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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6613 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6613

  To extend certain national school lunch program requirement waivers 
              addressing COVID-19, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2022

  Ms. Spanberger (for herself, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. Fitzpatrick, and Mr. 
    Katko) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend certain national school lunch program requirement waivers 
              addressing COVID-19, 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 ``Keeping School Meals Flexible Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM REQUIREMENT 
              WAIVERS ADDRESSING COVID-19.

    Section 2202 of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (42 
U.S.C. 1760 note) is amended--
            (1) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
    ``(e) Sunset.--The authority of the Secretary to establish, grant, 
or extend a waiver under this section shall expire on June 30, 2023.''; 
and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
section.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1







Certification of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002










Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of ChyronHego Corporation, a New York corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:






The Quarterly Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2013 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as applicable, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.













Dated:
November 14, 2013

/s/ Michael Wellesley-WesleyMichael Wellesley-WesleyPrincipal Executive Officer
#### CRESCENT CITY BUILDING & HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. W. P. HICKEY, Recorder of Mortgages, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14740.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 11, 1933.

Henry W. Robinson, of New Orleans, for mover.

PER CURIAM.

This matter comes before us on motion to dismiss the devolutive appeal; the ground being that the appellant failed to furnish a new devolutive appeal bond within the time prescribed by law after the surety on the original bond had been held insufficient.

It is provided in Act No. 284 of 1928, which is amendatory of section 3 of Act No. 112 of 1916, that, where- the surety on an appeal bond is held insufficient, the appellant “shall have the right, within four judicial days thereafter, to furnish a new bond. * 3⁄8 * ”

When the original bond in this matter was held insufficient, appellant was given four days to furnish a new bond. No new bond was furnished, however, within that time. On motion made in the district court, the devolu-tive appeal was ordered dismissed.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and de-' creed that the motion to dismiss the appeal *252be, and it is, sustained, and-, accordingly, it is ordered that the devolutive appeal be, and it is, dismissed, at the cost of appellant.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 1996 and the consolidated
statement of income for the nine months ended September 30, 1996 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           8,760
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 403,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,952
<OTHER-SE>                                     338,733
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   403,280
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,920
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,665
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,255
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,347
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,908
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,908
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
10.13




LOAN
AGREEMENT
 February
25, 2009
 
 Richard N. Jeffs (the
“Lender”) of 4 Montpelier Street, Suite 521, London, SW71EE, advanced US$35,000 (the “Principal
Sum”) to Red Metal Resources Ltd. (the “Borrower”) of 195 Park Avenue, Thunder
Bay, Ontario, P7B 1B9.  The Lender advanced the funds on February 25,
2009
  The
Borrower agrees to repay the Principal Sum on demand, together with interest
calculated and compounded monthly at the rate of 8% per year (the “Interest”)
from February 25, 2009.  The Borrower is liable for repayment for the
Principal Sum and accrued Interest and any costs that the Lender incurs in
trying to collect the Principal Sum and the Interest.
  The
Borrower will evidence the debt and its repayment of the Principal Sum and the
Interest with a promissory note in the attached form.
  LENDER
                  
                  
                  BORROWERRichard
      N. Jeffs
                  
                  
                  Red
      Metal Resources Ltd.Per:
                  
                  
                  Per:/s/
      Richard N. Jeffs
                  
                  
                  /s/
      Caitlin JeffsName
                  
                  
                  Authorized
      Signatory
 
 1
  PROMISSORY
NOTE
  Principal Amount:
      US$35,000
              February 25,
      2009
  For value
received Red Metal Resources Ltd., (the “Borrower”) promises to pay on demand to
the order of Richard N. Jeffs(the “Lender”) the sum
of $35,000 lawful money of United States of America (the “Principal Sum”)
together with interest on the Principal Sum from February 25, 2009 (“Effective
Date”) both before and after maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate
as defined below.
 
 For the
purposes of this promissory note, Interest Rate means 8 per cent per
year.  Interest at the Interest Rate must be calculated and compounded
monthly not in advance from and including the Effective Date (for an effective
rate of 8.3% per annum calculated monthly), and is payable together with the
Principal Sum when the Principal Sum is repaid.
 
 The
Borrower may repay the Principal Sum and the Interest in whole or in part at any
time.
 
