramedix Health Care Systems Inc. 
operating in Florida for contract periods beginning on July 1, 1996, 
and ending on June 30, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1749 Page 1 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1750 Page 2 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1751 Page 3 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1752 Page 4 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1753 Page 5 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1754 Page 6 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1755 Page 7 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1756 Page 8 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1757 Page 9 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1758 Page 10 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1759 Page 11 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1760 Page 12 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1761 Page 13 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1762 Page 14 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1763 Page 15 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1764 Page 16 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1765 Page 17 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1766 Page 18 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1767 Page 19 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1768 Page 20 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1769 Page 21 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1770 Page 22 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1771 Page 23 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1772 Page 24 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1773 Page 25 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1774 Page 26 of 27
Case 2:09-md-02042-SFC ECF No. 157 filed 08/05/10 PageID.1775 Page 27 of 27
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3005

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

___________ Submitted: March 6, 1997 Filed: March 21, 1997

___________ Before LOKEN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After Joseph A. May pleaded guilty to criminal tax charges in violati on of 26 U.S.C. § 7203, the district court ordered him t o pay costs of prosecution, including the fees of two mental-healt h professionals who had examined May to determine his competency t o stand trial. May appealed, arguing that the assessed costs wer e unreasonable and he was financially unable to pay. We remande d because the government initially paid the doctors, casting doubt on thei r status and the thoroughness of the court approval require d under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. We directed t he district court to review the expert s' invoices with careful scrutiny and to order May to pay costs of prosecution, including whateve r court-appointed expert fees the court approved and taking into account May' s-2-

fina ncial ability to pay. See United States v. May , 67 F.3d 70 6 (8th Cir. 1995).The HONORABLE D. BROOK BARTLETT, Chief Judge of the United 1 States District for the Western District of Missouri. -3- On r emand, the district court conducted a lengthy hearing , 1 following which it concluded that the doctors were in fact court

appointed experts, t hat their fees were reasonable with one rather minor exception, and that May had the financial ability to pa y costs of prosecution. On appeal, May argues that neither docto r was entitled to compensation as a court-appointed expert becaus e one never was formally appointed, both functioned as prosecutio n witn esses, and the government usurped the court's power b y prematurelypaying them. After careful review of the record, w e co nclude that the district court properly construed our prio r opinion, thoroughly explored the issues that promp ted us to remand, and did no t clearly err in its findings of fact nor abuse it s discret ion in awarding costs of prosecution in the amount o f $15,663.50. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4201

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage qualified

conservation contributions by individuals of capital gain property.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 1996

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage

qualified conservation contributions by individuals of capital gain property.

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATIONS TO ENCOURAGE QUALIFIED

4 CONSERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS OF CAP5 ITAL GAIN PROPERTY.

6 (a) QUALIFIED CONSERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS NOT

7 SUBJECT TO SPECIAL LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS

8 OF CAPITAL GAIN PROPERTY.—Subparagraph (C) of sec-
2

•HR 4201 IH

1 tion 170(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (re2 lating to special limitation with respect to contributions

3 described in subparagraph (A) of capital gain property)

4 is amended by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (v) and

5 by inserting after clause (iii) the following new clause:

6 ‘‘(iv) Clauses (i) and (ii) shall not

7 apply to any qualified conservation con8 tribution (as defined in subsection (h)) de9 scribed in subparagraph (A) of capital gain

10 property.’’

11 (b) UNLIMITED CARRYOVER OF QUALIFIED CON12 SERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS OF CAPITAL GAIN PROP13 ERTY.—Paragraph (1) of section 170(d) of such Code is

14 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara15 graph:

16 ‘‘(C) UNLIMITED CARRYOVER OF QUALI17 FIED CONSERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS OF CAP18 ITAL GAIN PROPERTY.—The 5 taxable year lim19 itation in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to

20 any qualified conservation contribution (as de21 fined in subsection (h)) described in subsection

22 (b)(1)(A) of capital gain property (as defined in

23 subsection (b)(1)(C)(v)). For purposes of this

24 paragraph, the excess described in the material

25 preceding clause (i) of subparagraph (A) shall
3

•HR 4201 IH

1 be treated as attributable to contributions de2 scribed in the preceding sentence of the sub3 paragraph to the extent of such contributions.’’

