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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 674 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 674

To provide that a spouse, former spouse, surviving spouse, or surviving 
former spouse may qualify for retirement, survivor, and health benefits 
  under the Foreign Service Act if the Foreign Service participant is 
disqualified for such benefits for reasons of misconduct or disloyalty 
                         to the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 1995

 Mrs. Maloney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on International Relations and, in addition, to the Committee 
  on Government Reform and Oversight, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that a spouse, former spouse, surviving spouse, or surviving 
former spouse may qualify for retirement, survivor, and health benefits 
  under the Foreign Service Act if the Foreign Service participant is 
disqualified for such benefits for reasons of misconduct or disloyalty 
                         to the United States.

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

SECTION 1. RETENTION OF SPOUSAL RETIREMENT, SURVIVOR, AND HEALTH 
              BENEFITS UNDER FOREIGN SERVICE ACT IF PARTICIPANT 
              DISQUALIFIED DUE TO MISCONDUCT OR DISLOYALTY TO THE 
              UNITED STATES.

    (a) In General.--The Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3901 et 
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 833 the following section:
    ``Sec. 834. Retention of Spousal Retirement, Survivor, and Health 
Benefits if Participant Disqualified Due to Misconduct or Disloyalty to 
the United States.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
subchapter, any retirement, survivor, health, or other benefit which 
would be payable or available under this subchapter to an otherwise 
qualified surviving spouse, former spouse, or surviving former spouse 
except that the participant is disqualified for such benefits under 
this Act for official misconduct or disloyalty to the United States, 
shall be paid and made available to any such spouse (in the same manner 
as such payments would have been made but for the participants 
disqualification) if such spouse had no involvement in such misconduct 
or disloyalty to the United States.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to any application for benefits after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 679 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 679

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to make Barnegat Bay, 
  New Jersey, eligible for priority consideration under the national 
                            estuary program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 1995