 The
Borrower waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonour
of this promissory note.
  BORROWERRed
      Metal Resources Ltd.Per:/s/
      Caitlin JeffsAuthorized Signatory
  2
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 State

          - [Public Notice 6336]

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Section 4(a)(1) of the Libyan Claims Resolution Act, enacted August 4, 2008 (Pub. L. 110-301), I hereby designate the following entities to assist in providing compensation to the nationals of the United States, pursuant to the Claims Settlement Agreement between the United States and Libya of August 14, 2008: 

1—The Humanitarian Settlement Fund, Tripoli, Libya

2—Citibank, N.A., New York, NY

3—The Federal Reserve Bank of New York

4—The U.S. Department of the Treasury

5—The Libyan Foreign Bank, Tripoli, Libya 

Accordingly, property related to the entities shall be accorded the immunity provided for in section 4(b) of the Libyan Claims Resolution Act in addition to any other applicable immunity notwithstanding any other provision of the law, and the entities and any other person acting or on behalf of them shall not be liable in any Federal or State court for any action to implement The Claims Settlement Agreement between the United States and Libya of August 14, 2008. 

This designation shall be effective August 26, 2008. 

Condoleezza Rice, 

Secretary of State, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-19980 Filed 8-26-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
#### Maria Del Refugio LOPEZ-GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Respondent.

No. 02-71191.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 20, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, and denies Lopez-Guzman’s request for oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Del Refugio Lopez-Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo Lopez-Guzman’s constitutional challenge to the BIA’s legal determination that she is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. *Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft,*277 F.3d 1137,1144-45 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA correctly determined that Lopez-Guzman is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because she does not have a qualifying relative. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1101(b); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(l)(D); *Montero-Martinez,*277 F.3d at 1144-45. The BIA’s failure to consider other statutory factors, such as good moral character and continuous physical presence, did not violate due process because Lopez-Guzmaris lack of a qualifying relative was critical to her claim for relief. *See Montero-Martinez,*277 F.3d at 1144-45; *Sanchez-Cruz v. INS,*255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001) (requiring prejudice to establish a due process violation during immigration proceedings).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 

May [—], 2014 

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL 
 [Director] 

Board of Directors 
 McDermott International, Inc. 

RE: RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD 
 Dear [Director]: 

I am pleased to advise you that the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”) of McDermott International, Inc. (the
“Company”) approved a grant to you (the “Grant”) of [—] shares of restricted stock under the 2014 McDermott International, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”)
on May [—], 2014 (the “Grant Date”). A copy of the Prospectus relating to the Plan, which includes a copy of the Plan, has previously been made available to you. The restricted stock
award will have no Vesting Period (as defined in the Plan), and the restrictions on the Grant will lapse on the Grant Date. 
 Restricted Stock
Award. On the Grant Date, you will have the right to be issued the number of shares of Common Stock of the Company set forth above. Such shares will be issued to you in book-entry form in an account in your name with our transfer agent,
Computershare, absent other instructions from you, subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan. 
 Tax Consequences. You are solely responsible
for the taxes associated with the Grant, and you should consult with and rely on your own tax advisor, accountant or legal advisor as to the tax consequences to you of the Grant. A general description of the tax consequences relating to the type of
award provided through the Grant is included in the Prospectus. 
 Securities and Exchange Commission Requirements. Because you are a Section 16
insider, this type of transaction must be reported on a Form 4 before the end of the second (2nd) business day following the Grant Date. Please be aware that if you are going to reject the
Grant, you should do so as soon as possible to avoid potential Section 16 liability. Please advise Kim Wolford and Dennis Edge immediately by e-mail, fax or telephone call if you intend to reject this grant. 

Absent such notice of rejection, we will prepare and file the required Form 4 on your behalf (pursuant to your standing authorization for us to do so) within
the required two business day deadline. 
 You are also deemed to be an “affiliate” for purposes of Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and accordingly subject to Rule 144. Rule 144 is applicable only when the shares are sold, so you need not take any action under Rule 144 at this time. 

Other Information. If you have any questions concerning the Grant, please do not hesitate to contact Dennis Edge at 281/870-7342. 

Please acknowledge receipt and acceptance of all of the aforesaid by signing both this letter and the duplicate copy enclosed and returning one of them in the
pre-paid envelope provided and addressed to the Company at 







 
757 N. Eldridge Parkway, Houston, Texas 77079, attention of Dennis Edge, and marked “Personal and Confidential” within sixty (60) days from the date hereof. 

