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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4019 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4019

         To amend the Fair Housing Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 4, 1996

 Mr. Bilbray introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To amend the Fair Housing Act, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Housing Reform and Freedom of 
Speech Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING ACT.

    (a) In General.--The first sentence of section 807(b)(1) of the 
Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3607(b)(1)) is amended by inserting before 
the period the following: ``, including any restriction relating to the 
maximum number of unrelated persons permitted to occupy a dwelling, 
governing the proximity of dwellings to each other, or the occupancy of 
a dwelling by a convicted felon, sex offender, or recovering drug 
addict, if the purpose of the restriction is to restrict land use to 
single family dwellings''.
    (b) Protection of Certain Activities.--Title I of the Fair Housing 
Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new section:

``SEC. 821. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES.

    ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to any otherwise 
lawful activity engaged in by one or more persons, including the filing 
or maintaining of a legal action, that is engaged in solely for the 
purpose of--
            ``(1) achieving or preventing action by a governmental 
        entity or official; or
            ``(2) receiving an interpretation of any provision of this 
        Act in a court of competent jurisdiction.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  RULE 13a-14 UNDER THE  SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I,
Darius G. Nevin, certify that:



| |       |  |                |  |     |  |                                                                                       
| | ----- |  | -------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |       |  |                |  |     |  |                                                                                       
| | Date: |  | March 23, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/DARIUS G. NEVINDarius G. Nevin
Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
KALU Exhibit 10.9 - 3.31.2014 - 10-Q






Exhibit 10.9


2014-2016 LTI Umbrella Plan
2014-2016 Performance Goal and Award Pool            
The performance goal for the LTI Performance Period shall be an average of $5.0 million per year over the LTI Performance Period in Net cash provided by operating activities, as reported in the Company’s Statements of Consolidated Cash Flows (“Cash Flow”).  The maximum value of shares of common stock issuable upon reaching performance goal shall equal 15% of the aggregate Cash Flow over the LTI Performance Period.
Allocation of Award Pool to Executives
	
			
	Executive Name
	Executive Title
	Percent of Pool Allocated 
to Executive1

	Jack A. Hockema
	Chief Executive Officer
	55.2916%

	John M. Donnan
	EVP - Legal, Compliance and Human Resources
	11.7940%

	Peter Bunin
	SVP - Operations 
	11.7940%

	Keith Harvey
	SVP - Sales and Marketing, Aerospace and General Engineering
	11.4494%

	[Other Designated Participant]
	[Designated Participant Title]
	  9.6709%






1 Subject to an aggregate maximum value per executive of $5.0 million and an aggregate maximum of 500,000 shares of common stock per executive per calendar year, pursuant to the Equity Incentive Plan.


Administrative Provisions


The 2014-2016 LTI Umbrella Plan only applies to the calculation and award of incentive awards, if any.  There will be no duplication of benefits created by the 2014-2016 LTI Umbrella Plan.


The 2014-2016 LTI Umbrella Plan will not increase any benefits that may be payable under any severance and/or change in control agreements.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app.2, section10(a)(2), notice is hereby given that the U.S. Small Business Administration North Florida District Advisory Council will host a public meeting on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 12 p.m. EST. The meeting will take place at the Jacksonville Port Authority located at 9810 August Dr., Jacksonville, FL 32226. 

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss such matters that may be presented by members, and staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or others present. The agenda items will include a presentation by JaxPort Executive Director Rick Ferrin as well as matters of the SBA including loan reports and goals status for FY 2008. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, District Director, in writing by letter or fax no later than Monday, February 4, 2008, in order to be placed on the agenda. Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, District Director, U.S. Small Business Administration, 7825 Baymeadows Way; Suite 100B, Jacksonville, FL 32256; Telephone (904) 443-1900 or FAX (904) 443-1980. 

Cherylyn Lebon, 

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-1767 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 32.2

DSP GROUP, INC.

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the annual report of DSP Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Dror Levy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: March 13, 2009



/s/ Dror LevyDror Levy Chief Financial
Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

United States of America,

Plaintiff(s),

v. Case No. 2:09−cr−20353−PJD−MKM

Hon. Patrick J. Duggan

, et al.,

Defendant(s).

NOTICE TO APPEAR

 The following defendant(s) are hereby notified to appear: Javier Gonzalez−Loza

 The defendant(s) shall appear before the Honorable Patrick J. Duggan at the United States

District Court, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit,

Michigan, for the following proceeding(s):

• SENTENCING: 10/17/11 at 02:30 PM

Certification

 I hereby certify that on this date a copy of the foregoing notice was served upon the parties

and/or counsel of record by electronic means or first class U.S. mail.