  Mr. Saxton (for himself, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Zimmer, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. 
Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Martini, and 
   Mr. Smith of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to make Barnegat Bay, 
  New Jersey, eligible for priority consideration under the national 
                            estuary program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 
320(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
1330(a)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting ``Barnegat Bay, New Jersey;'' 
after ``Puget Sound, Washington;''.
                                 <all>
```
#### GOSS v. THERMATOMIC CARBON CO., Inc., et al.

No. 6523.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 14, 1942.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for appellants.

Dhu Thompson, of Monroe, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

This is a suit for compensation. The plaintiff alleged he was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment and that his injuries have totally and permanently disabled him from performing any work of a reasonable character.

Defendants admit the accident as alleged by plaintiff but deny it caused *him any*disability and allege it was of a trivial nature.

The lower court awarded' plaintiff judgment as prayed for and defendants are prosecuting this appeal.

The case consumed two days’ time in the trial below and a reading of the entire testimony, both by experts and lay witnesses for plaintiff and defendants, convinces us of the correctness of the decision of the lower court. The testimony as a whole is so overwhelmingly in favor of plaintiff’s contention until we wonder why an appeal was perfected in the case. However, there is no answer to the appeal and no prayer for damages for frivolous appeal.

Plaintiff and other employees of defendant Thermatomic Carbon Company, Inc., were installing a large valve and plaintiff was standing on a heating part pulling on the end of a large Stillson wrench. The wrench slipped and struck him in the right side, just below the ribs with such force as to cause a rupture of the right kidney. He continued to work in severe pain for eight or nine days after receiving first aid, which consisted of taping his side, when he was forced to cease his work. Plaintiff has not worked since and at the time of trial below was still passing blood in his urine. Numerous doctors testified for plaintiff as well as for defendants and only one of them was willing to say he had fully recovered from his kidney injury and was capable of doing a day’s work. Some of the physicians who testified for defendants thought he might try to do light work but were not willing to say he had fully recovered or that he could do a day’s work without pain. The majority of the doctors were of the opinion plaintiff should not try to work in his present condition.

Plaintiff had worked for the same Company for thirteen or fourteen years and was a good worker. After the accident he refused to quit his work although it was suggested by his foreman. He continued to work as long as it was physically possible for him to do so. The evidence makes it clear that plaintiff received a severe injury which disabled him and that he had not recovered from his injury at the time of trial below. No medical men were willing to venture a guess as to how long a period *his*disability would continue.

The judgment of the lower court is correct and is affirmed, with costs.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., FKA

Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P.,

Successor by Merger on behalf of BAC

Home Loans Servicing, LP,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

LOG CABIN PONDEROSA

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. N o. 17

- 16032

D.C. No.

2:16

- cv

- 00386

- JCM

- NJK

ORDER *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 11, 2019 **

San Francisco, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

We vacate the order of the district court and remand for further proceedings

consistent with the opinion in Bank of America, N.A. v. Arlington West Twilight

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 3 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL SPage 2 of 2

Homeowners Association , No. 17

- 15796, filed today.

VACATED and REMANDED. Each party to bear its own costs.
Exhibit 32.1

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, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Eliyahu Ayalon, Chief Executive 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 16, 2007



/s/ Eliyahu AyalonEliyahu Ayalon Chief Executive
Officer
202 La. 20

#### ILES v. FLOURNOY, Sheriff.

No. 36888.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30,1942.

See, also, State v. Iles, 201 La. 398, 9 So.2d 601.

Ben F. Roberts, of Shreveport, for relator.

James U. Galloway, of Shreveport, for respondents.

HIGGINS, Justice.

The relator applied to this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction for writs of cer-tiorari and prohibition to review the judgment of the district court sustaining the exceptions of no right and no cause of action filed by the State and dismissing his suit in which he applied for a writ of injunction against the sheriff of Caddo Parish, his deputies, agents, and representatives, to enjoin them from carrying out the death warrant of the Chief Executive of this State, authorizing and directing the execution of the death sentence by electrocution, under the provisions of Act 14 of 1940.

He attacked the constitutionality of the statute as being in violation of Section 27 of Article 3 of the Constitution of 1921, in that Act 14 of 1940 specifically provides that it would become effective on June 1, 1941, whereas, the Constitution provides that an act of the Legislature shall go into effect on the twentieth day after it adjourns, and the adjournment took place on July 11, 1940,

*17In the alternative, he pleaded that the sentence of the district court and the executive death warrant based thereon were null and void because the trial judge sentenced him “to death in the manner and form provided by law” and that, therefore, the judicial department left to the discretion of the executive department the judicial function of interpreting the doubtful and indefinite sentence of the court.

We granted the writs with a stay order and the case was submitted to this Court on October 16, 1942.

In the case of Mrs. Annie Beatrice Henry v. Henry A. Reid, Sheriff of Calcasieu Parish, La.Sup., 10 So.2d 681, this day decided by us, these identical questions were raised and we held that they were not well founded and affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the suit for the reasons assigned therein. It is our opinion that the trial judge, in the instant case, properly dismissed the relator’s suit, the only difference between the two cases being that in the present one, at the time of the commission of the crime of murder on November 14, 1941, the electrocution statute had previously gone into effect, whereas, in the Henry case, the manner and mode of executing the death penalty for murder was by hanging, under the previous law in effect at the time of the commission of the crime.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court sustaining the exceptions of no right and no cause of action, and dismissing the relator’s suit, is affirmed.

ROGERS, J., absent.
#### Piper Ellis SNOWTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAMUEL MERRITT HOSPITAL, aka Summitt Medical Center, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-15184.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.

Decided Aug. 1, 2003.

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Piper Ellis Snowton (Snowton) appeals an order and final judgment dismissing Snowton’s complaint *sua sponte*under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Snowton’s claim was not stated clearly. Liberally construed, Snowton’s papers claim discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985, alleging that the hospital fraudulently concealed facts which would have supported a cause of action for medical malpractice. We have jurisdiction and we affirm.

