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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6177 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6177

    To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit 
  contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with 
                   ballot initiatives and referenda.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2021

  Mr. Banks (for himself and Ms. Spanberger) introduced the following 
   bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit 
  contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with 
                   ballot initiatives and referenda.

    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 ``Protecting Ballot Measures From 
Foreign Influence Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONATIONS BY FOREIGN NATIONALS 
              IN CONNECTION WITH BALLOT INITIATIVES AND REFERENDA.

    (a) Prohibition.--Section 319(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Election 
Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting 
``, or a State or local ballot initiative or ballot referendum'' after 
``election''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to contributions and donations made on or after the date 
of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### HAMMOND BOX CO., Inc., v. INDEPENDANCE STRAWBERRY CO-OPERATIVE ASS’N.

No. 2108.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 4, 1940.

*96Rownd & Tycer, of Hammond, for appellant.

Morrison & Sims and C. Paul Phelps, all of Hammond, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

This suit is on a note for $1,800, dated November 8, 1938, with 6% per annum interest thereon from date, which note provides for an additional amount of IS per cent on the principal and interest for attorneys’ fees. The prayer of the petition is for the amount of the note, interest, attorneys’ fees and cost.

The defendant denies owing any part of, the note, and denies that the note was signed by any officer of the Association who was authorized to do so by the board of directors of the Association. And it is alleged in the answer that in the event the court finds that the note was signed by duly authorized officers of the Association, then in the alternative, it is averred that said note was without consideration; that instead of the defendant owing plaintiff the amount of the said note, it is alleged that the plaintiff owes the defendant the sum of $934.99 for the reasons set forth in the answer. The prayer of the answer is that plaintiff’s suit be dismissed, and that the defendant have judgment in reconvention against the plaintiff in the said sum of $934.99.

Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $1,800 with 6% per an-num interest thereon from November 8, 1938, plus an additional amount of 15% on the principal and interest for attorneys’ fees. No mention is made in the judgment of the reconventional demand. The defendant has taken and perfected an appeal to this court.

It is obvious that the total amount claimed in the petition and the amount of the judgment, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum of $2,000. In fact, the principal of the note and the attorneys’ fees thereon of 15 per cent amount to $2,-070. In determining the áppellate jurisdiction of this court the attorneys’ fees are a part of the demand.

In view of the fact that the amount in controversy exceeds the appellate jurisdiction of this court, we have no other alternative but to dismiss the appeal or transfer it to the Supreme Court. The case is similar to that of Richland State Bank v. Brock et al., La.App., 177 So. 454, where the court transferred the appeal to the Supreme Court. We will take-the same action in this case.

In accordance with Act No. 19 of 1912, it is ordered that the appeal in this case be transferred to the Supreme Court of Louisiana; that the appellant be and it is hereby granted a period of 60 days from the date this decree becomes final to transfer and perfect said appeal in that court, and on its failure to do so within said period, the appeal to stand dismissed.
SENTRY PETROLEUM LTD. 
SHARE OPTION PLAN 
February 28, 2009



OPTION COMMITMENT



Notice is hereby given that, effective this 28th day of February, 2009 (the Effective Date) SENTRY PETROLEUM LTD. (the Company) has granted to Heather Grant, an Option to acquire 25,000 Common Shares (Optioned Shares) up to 5:00 p.m. Pacific time on the 28th day of February, 2014 (the Expiry Date) at a Exercise Price of US$1.04 per share. Optioned Shares may be acquired as follows:

| |     |                                                                                                               
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (a) | 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will vest twelve months after the Effective Date;          
| |     |                                                                                                               
| | (b) | a further 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will vest 24 months after the Effective Date; and
| |     |                                                                                                               
| | (c) | the remaining 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will vest 36 months after the Effective Date.

The grant of the Optioned Shares evidenced hereby is made subject to the terms and conditions of the Companys Share Option Plan, the terms and conditions of which are hereby incorporated in this Option Commitment.

To exercise your Option, deliver to the Company at its then principal business office, a written notice specifying the number of Optioned Shares you wish to acquire, together with cash or a certified cheque payable to the Company for the aggregate Exercise Price. A certificate for the Optioned Shares so acquired will be issued by the transfer agent as soon as practicable thereafter and will bear a legend stipulating any resale restrictions required under applicable securities laws.