By: s/ M. Orem 

Case Manager

Dated: September 23, 2011

Case 2:09-cr-20353-PJD-MKM ECF No. 151, PageID.628 Filed 09/23/11 Page 1 of 1
ex10_4.htm


     

    
      Exhibit
10.4

       

      
        

        

      

      


      NON-NEGOTIABLE

      DEMAND
NOTE

      


      


      


      $1,000,000                                                                                                

      Berwyn,
Pennsylvania

      July 25,
1997

      


      


      


      FOR VALUE RECEIVED, COMMONWEALTH George
S. Springsteen and Kimberly A. MacDougall, having a business address of 1160
West Swedesford Road, Suite 340, Berwyn, PA 19312 (herein referred to as
“Makers”), promise to pay Commonwealth of Delaware, Inc., a Delaware corporation
having a business address of 1160 West Swedesford Road, Suite 340, Berwyn, PA
19341 (hereinafter referred to as “Payee”), on demand, the principal sum of One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000) lawful money of the United States of
America.

      


      The entire unpaid balance of this Note
shall be immediately due and payable on demand.  The principal of this
Note shall bear interest at a rate no higher than six percent (6%) per annum if
not paid when due.

      


      The Makers promise to pay all costs of
collection, including reasonable attorney’s fees, upon default in the payment of
the principal of this Note, when due, whether suit be brought or
not.

      


      In the event any one or more of the
provisions contained in this Note shall for any reason be invalid, illegal or
unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability
shall not affect any other provision of this Note, but this Note shall be
construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been
contained herein.

      


      This Note is irrevocable and is given
in connection with the public offering of units of limited partnership interests
in the Commonwealth Income & Growth Funds, Pennsylvania limited partnerships
(the “Partnerships”), and no waiver or modification of the terms of this Note
shall be permitted without the prior written consent of Payee and the
Partnership.

      


      This Note shall be governed in all
respects by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and shall be binding
upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto.

      


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Makers have caused
this Note to be duly executed the day and year first above written.

      


      


      


      WITNESS:


    

    
      
        	 	 
	
                  /s/
      Dorothy A. Ferguson

              	
                 /s/
      George S. Springsteen

              
	 
      	
                George
      S. Springsteen, President & Director

              
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                /s/
      Kimberly A. MacDougall

              
	 
      	
                Kimberly
      A. MacDougall, EVP &
Director
#### WILSON v. WRIGHT & LOPEZ.

No. 6575.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 14, 1942.

M. C. Redmond, of Monroe, for appellant.

McHenry, Lamkin & Titche, of Monroe, for appellees.

DREW, Judge.

This is a suit for compensation. Plaintiff was employed by defendant as a common laborer at a salary of $12 per week. While carrying a piece of pipe, as he was directed to do by his foreman, his foot slipped on the edge of a ditch which was approximately 32 inches deep and he fell into the ditch, landing on his back. He got up immediately and continued his labors for the day. The accident occurred about 1:30 P. M. Plaintiff reported for duty the next day and after working about one hour was discharged because he was not keeping up with the other workmen. After having been discharged and paid he reported the accident to his superiors.

The accident occurred, on August 11, 1941 and on September 8, 1941, plaintiff filed this suit in which he alleged that he wrenched his back and that the injuries were of a permanent nature. He prayed for compensation at the rate of 65% of his weekly wages for a period not to exceed 400 weeks.

Defendant in answer admits plaintiff’s employment but denies all other allegations.

The lower court awarded plaintiff judgment for 65% of his weekly wages for a period of 24 weeks.

The case was tried below on March 10, 1942. Plaintiff has perfected an appeal from the judgment of the lowér court. There is no answer to the appeal by defendant, therefore the only question for us to determine is whether or not plaintiff is entitled to more than 24 weeks’ compensation.

We are convinced the judgment of the lower court does justice between the parties. The only testimony in the record is that of plaintiff and a fellow laborer as to the occurrence of the accident, and the medical testimony. There is no doubt about the happening of the accident and we are convinced that the plaintiff sprained his back slightly at that time. However, on the trial of the case his medical experts attempted to show a fracture of a vertebra in the back. In this we are convinced they completely failed. There is no fracture of any vertebra in plaintiff’s back. He has some arthritis but this is accounted for by the condition of his mouth. He is suffering from pyorrhea of long standing.

The medical testimony preponderates greatly in favor of the fact that plaintiff had fully recovered from any disability caused by the accident at the time of trial below. The slight sprain of the back received by him should have disappeared within at most ten weeks. We realize the lower court arbitrarily fixed the number of weeks of plaintiff’s disability, no doubt basing it on the longest period of time any of •the doctors testified it would take to get over such a sprain.

The judgment, in our opinion, is liberal to plaintiff and it is affirmed; cost of appeal to be paid by appellant.
#### Joshua W. Jones, Pltff in Error, *v.*The People, Defts in Error.

ERROR TO SCOTT.

In a trial for larceny, if the Court instruct that possession of property recently stolen, is *ptima facie*evidence of guilt, it is wrong to refuse an instruction, based up-en the hypothesis that the accused had fairly acquired the property by purchase.