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

5 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

6 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC

Appellate case name: Joseph Michael Nevedomsky v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-12-00105-CR

Trial court case number: 1747280

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 10 of Harris County

Date motion filed: March 6, 2013

Party filing motion: Joseph Michael Nevedomsky

It is ordered that the motion for reconsideration en banc is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting Individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack, Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, Sharp, 

Massengale, Brown, and Huddle

Date: April 18, 2013
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4150

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain industrial nylon fabrics.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 24, 1996

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain industrial nylon

fabrics.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL NYLON FABRICS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new subheading:
2

•HR 4150 IH

‘‘ 9902.54.07 Woven fabric, suitable for making

industrial and automotive power

transmission and timing belts,

containing 75% or more, by

weight, of filaments of

polyamides or aromatic

polyamides, scoured and heat set

and of any weight and having

warp or fill stretch properties

greater than 75% at break (provided for in subheading

5407.41.00) ................................. Free No change No change On or before

12/31/99

’’.

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section applies to articles entered, or withdrawn from

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

4 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Case 2:09-cr-20264-SJM-PJK ECF No. 57, PageID.234 Filed 03/12/10 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.4


                     CHASE MANHATTAN AUTO OWNER TRUST 1997-B
                           ANNUAL ISSUER'S CERTIFICATE
                                       of
                            COMPLIANCE WITH INDENTURE

         The undersigned certifies that they are an Authorized Officer of
Wilmington Trust Company, not in its individual capacity, but solely as Owner
Trustee for Chase Manhattan Auto Owner Trust 1997-B and that they are duly
authorized to execute and deliver this certificate on behalf of the Issuer in
connection with Section 3.9 of the Indenture between the Issuer and Wells Fargo
Bank Minnesota, National Association, as Indenture Trustee, dated as of June 1,
1997 (the "Indenture") and the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 1,
1997 (the "Agreement"), among Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association, as
Servicer, Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association and The Chase Manhattan
Bank, as Sellers, and Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner Trustee. All
capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the respective
meanings specified in the Indenture and the Agreement.

         The undersigned further certifies that a review of the activities of
the Issuer for the preceding calendar year has been made under his supervision
and, to the best of his knowledge, the Issuer has fulfilled its obligations
under the Indenture for the preceding calendar year.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed hereto my signature as of this 26th
day of March, 2001.

                         CHASE MANHATTAN AUTO OWNER TRUST 1997-B
                         BY: WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, not in its individual
                         capacity, but solely as Owner Trustee



                         /s/ Denise Geran
                         -------------------------
                         Name: Denise Geran
                         Title: Senior Financial Services Officer

Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association, as Servicer, hereby requests
that Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner Trustee, execute the above Issuer's
Certificate and deliver it to Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, as
Indenture Trustee.

                                               CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA,
                                               NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Servicer


                                               /s/ Richard J. Naeder
                                               --------------------------
                                               Richard J. Naeder
                                               Vice President
Filed 11/8/23 In re Garza CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re 

RUBEN GARZA,

On Habeas Corpus.

F086882

(Merced Super. Ct. Nos. 23-CR-02218, 

20-CR-03754)

OPINION

THE COURT

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Ruben Garza, in pro. per., for Petitioner.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Respondent.

-ooOooPetitioner seeks permission to file a belated notice of appeal under the doctrine of 

constructive filing. (In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72, 81–82.) Respondent filed a 

response to the request stating that petitioner’s “allegations appear to be sufficient to 

make a prima facie showing for relief from default under the Sixth Amendment right to 

counsel. (Roe v. Flores-Ortega (2000) 528 U.S. 470, 480.)”

Accordingly, we conclude petitioner is entitled to relief.

 Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and DeSantos, J.
2

DISPOSITION

Petitioner is granted leave to file a notice of appeal on or before 60 days from the 

date of this order in Merced County Superior Court action Nos. 23-CR-02218 and 

20-CR-03754.

Let a writ of mandate issue directing the Clerk of the Merced County Superior 

Court to file said request in its action Nos. 23-CR-02218 and 20-CR-03754, to treat them

as timely filed, and to proceed with the preparation of the record on appeal in accordance 

with the applicable rules of the California Rules of Court if the clerk of that court 

receives said request on or before 60 days of the date of this order.

This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.

To the extent petitioner seeks to raise the sentencing claims stated in the petition 

for writ of habeas corpus attached to his request to file a notice of appeal under the 

constructive filing doctrine, this court notes the potential to raise these claims in his direct 

appeal. (In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759.) The court expresses no opinion as to 

the merits of those claims.
Order entered March 2, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01264-CV

MACY’S RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC., Appellant

V.

AUDON BENAVIDES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-10796

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s February 28, 2020 unopposed second motion 

or an extension of time to file its brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and 

extend the time to April 6, 2020. We caution appellant that further extension 

requests will be disfavored.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE