alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Since the Gove rnment has a lrea dy located these videotapes, it admits that obtaining 1 them will not cause a

ny unfair disruption or burden on its day -to-day activities. The Gove rnment’s

(continued...) UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA M OHA M M ED AL AD AH I, : : P etitioner , :

: v. : Ci vi l A cti on No. 05 -28 0 (GK) : BARACK

OBAMA, et al., : : Re spo nde nt s. :

OR DE R Petitioner Al Adahi has moved t o compel R espondent to produce videotapes of three forc ed extractions of Petitioner from his c ell at Guanta namo B ay . Since the filing of this Motion on J une 8, 2009, the Gover

nment has informe d Petitioner of the existence of vide otapes of thr ee a dditional

e xtra c tio ns . Re sp on de nts se e k to us e a numbe r o f s tate me nts ma de by Pe tit ion e r a g a ins t hi m at hi s habea s corpus he aringto be held on Monday , J une 22, 2009. No counsel, either f or the Petitioner or the Gove rnment, has se en the videota pes. Consequently , it is impossible f or any counsel to make repr esentations as to whether the y are or are not e x culpatory

. Petitioner argues that there are rea sons to believe that the a ctions of t he F orce d Cell Ex trac tion Teams (“ FCE Te ams”) ha ve in the past be en abusive, violent, and inhumane . See Exh. A to P etitioner’s Moti on. In this case, one of the for ced extractions occur

red a pproxi mately

15 day s after

Petitioner Al Ad ah i g ave a very inculpatory statement to Gover

nment interrog ators. Consequently , the videotape s may be ex culpatory , in which

case they would fall squar ely

within paragraph I .D.1 of the Case Manag ement Or der. The ref ore, the videotapes must be pr oduced so that this determination can be made. 1(...continued) 1 c on c e rn that an o rd e r t o c omp e l pr od uc tio n of the vid e ota

pe s in thi s c a se mig ht “ op e n th e do or ” to other detainees to reque st such evidence, is unpersua sive. Eac h merits judge will make his or her own deter mination on the basis of the spec ific fa cts prese nted if such a motion is made. Sin c e thi s is a

six- da y be nc h tri a l, the ta

pe s may be pla

y e d at a late r p oint in

the tr ia l, 2 a f t e r t h e c o n c l u s i o no f

P e t i t i o n e r ’ s c a s e , i f

th e y ar e d e e m e d

e x c u l p a t o r

y. -2- WHEREFORE , it is t his 18th day of June, 2009, hereby OR DE RE D , th a t Pe tit ion e r’ s Moti on to Comp e l Prod uc tio n of I RF Vi de ota

pe s is granted , and the vid e ota

pe s d isc us se d must be pr od uc e d by F ri da

y , J un e 19 , 200 9, un le ss co un se l ar e a ble to ag ree to a diffe rent sche dule. 2

/ s / Glady s Kessler Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge Copies via ECF t o all couns el of recor d
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4254 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4254

  To amend the Community Services Block Grant Act with respect to the 
    composition of the boards of community action agencies, and of 
  nonprofit private organizations, that receive funds under such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 1996

 Mr. Kleczka introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
          Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Community Services Block Grant Act with respect to the 
    composition of the boards of community action agencies, and of 
  nonprofit private organizations, that receive funds under such Act.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 675(c)(3) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 
U.S.C. 9904(c)(3)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``will'' and inserting 
        ``may'', and
            (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``either establish'' 
        and inserting ``will establish either''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect on October 1, 1996.
                                 <all>
```
Prepared by R.R. Donnelley Financial -- EX-10.18




 Exhibit 10.18 

2014 CASH INCENTIVE PLAN 
 Purpose: 

The Mobile Iron, Inc. (the “Company”) 2014 Cash Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is applicable to our Named Executive
Officers (as defined in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission), other than our Senior Vice President of Sales, and certain other executives as determined by the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) . The Plan is designed to reward the participants for assisting the Company in achieving its operational goals through exemplary performance. The overarching intent in setting and achieving
the goals is to build long-term stockholder value. 
 Determination of 2014 Cash Bonuses: 

Under the Plan, cash bonuses, if any, will be based on the achievement by the Company of worldwide adjusted pro forma revenue and gross margin
targets as determined at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors or, in the case of our Chief Executive Officer, the Board of Directors. Target bonuses for Named Executive Officers participating in the plan are 25% of
the participant’s 2014 on-target earnings, and target bonuses for other participants are 20% of the participant’s on-target earnings. The Board and the Compensation Committee reserve the right to modify these goals and criteria or to
otherwise amend or terminate the Plan at any time.
#### Edward B. DUCASSE, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Alcide L. SALAUN, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.*

No. 14171.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 27, 1933.

Spearing & McClendon, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Henry G. Neyrey, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

*

 Rehearing denied March 2,7, 1933. Writ of certiorari denied by Supreme Court May 1, 1933.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This case grows out of an automobile accident which occurred in the early morning of December 20, 1930, when the Studebaker automobile driven -by Francis Ducasse, plaintiff’s nephew, collided with a Chevrolet automobile driven by Harold Salaun, minor son of defendant. The circumstances of the accident are detailed in our opinion in Salaun et al. v. Ducasse, 141 So. 473, where we considered the question -of responsibility for the accident and held young Ducasse, the driver of the Studebaker automobile, to be alone responsible.

In the instant case the trial court acting independently reached a different conclusion. We have examined the record and find no substantial difference in the-facts established *173therein and those which we found in the former case; consequently, with due respect to our brother below, we adhere to our former opinion.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is annulled, avoided, and reversed, and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of defendant dismissing plaintiff's demand at his cost.

Reversed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 60 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 60

   To provide that compliance by the States with the National Voter 
              Registration Act of 1993 shall be voluntary.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

Mr. Livingston introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide that compliance by the States with the National Voter 
              Registration Act of 1993 shall be voluntary.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, on and after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, compliance by the States with the 
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.) 
shall be voluntary.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT (11) - STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE AND PRO FORMA
EARNINGS PER SHARE (1997)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,

                                                             1997                 1996              1995      
                                                      -----------------   -----------------  -----------------
<S>                                                       <C>                <C>                <C>
Average number of shares outstanding..............          31,507,622          27,655,964         23,340,706 
                                                      =================   =================  =================
Net loss                                                  $ (5,302,000)      $ (26,593,178)     $ (19,660,458)
                                                      =================   =================  =================
Less:  amortization of redeemable preferred
    stock beneficial conversion discount                  $ (2,222,000)      $           -      $           - 
                                                      -----------------   -----------------  -----------------
Loss applicable to common shares                          $ (7,524,000)      $ (26,593,178)     $ (19,660,458)
                                                      =================   =================  =================

Net loss per share                                        $      (0.24)      $       (0.96)     $       (0.84)
                                                      =================   =================  =================
</TABLE>
Addendum to Independent Contractor Agreement





EXHIBIT 10.9




EXHIBIT A




PROJECT ASSIGNMENT










Title

Services:




Chief Operating Officer
















Payment of Fees. Fee will be:




Ô

Monthly Consulting Fee: $5,000 per month. Monthly fee will be revisited based on cash flow. Any increase will be directly related to cash flow from sales.




NOTE: The Project Assignment dated

5/01/2019 is null and void. This Project Assignment supersedes the Project Assignment dated 5/01/2019. This Project Assignment is governed by the terms of an Independent Contractor Services Agreement in effect between Company and Contractor. Any item in this Project Assignment that is inconsistent with such agreement is invalid.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Project Assignment as of the later date below.
Exhibit 32.2






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 June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) by China Sports Holding Company Limited (the “Company”), I, Wing Sang Tommy Lo, the Chief Financial 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.





Date: August 16, 2010
By:
/s/ Wing Sang Tommy LoWing Sang Tommy LoChief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer




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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Melinda Hasbrouck, as Sole Executrix, etc., of Frederick Hasbrouck, Deceased, Respondent.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 62

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified estate

and gift tax credit to an amount equivalent to a $1,200,000 exemption.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. LIVINGSTON 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 increase

the unified estate and gift tax credit to an amount equivalent to a $1,200,000 exemption.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN UNIFIED ESTATE AND GIFT TAX

4 CREDIT.

5 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Sections 2010(a),

6 2102(c)(3)(A), and 2505(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue

7 Code of 1986 are each amended by striking ‘‘$192,800’’

8 and inserting ‘‘$427,800’’.
2

•HR 62 IH

1 (b) FILING REQUIREMENT.—Paragraph (1) of sec2 tion 6018(a) of such Code is amended by striking

3 ‘‘$600,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,200,000’’.

4 (c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (2) of sec5 tion 2001(c) of such Code is amended by striking

6 ‘‘$21,040,000’’ and inserting ‘‘the amount at which the

7 effective tax rate under this section is 55 percent’’.

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

9 this section shall apply to the estates of decedents dying,

10 and gifts made, after the date of the enactment of this

11 Act.

Æ
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Time and Date:

11 a.m., Friday, August 22, 2008.

# Place: 

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# Status: 

Closed.

# Matters To Be Considered:

Surveillance Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,

Staff Assistant.

 [FR Doc. E8-18323 Filed 8-5-08; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
#### The Real Estate-Land Title & Trust Co., Trustee, *v.*City of Springfield et al.

(No. 22938

Decided June 15, 1932.)

*535*Messrs. Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul, Messrs. Tolies, Hogsett & Ginn*and *Messrs. Cole, Bowman & Hodge,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. M. E. Spencer,*city solicitor, and Kir. *Arthur J. Todd,*for the City of Springfield.

*Mr. William M. Wherry,*for Transit Improvement Company.

*Messrs. Martin <& Gorry,*for the Springfield Railway Company and Willis H. Sawyer, Receiver.

By the Court

(Kinkade, J.).

There is no dispute between the parties about the amount due the city from the company, or about the amount due from the company to the trustee under the mortgage. The only question involved is one of priority. The claim of the • city arises by reason of money expended by the city on behalf of the company, in paving and repaving the streets. Bonds of the city were issued to enable the city to make these payments after the company had failed to maintain a deposit account covering the same, or to pay otherwise the amounts due to the city. Unless the city be given priority of lien, the city will be obliged to impose a general tax to enable it to take care of its bonds, issued and used in this behalf.

The receiver has in his hands as income, in round figures, about $200,000. If the claim of the city be allowed priority with respect to this amount, there will be nothing left of this impounded income fund for *536the bondholders. On the other hand, if the bondholders be granted priority with respect to this fund, there will be nothing left of the income fund to apply on the claim of the city. It is urged upon our attention that the claims of the bondholders should be given priority by reason of the fact that the mortgage securing the bonds was duly recorded, and that its lien thereupon attached, and that nothing has since taken place that could legally interfere with the priority of that lien.

It should be borne in mind that the ordinance of the city was regularly passed and regularly entered upon the records of ordinances of the city, and that action of the city antedates the recording of the bond mortgage by more than a year. There was nothing secret about the lien granted to the city by the franchise ordinance. It is not contended, and manifestly could not be maintained, that the trustee named in the mortgage did not know all the terms and provisions of the twenty-five-year franchise ordinance when the mortgage was executed.

We have no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the city held a valid and legal lien, by virtue of the terms of the twenty-five-year franchise ordinance, upon all the property of the company, real and personal, and including as well the earnings and income of the property accruing during the operation of the plant by the receiver, and that this lien of the city was and is prior to the lien of the trustee in favor of the bondholders.

We find no reversible error in the judgments of the trial and appellate courts, and those judgments will be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Matthias, Day, Allen and Stephenson, JJ., concur.

Jones, J., not participating.
Exhibit 32.2











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 Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Marc L. Baker, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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, 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.





/s/ Marc L. Baker





Marc L. Baker


Acting Chief Financial Officer


Dated: May 19, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Frank L. Combs, Appellant, v. Sarah E. Snell, Respondent, Impleaded with William M. Combs and Elizabeth Combs, Appellants.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 581

To amend the Clean Air Act to permit areas not contributing to more

than 35 percent of ozone concentrations to comply with Marginal Area

requirements for purposes of ozone nonattainment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 19, 1995

Mr. HOEKSTRA (for himself, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. UPTON, Mr. KNOLLENBERG,

Mr. BARCIA, Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Mr. CAMP, and Mr. CHRYSLER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Clean Air Act to permit areas not contributing

to more than 35 percent of ozone concentrations to comply with Marginal Area requirements for purposes of

ozone nonattainment.

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

3 SECTION 1. RURAL TRANSPORT AREAS.

4 Section 182(h) of the Clean Air Act is amended by

5 adding the following new paragraph at the end thereof:

6 ‘‘(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of section

7 181 or this section, a rural or non rural area shall be
2

•HR 581 IH

1 treated by operation of law as satisfying the requirements

2 of this section if the State makes the submissions required

3 under subsection (a) of this section (relating to Marginal

4 Areas) for the area and if sources of VOC (and where the

5 Administrator determines relevant, NOx) emissions within

6 the area do not contribute to more than 35 percent of the

7 ozone concentrations measured in the area or in other

8 areas.’’.

Æ
**Exhibit
32.2**
  **CERTIFICATION**
  In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Stratasys, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas W.
Stenoien, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, 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:
      March 23, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Thomas
      W. StenoienThomas
      W. Stenoien
      Chief
      Financial Officer