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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 643

To extend the effectiveness of an exemption from the requirements of the

Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 23, 1995

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

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To extend the effectiveness of an exemption from the requirements of the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION MANAGEMENT

4 INTERLOCKS EXEMPTION.

5 (a) EXTENSION.—Section 206 of the Depository In6 stitution Management Interlocks Act (12 U.S.C. 3205) is

7 amended—

8 (1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by

9 striking ‘‘for a period of, subject to the requirements

10 of subsection (c), 20 years after the date of enact-
2

•HR 643 IH

1 ment of this title’’ and inserting ‘‘, subject to the re2 quirements of subsection (c)’’; and

3 (2) in subsection (b)—

4 (A) by inserting ‘‘and subject to the re5 quirements of subsection (c)’’ after ‘‘Effective

6 on the date of enactment of this title’’; and

7 (B) by striking the last sentence.

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

9 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact10 ment of this Act.

Æ
#### Edward Eugene BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 72-3020.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 15, 1972.

Edward Brown, pro se.

John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., William P. Gaffney, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondents-appellees.

Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant having failed to file a brief, this appeal is referred to us under the provisions of Local Rule 9(c)(2).1 The record reveals that the appeal is entirely lacking in merit and we therefore dismiss.2

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c)(2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

2

. See Local Rule 20; Eisenhardt v. United States, 5th Cir. 1972, 461 F.2d 1267.
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-08-024] 

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

United States International Trade Commission. 

# Time and Date:

August 15, 2008 at 11 a.m. 

# Place:

Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000. 

# Status:

Open to the public. 

# Matters to be Considered:

1. Agenda for future meetings: None. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Inv. Nos. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Final) (Certain Off-the-Road Tires from China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before August 28, 2008.) 

5. Outstanding action jackets: 

1) Document No. GC-08-147: Final disposition of Inv. No. 337-TA-487 (Certain Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof). 

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. 

By order of the Commission.
      ( print page 46335)    
Issued: August 5, 2008. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.

[FR Doc. E8-18328 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) by China Sports Holding Company Limited (the “Company”), I, Mendoza Anding Lin, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:




1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and




2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







CHINA SPORTS HOLDING COMPANY LIMITEDDated: May 23, 2011
By:
/s/Mendoza Anding LinMendoza Anding LinPresident, Chief Executive Officer,

Interim Chief FinancialOfficer and Chairman




This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished upon request.
#### John E. Dow, impleaded with William Dow, Pltff in Erorr, *v.*Samuel Rattle, Deft in Error.

ERROR TO Me HENRY.

It is error to enter a final judgment, before disposing of the issue tendered by a plea. It is error to enter a judgment against one of several defendants, without disposing of the case as to the others.

Where there are several defendants before the Court, the case has to be tried as to all, before any final judgment can be properly entered.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Rattle in the Circuit Court of Mo Henry county. The declaration contained a count upon an endorsed note, and the common counts. The process issued against John E. Dow, and William Dow. The return showed service on John E. Dow, William Dow not being found.

A demurrer was filed to the first count of the declaration, averring, “ And the said defendants comes and defends and says,” &c., and that the “ plaintiff ought not to have his action against them, and that they are not bound,” &e., signed 0. McClure, Defts. Atty, plea of the general issue was filed by both defendants, to the remainder -of the declaration. Issue was joined to the demurrer and plea. The demurrer was overruled. The defendants stood by their demurrer, and the Clerk assessed the damages of plaintiff at two hundred and twenty-eight dollars and thirty-nine cents, and judgment was rendered against John E. Dow, for that amount. No notice was taken of the other defendant or of the plea of the general issue.

John E. Dow, sued out this writ of error, and assigns the following grounds of error. The overruling of the demurrer. The rendition of the judgment-against John E. Dow, on the demurrer, when the demurrer had been filed by the defendants jointly. The rendition of the final judgment, without disposing of the plea of the general issue.

CL McClure, for Pltff in Error.

James Loop, for Deft in Error.

Treat, C. J.

Assumpsit against two; one only served with process. The defendants demurred to the first count, and pleaded non-assumpsit to the second. The Court overruled the demurrer, and without noticing the plea, rendered judgment *374against the defendant served with process. That judgment must be reversed on two grounds. It was error to enter final judgment for the plaintiff, before disposing of the issue tendered by the plea. It was also error to enter judgment against one of the defendants, without disposing of the case as to the other: Both were before the Court, and the case had to he tried as to both, before any final judgment could properly be entered.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

*Judgment*reversed.
#### BLANKENSHIP v. STOVALL et al.