Jones was indicted for larceny at the Sept. Term, 1848, of the Green Circuit Court, and obtained a change of venue to Scott county. At the September Term, 1849, of the Scott Circuit Court, Jones was tried and convicted. After hearing a motion for a new trial, and overruling the same, the Court sentenced Jones to one year in the Penitentiary.

Jones brings the cause to this Court, by writ of error.

W. I. Eerg-usoh", and M. McCohnel, for PM in Error»

D. B. Campbell, District Att’y, for the People.

Treat, C. J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted' on ana indictment for larceny. On the trial, the Court, at the instance; of the prosecution, instructed the jury that “possession of property, recently stolen, is *prima facie*evidence of the guilt of the' possessor, unless he shall make a satisfactory and uncontradictory account of how he obtained the possession.” The Court declined to give the following instruction, demanded by the prisoner : “ If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the defendant: bought the property, and paid for it in the city of Springfield, and' this pui’chase was open and public, unconnected with any suspicious circumstances of guilt, that is a satisfactory account off his possession of the property, and removes all presumption off guilt, growing out of his possession thereof.” The refusal to give • this instruction, is assigned for error.

The instruction is subject to no just exception. It asserts a correct legal proposition, and the Court erred in refusing.it; It is manifest, from the circumstances of the case, that the refusal, of the Court, to give the instruction, may have materially prejú- • diced the prisoner. The Court had already in effect, instructed the jury that, if the property was found in the possession of the prisoner soon after it was stolen, a *prima facie*case was made; *262against him, and he was bound, in order to discharge himself, to show satisfactorily how he Obtained the possession.

The instruction in question, supposed a state of case, which fully repelled any presumption arising from the mere fact that the property was found in the possession of the prisoner. It was based on the hypothesis that he had fairly acquired the property by purchase. If it came into his hands in that way, the ¡subsequent possession was entirely consistent with his innocence.

The refusal of the Court to give the instruction, may have left the impression on the minds of the jury, that the facts indicated therein, if appearing in evidence, were not sufficient to overcome the presumption of guilt, resulting from the possession of the property.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

*Judgment reversed.*
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 18 - 00278 - CR LEVI STUART NICHOLS AKA LEVI STUART NICHOLAS, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 74,586 - E, Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn, Presiding



### February 26 , 2020 ORDER Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS , JJ. Pending before the Court is appellant’s motion for rehearing. We clarify one matter addressed in the motion and otherwise deny it. The matter concerns the first footnote in our opinion. Through it, we observed that 1) the circumstances could raise suspi cions about whether the sole purpose of the inventory was to search for drugs, and 2) appellant did not so argue below or on appeal as grounds for suppressing the contraband eventually found. Appellant replied to those observations by arguing that: In ad dition, the substance of footnote 1 of this Court’s opinion seems to imply that trial counsel below should have requested the trial court to issue2

fact findings on whether the totality of the circumstances evinced an intent on the part of the police to co nduct a pretextual inventory search. However, pretextual seizures are permitted under the current state of the law. Therefore, to request such a finding in the instant case would have accomplished little. We make no comment on whether “pretextual seizures are permitted under the current state of the law.” Rather, our intent was to indicate that appellant did not question whether the inventory was undertaken in good faith or merely as a subterfuge to justif y a general search for contraband. As said in Colorado v. Bertine , 479 U.S. 367, 107 S. Ct. 738, 93 L. Ed. 2d 739 (1987), “reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfy the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 374 (emphasis added). Similarly, our United States Supreme Court in Florida v. Wells , 495 U.S. 1, 110 S. Ct. 1632, 109 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990), explained that inventory searches were permissible due to “the principle that an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence .” Id. at 4 (emphasis added). Because appellant did not contend that, under the circumstances at bar, the inventory procedures were not administered in “good faith” or were invoked m erely as “a ruse for a general rummaging . . . to discover incriminating evidence,” that topic fell outside the scope of our review. See Washington v. State , 152 S.W.3d 209, 213 (Tex. App. — Amarillo 2004, no pet.) (holding that the issue of whether the tri al court erred in refusing to suppress evidence was waived because the grounds asserted on appeal did not comport with those proffered to the trial court). With that, we deny the motion for rehearing. Per Curiam Do not publish.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Emmett D. Page for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus to Max Kohn, Grand Chief Ranger, and Andrew West, Acting Grand *894Treasurer, or Grand Treasurer, of the Grand Court, Foresters of America, State of New York.

Motion denied. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            4102
<SECURITIES>                                       531
<RECEIVABLES>                                      574
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        342
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5564
<PP&E>                                            1320
<DEPRECIATION>                                     848
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6036
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              306
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           250
<OTHER-SE>                                        5180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6036
<SALES>                                            884
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   884
<CGS>                                              592
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      592
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   145
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    203
<INCOME-TAX>                                        87
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                216
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       216
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>