Very truly yours, 

McDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

David Dickson 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

ACCEPTED: 
  

					
	  
	 	Date: 	 	  

	SIGNATURE	 		 	


  
 - 2 -
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.
 Federal Communications Commission
 The Federal Communications Commission has cancelled the Open Meeting on the subject listed below, and previously scheduled for Friday, August 22, 2008, at 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. This item was previously listed in the Commission's Notice of August 15, 2008, 73 FR 49200, August 20, 2008. Item No.
Bureau
Subject2
Wireline Competition
Title: Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act.Summary: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding implementation of the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008.
 Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Audrey Spivack or David Fiske, Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Federal Communications Commission. William F. Caton, Deputy Secretary.


[FR Doc. E8-19981 Filed 8-26-08; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### Robert Lee SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7312.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 15, 2002.

Robert Lee Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Lee Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Smith has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Smith v. Angelone,*No. CA-02-429-AM (E.D. Va. filed July 24, 2002; entered July 25, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *164materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
##### 



PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Exhibit 12

COMPUTATION OF TOTAL DEBT TO TOTAL CAPITALIZATION
($ in millions)

|                                                |  |          |         |              |  |  |         |  
|----------------------------------------------- |  | -------- | ------- | ------------ |  |  | ------- | -
|                                                |  | June 30, |         | December 31,
|                                                |  | 2003     |         | 2002        
|                                                |  |          |         |             
|Short-term debt                                 |  | $        | 61.5    |              |  |  | 35.2    |  
|Current portion of long-term debt               |  |          | 134.7   |              |  |  | 127.0   |  
|Long-term debt                                  |  |          | 1,864.9 |              |  |  | 1,948.4 |  
|                                                |  |          |         |              |  |  |         |  
|Total debt                                      |  |          | 2,061.1 |              |  |  | 2,110.6 |  
|Minority interests in consolidated subsidiaries |  |          | 71.8    |              |  |  | 65.3    |  
|Shareholders equity                            |  |          | 2,819.0 |              |  |  | 2,813.6 |  
|                                                |  |          |         |              |  |  |         |  
|Total capitalization                            |  | $        | 4,951.9 |              |  |  | 4,989.5 |  
|                                                |  |          |         |              |  |  |         |  
|Ratio of total debt to total capitalization     |  |          | 41.6    | %            |  |  | 42.3    | %
|                                                |  |          |         |              |  |  |         |
K.J., MOTHER OF K.K.G.J, 

MINOR CHILD,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2970

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 20, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

James P. Nilon, Judge.

Lara Mason of Mason Law Firm, P.A., Ponte Vedra Beach, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, Department of Children and Families, 

Jacksonville; David Paul Krupski, Appellate Counsel, Guardian ad Litem Program, 

Sanford, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 10(d)

Contract No. 113419

 

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY OF AMERICA (Natural)

TRANSPORTATION RATE SCHEDULE FTS

AMENDMENT NO. 2 DATED March 27, 2000

TO AGREEMENT DATED January 15, 1998 (Agreement)

 

1.	[ ] Exhibit A dated March 27, 2000. Changes Primary Receipt Point(s)/Secondary Receipt Point(s) and Point MDQ's. This Exhibit A replaces any previously dated Exhibit A.

2.	[ ] Exhibit B dated March 27, 2000. Changes Primary Delivery Point(s)/Secondary Delivery Point(s) and Point MDQ's. This Exhibit B replaces any previously dated Exhibit B.

3.	[X] Exhibits A and B dated March 27, 2000. Changes Primary Receipt and Delivery Points/Secondary Receipt and Delivery Points. These Exhibits A and B replace any previously dated Exhibits A and B.

4.	[X] Exhibit C dated March 27, 2000. Changes the Agreement's Path. This Exhibit C replaces any previously dated Exhibit C.

5.	[X] Revise Agreement MDQ: [ ] Increase [X] Decrease
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 21, 2009 

1214 

Order 

 

December 21, 2009 

139447 

SAVITRI BHAMA, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v SC: 139447 

 COA: 290787 

Ingham CC: 00-092451-AA 

MICHIGAN CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 29, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.