No. 4999.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 3, 1935.

For former opinion, see 159 So. 477.

Ponder & Ponder, of Many, for appellants.

J. S. Pickett, of Many, for appellee. '

PER CURIAM.

Appellant asks for a rehearing on the sole question of costs, upon which our opinion is silent.

The reduction obtained by appellant in the amount of the judgment, from $150 to $92.50, is substantial. While, under the provisions of section 2 of Act No. 229 of 1910, we have full discretion in the assessing of costs, we think it sufficient to impose upon appellee the. burden of paying that of the appeal.

Our judgment in the case is therefore amended by casting appellee for the cost of appeal.
#### Good *v.*Good.

Additional counsel will be heard in argument in the supreme court, on behalf of the plaintiff in error, where the court declines to hear argument for the defendant in error.

Feb. 13, 1889.

On argument of No. 397, Jan. T., 1889, error to C. P. Chester Co., reported in 1 Mona. 718. Green and Clark, JJ., absent.

*George B. Johnson*and *Wm. M.*Hayes, for plaintiff in error.

*John J. Gheen*and *H. T Fairlamb,*for defendant in error,

not heard.

After the case was argued by Mr. Johnson, the court said they did not care to hear from the other side. Mr. Hayes thereupon asked to be heard.

Paxson, C. J.,

after consultation, granted the request.

See, also, the preceding case.
#### LINER v. AUTHEMENT et al.

No. 1199.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 5, 1933.

Harris Gagne, of Houma, for appellants.

O. A. Blanchard, of Morgan City, for appel-lee.

ELLIOTT, Judge.

In this case defendants-appellants moved for and were granted an appeal herein to this court.

Plaintiff’s petition alleges damages, sustained by him, to the extent of $4,000 on account of a trespass on land, slander, libel, humiliation, etc., and prays for judgment for that amount against Alphonse Authement, school board of the parish of Terrebonne, and Baker Smith, in solido, on that account. No part of the amount claimed is for physical injuries.

This court has no jurisdiction of the amount in dispute. The appeal has been brought to the wrong court. It should have been taken to the Supreme Court. Acting under the provisions of Act No. 19 of 1912, the appeal will be transferred to the Supreme Codi’t.

It is therefore ordered that the cleric of this court return this record to the clerk of the district'at Houma, La., that the clerk of said district court make triplicate copies of this record, as required for appeals to the Supreme Court, and that the transcripts be filed in the Supreme Court on November 6, 1933.

It is further ordered that certified copies of this order be made by the clerk of the said district court; one addressed to the plaintiff, Henry Liner, and one addressed to each of the defendants, Alphonse Authement, school board of the parish of Terrebonne, and Baker Smith, upon receipt of this order, and that the sheriff of the parish of Terrebonne serve said certified copies of this order, without delay, upon each of said parties, making due return as the law directs.
Document

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
GPI US Consolidated Pension Plan 
(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2017)


        WHEREAS, Graphic Packaging International, LLC (the “Company”) maintains for the benefit of its employees the GPI US Consolidated Pension Plan (the “Plan”); and


        WHEREAS, Section 4.1 of the Plan authorizes the Board of Directors of Graphic Packaging Holding Company (the “Board”) to amend the Plan at any time; and


        WHEREAS, the Board has delegated to the Retirement Committee of Graphic Packaging International, LLC (the “Retirement Committee”) the responsibility to make certain amendments to the Plan; and


        WHEREAS, the Retirement Committee deems it desirable to amend the Riverwood International Hourly Retirement Subplan of the Plan (the “Riverwood Hourly Subplan”), consistent with recent collective bargaining, to restore disability benefits for employees at the Company’s Monroe, Louisiana Operations Plant (formerly known as its West Monroe, Louisiana Beverage Carton Plant) represented by Local 654 of the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied-Industrial and Service Workers International Union, which had previously had been eliminated;


        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, effective as of the date this amendment to the Plan is executed, paragraph (5) of the section of Appendix D of the Riverwood Hourly Subplan entitled “PROVISIONS RESPECTING THE FREEZING OF BENEFIT ACCRUALS FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS AND THE CLOSING OF THIS APPENDIX D TO NEW MEMBERS” is amended to read as follows:


(5) A Non-Grandfathered Member, including a Member who makes the election to be treated as a Non­Grandfathered Member in accordance with the subparagraph (2) above, shall remain eligible for a Disability Retirement in accordance with the terms of the Plan.
























[signatures on the following page]
1






BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Retirement Committee has approved this Fifth Amendment to the GPI US Consolidated Pension Plan this 19th day of September, 2019.




GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, LLC RETIREMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS




						
	By:	/s/ Stephen R. Scherger
		Stephen R. Scherger
		
	By:	/s/ Stacey Panayiotou
		Stacey Panayiotou
		
	By:	/s/ Brad Ankerholz
		Brad Ankerholz 
		
	By:	/s/ Debbie Frank
		Debbie Frank
		
	By:	/s/ Brian A. Wilson
		Brian A. Wilson




        




2
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**


**ACTING
      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF**


**AVRO
      ENERGY INC.**


**FORM
      10-QSB FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2007**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I,
      Mike
      P. Kurtanjek , am the Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial Officer
      of Avro Energy Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering
      this
      certificate in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
      Company for the nine month period ended September 30, 2007 and filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission ("Quarterly Report").




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
      the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
      contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
                February
                4, 2008By:
                */s/ Mike P. Kurtanjek*
              
              MIKE
                P. KURTANJEK
              Chief
                Executive Officer, President, acting Chief Financial Officer, acting
                Principal Accounting Officer and Director
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.9



Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement
This Amendment No. 1to Amended And Restated Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is effective as of January 1, 2020 (“Effective Date”) by and between Healthcare Realty Trust Incorporated, a Maryland corporation (“Corporation”), and Robert E. Hull (“Officer”).
Recitals
Whereas, the Corporation has heretofore employed the Officer as its Executive Vice President - Investments under the terms of an employment agreement dated January 1, 2017 (the “Employment Agreement”); and
Whereas, the parties desire to modify the Employment Agreement with this amendment; 
Now, Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing premises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby affirmed, the parties hereto agree to the following to amend the Employment Agreement as of the Effective Date:


1.    Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and the following substituted in its place:
3.1    Base Salary. As payment for the services to be rendered by Officer as provided in Section 1 and subject to the terms and conditions of Section 2, Corporation agrees to pay to Officer a “Base Salary” at the rate of $450,000 per annum payable in equal semi-monthly installments, or in such other periodic installments as mutually agreed to by Corporation and Officer. 
2.    This Amendment represents the entire understanding among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and, as of the Effective Date, this Amendment supersedes any and all prior understandings, agreements, plans and negotiations, whether written or oral, with respect to the subject matter hereof. All modifications to the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, must be in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of such modification is sought. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement remains unaltered and in full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. 


[Execution Page Follows]






Exhibit 10.9



EXECUTION PAGE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the 12th day of February, to be effective as of the Effective Date.
Corporation:
Healthcare Realty Trust Incorporated


                                      	
		
	By:
	/s/ John M. Bryant, Jr.

	Name:
	John M. Bryant, Jr.

	Title:
	Executive Vice President and General Counsel










Officer:
                    	
	
	/s/ Robert E. Hull

	Robert E. Hull
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 388 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 388

  To require the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
 Administration, in meeting the needs of the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration for additional facilities, to select abandoned and 
           underutilized facilities in depressed communities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

Mr. Traficant introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Science.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
 Administration, in meeting the needs of the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration for additional facilities, to select abandoned and 
           underutilized facilities in depressed communities.

    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 shall be cited as the ``National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Decentralization Act of 1993.''

SEC. 2. USE OF ABANDONED AND UNDERUTILIZED BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND 
              FACILITIES.

    In meeting the needs of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration for additional facilities, the Administrator shall 
select abandoned and underutilized buildings, grounds, and facilities 
in depressed communities that can be converted to National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration facilities at a reasonable cost, as determined 
by the Administrator.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    For purposes of this Act, the term ``depressed communities'' means 
rural and urban communities that are relatively depressed, in terms of 
age of housing, extent of poverty, growth of per capita income, extent 
of unemployment, job lag, or surplus labor.

                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GEORGIA A. POWELL,

Plaintiff Civil Action No. 09-12795

v. Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen 

 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on motions for summary judgment by both parties.

For the reasons set forth in an Opinion and Order entered on this date, granting the

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this case be, and hereby is,

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

S/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: June 1, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served on the attorneys

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on June 1, 2010.

S/Gina Wilson 

Judicial Assistant
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50571

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-01-CR-651-1-WWJ

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

February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Martinez-Hernandez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the

two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). Martinez-Hernandez complains that his sentence was

improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He argues

that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. 

Alternatively, Martinez-Hernandez contends that 8 U.S.C.
No. 02-50571

-2-

§ 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He

argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased

sentence was an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Martinez-Hernandez acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.