SENTRY PETROLEUM LTD.

President



I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Plan and agree to be bound by the terms of the Plan. This commitment supersedes any prior Option or commitment made to me.



OPTIONEE

_HEATHER GRANT___________________________

Name:       _Heather Grant_______________________

Address:    ___________________________________

___________________________________







---
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00151

- CR

Jason Eugene Jury

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 355th District Court

o f Hood County (CR12575 )

Augus t 25, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gardner

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

__ /s/ Anne Gardner

_______________ Justice Anne Gardner
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6133 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6133

  To require the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to make available for 
public inspection all records of information submitted to the Food and 
 Drug Administration in conjunction with authorizing the emergency use 
                 of, or licensing, a COVID-19 vaccine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 2, 2021

 Mr. Norman (for himself, Mr. Massie, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Perry, Mr. Roy, 
Mr. Good of Virginia, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, 
   Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Cawthorn, Mr. Posey, Mr. Bishop of North 
    Carolina, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Babin, and Mrs. Greene of 
   Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to make available for 
public inspection all records of information submitted to the Food and 
 Drug Administration in conjunction with authorizing the emergency use 
                 of, or licensing, a COVID-19 vaccine.

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

SECTION 1. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO FDA FOR 
              AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY USE OF, OR LICENSING, ANY COVID-19 
              VACCINE.

    Not later than 100 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall make available for public 
inspection all records of information submitted to the Food and Drug 
Administration in conjunction with authorizing the emergency use of, or 
licensing, a COVID-19 vaccine.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 23.1**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-135405 and 333-141352) of Omniture, Inc. pertaining to the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, the 2006Equity Incentive Plan, the 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, The Touch Clarity Limited EnterpriseManagement Incentives, Share Option Plan 2002, and Touch Clarity Limited 2006 U.S. Stock Plan ofour report dated March 19, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Omniture,Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006./s/ Ernst & Young LLPSalt Lake City, UtahMarch 19, 2007
Correction to Employment Agreement, by and between Pulse Microsystems Ltd.,
an  Ontario   corporation   (the   "Corporation"),   and  Brian   Goldberg  (the
"Executive").

     WHEREAS, Pulse and the Executive entered into an employment agreement dated
as of February 25, 1994 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS,  the  parties  have  discovered  an error in  Section  2(b) of the
Employment  Agreement  concerning  the amount of the bonus to be paid during the
First Renewal Term (as defined in the Employment Agreement); and

     WHEREAS, the parties desire to correct this error.

     NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed:

     1. Section 2(b) of the Employment Agreement,  as it now exists, is stricken
and instead is replaced by  corrected  Section  2(b)  reading in its entirety as
follows:

     First  Renewal  Option.  Subject to the  provisions of Section 2(d) hereof,
upon notice  given in manner  provided  herein not less than one hundred  twenty
(120) days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term, the Executive may extend
the Initial  Term for an  additional  three (3) year period (the "First  Renewal
Term") upon the same terms and  conditions  (except the right to renew for three
(3) years) as set forth  herein  except that the bonus  provided  for in Section
5(b) of this Agreement  shall be 12.5% of the Company's  annual pre-tax  profits
(as defined in Paragraph  5(b)(iii)  hereof)  during the First Renewal Term. The
First  Renewal  Term shall  terminate  as of the close of business on the eighth
(8th) anniversary of the Effective Date.

     2. Except as herein  corrected,  the Employment  Agreement  remains in full
force and effect.

Dated:   November 4, 1997

                                           PULSE MICROSYSTEMS LTD.

                                     By:   /s/Tas Tsonis
                                           -----------------------------
                                           Tas Tsonis, President


                                           /s/Brian Goldberg
                                           -----------------------------
                                           BRIAN GOLDBERG

Consented to:

     HIRSCH INTERNATIONAL CORP.

     By:/s/Henry Arnberg
        ------------------------
        Henry Arnberg, President
#### UNITED STATES ex rel. Dennis E. PEARSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frederick E. ADAMS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 317, Docket 72-1713.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 2, 1972.

Decided Nov. 15, 1972.