We review *de novo. Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). Snowton applied for *in forma pauperis*status. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the district court may dismiss an *in forma pauperis*action *sua sponte*if it appears from the complaint that the action is frivolous. Frivolous actions lack an arguable basis in law or fact. *Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Cal. Civ. Proc. § 340(3) sets a one year statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claims. The year begins from the date plaintiff learns, or should have learned, of the basis for the claim. Snowton learned of the basis for the claim in 1992. Snowton filed a com*718plaint in 2002, over ten years after discovery of the basis for the claimed violations.

To explain the delay, Snowton alleges fraudulent concealment of the basis for her claims. The time limitation of Cal. Civ. Proc. § 340(3) can be tolled. For the time to be tolled, the question is whether Snow-ton had knowledge of facts, or should have knowledge about the facts sufficient to place her on notice of the facts supporting a claim. *See Migliori v. Boeing North Am. Inc.,*114 F.Supp.2d 976, 984 (C.D.Cal.2000).

Snowton claims that re-review of the documents she discovered in 1992 revealed fraudulent concealment. Snowton, however, affirmatively states that she discovered her alleged claims upon a reading of the documents she received and reviewed in 1992. Snowton should have known or knew the facts constituting support of the claims in 1992. The statute of limitations is not tolled. Snowton’s claims are time barred.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00361-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.I.M. and A.J.M., Children

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-04-29187-CV

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND CHIEF JUSTICE MARION (Ret.) 

(sitting by assignment)

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s “Final Order” dated 

order dated March 29, 2022 is AFFIRMED.

We ORDER appellee Roger Ruiz shall recover his costs incurred in this court from 

appellant Layla Martinez. 

SIGNED November 15, 2023.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
zbh-ex1049_474.htm



 

Exhibit 10.49

FIRST AMENDMENT (the “First Amendment”), dated as of April 23, 2018, between ZIMMER BIOMET G.K. (the “Borrower”) and SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION (the “Bank”), to the AMENDED AND RESTATED TERM LOAN AGREEMENT dated as of September 22, 2017 (the “Agreement”) between the Borrower and the Bank.

WITNESSETH

The Borrower and the Bank wish to amend the Agreement in certain respects. Unless otherwise defined in this First Amendment, capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.

Accordingly, in consideration of the premises contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

Section 1.Amendment. In Section 1.01 of the Agreement (captioned, “Defined Terms”), the term “Interest Payment Date” is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

“Interest Payment Date” means the 15th day of each month (subject to the provisions of Section 2.06 with respect to payments on non-Business Days), commencing on November 15, 2017 and ending on the Maturity Date.

Section 2.Effectiveness. Conditioned on the truth and accuracy of the representations made in Section 3 hereof, this First Amendment shall become effective as of the date hereof when the Bank shall have received a copy of this First Amendment, duly executed by Borrower.

Section 3.Representations. The Borrower reaffirms the representations and warranties in the Agreement as made as of the date hereof and confirms that both before and after giving effect to this First Amendment there is and will be no Event of Default under the Agreement. The Borrower makes the representations and warranties in the Agreement with respect to its execution and delivery as to the execution and delivery of this First Amendment.

Section 4.Ratification. The Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in its original form, without novation, when this First Amendment shall become effective, except as the Agreement is specifically amended by the terms of this First Amendment.

Section 5.Cross-references. Upon the effectiveness of this First Amendment, any reference to the Agreement shall mean the Agreement as amended hereby.

Section 6.Governing Law. This First Amendment shall be considered an agreement under the laws in effect in the State of New York and for all purposes shall be construed in accordance with such laws without giving effect to the conflict of laws provisions contained therein.

 

 

 



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be duly executed and delivered by their respective duly authorized officers as of the date first written above.

 


			
	
ZIMMER BIOMET G.K.

	
 

	
 

	
By:
	
/s/ Daniel P. Florin

	
 
	
Name:
	
 

	
 
	
Title:
	
 




 


			
	
SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION

	
 

	
 

	
By:
	
/s/ James D. Weinstein

	
 
	
Name:
	
James D. Weinstein

	
 
	
Title:
	
Managing Director




 

-2-
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                            RTW, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
  STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    1998             1999            2000
                                                 -----------      -----------    -----------

<S>                                              <C>              <C>            <C>
BASIC WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING         11,926,819       12,290,990     10,854,839

STOCK OPTIONS
  Options at $25.00                                       --               --             --
  Options at $19.33                                       --               --             --
  Options at $16.67                                       --               --             --
  Options at $12.50                                       --               --             --
  Options at $10.75                                       --               --             --
  Options at $ 8.67                                       --               --             --
  Options at $ 7.13                                       --               --             --
  Options at $ 6.75                                       --               --             --
  Options at $ 5.81                                       --            4,361             --
  Options at $ 5.44                                       --               --             --
  Options at $ 5.00                                       --           13,615             --
  Options at $ 4.75                                       --            1,834             --
  Options at $ 4.50                                       --           13,990             --
  Options at $ 4.38                                       --           24,778             --
  Options at $ 2.67                                       --            5,594             --
  Options at $ 2.00                                       --            4,797             --
  Options at $ 0.53                                       --               --             --
                                                 -----------      -----------    -----------

WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON AND COMMON
  SHARE EQUIVALENTS OUTSTANDING                   11,926,819       12,359,959     10,854,839
                                                 ===========      ===========    ===========

NET INCOME (LOSS)($000'S)                        $    (7,081)     $     6,167        ($9,708)
                                                 ===========      ===========    ===========

INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE:
  BASIC INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE                  $     (0.59)     $      0.50         ($0.89)
                                                 ===========      ===========    ===========
  DILUTED INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE                $     (0.59)     $      0.50         ($0.89)
                                                 ===========      ===========    ===========
</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-63,729] 

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on July 23, 2008 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Manugraph DGM, Inc., Millersburg, Pennsylvania. The workers at the subject facility produce web offset printing presses. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 1st day of August 2008. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-18578 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P