Michael Avery, New Haven, Conn., for petitioner-appellant.

Vincent J. Scamporino, Middletown, Conn., for respondent-appellee.

Before LUMBARD, FEINBERG and OAKES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Dennis E. Pearson was convicted in the Superior Court for Middlesex County of possession and sale of marijuana in violation of Conn.Gen.Stat. §§ 19-480 (a), 19-481 (b).1 His conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Connecticut. State v. Pearson, 295 A.2d 556 (Conn.1972) (per curiam). Pearson then applied in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his state court conviction denied him due process because there was not sufficient proof to convince the jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Chief Judge Blumenfeld held, however, that a state prisoner may not use habeas corpus to test the sufficiency of the evidence against him and that in this respect a federal court may only inquire as to whether there was any evidence to support the conviction. See United States ex rel. Morton v. Mancusi, 393 F.2d 482 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert, denied, 393 U.S. 927, 89 S.Ct. 262, 21 L.Ed.2d 264 (1968). Since there was such evidence, the judge denied the petition.

On appeal, Pearson claims that the rule relied on by the district court has been changed by In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), which held that “the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction *336except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” Id. at 364, 90 S.Ct. at 1073. According to appellant, the combined effect of *Win-ship*and our own recent ruling in United States v. Taylor, 464 F.2d 240 (1972), is that in a habeas corpus proceeding brought by a state prisoner, the federal court must satisfy itself that there was sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We affirm the judgment of the district court. There is no contention that the jury in this case was improperly charged on the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Having reviewed the record before us, we find that there was sufficient evidence for a jury correctly instructed to find appellant guilty. Therefore, we do not consider appellant’s argument regarding the effect of *Winship.*But see Holloway v. Cox, 437 F.2d 412 (4th Cir. 1971) (rejecting similar contention) .

We commend Michael Avery, assigned counsel, for the excellence of his brief and oral argument.

1

. Pearson received a five-to-six year sentence for the sale and a one-year suspended sentence for possession. The severity of this punishment for a single $55 sale of marijuana reflects the statutory five-year minimum requirement. Conn.Gen. Stat. § 19-480(a).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 768 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 768

              To create a liveable wage by the year 2000.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 1995

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To create a liveable wage by the year 2000.

    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 ``Liveable Wage Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE.

    Paragraph (1) of section 6(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, $4.60 
        during the period beginning January 1, 1996, $4.85 during the 
        period beginning January 1, 1997, $5.00 during the period 
        beginning January 1, 1998, $5.15 during the period beginning 
        January 1, 1999, and $5.30 during the period beginning January 
        1, 2000;''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Pacific Enterprises (the "Company") certifies that:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2004 (the "Quarterly Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)	the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



November 4, 2004
                                               /S/ NEAL E. SCHMALE
                                              ______________________
                                               Neal E. Schmale
                                               Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATE 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 Quarterly Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Sona Resources Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended December 31, 2010 and for period from January 18, 2007 (date of inception) to December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ajeeta Pinheiro, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.
The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 
 February 11, 2011                                                                           AJEETA PINHEIRO
 Ajeeta Pinheiro
 Chief Executive Officer,
 President and Director
   -1-
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6201 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6201

 To extend the authority for the establishment of a commemorative work 
  to honor enslaved and free Black persons who served in the American 
                  Revolution, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2021

    Mrs. Watson Coleman (for herself, Mrs. Hinson, and Mr. Neguse) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the authority for the establishment of a commemorative work 
  to honor enslaved and free Black persons who served in the American 
                  Revolution, 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 ``National Liberty Memorial 
Preservation Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that the period preceding the 250th anniversary of 
the founding of the United States on July 4, 1776, offers the best 
conditions in ten generations to honor and preserve the contributions 
of enslaved and free Black soldiers and civilians to independence by 
the triumph of a permanent National Liberty Memorial representing deeds 
Congress on two previous occasions declared of ``preeminent historical 
and lasting significance to the nation''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMEMORATIVE WORK.

    Notwithstanding section 8903(e) of title 40, United States Code, 
the authority provided by section 2860 of the Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 112-
239; 126 Stat. 2164; 40 U.S.C. 8903 note) shall continue to apply 
through September 30, 2027.
                                 <all>
```