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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6454 

To clarify the primary functions and duties of the Office of Advocacy of 

the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 20, 2022 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER (for himself and Mr. CARTER of Louisiana) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To clarify the primary functions and duties of the Office 

of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Advo5 cacy Improvements Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO PRIMARY FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES 

7 OF THE OFFICE OF ADVOCACY OF THE SMALL 

8 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. 

9 (a) PRIMARY FUNCTIONS.—Section 202 of Public 

10 Law 94–305 (15 U.S.C. 634b) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6454 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘and the 

2 international economy’’ after ‘‘economy’’; 

3 (2) in paragraph (9), by striking ‘‘complete’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘compete’’; and 

5 (3) in paragraph (12), by striking ‘‘serviced-dis6 abled’’ and inserting ‘‘service-disabled’’. 

7 (b) DUTIES.—Section 203(a) of Public Law 94–305 

8 (15 U.S.C. 634c) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

10 end; 

11 (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at 

12 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

13 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(7) represent the views and interests of small 

15 businesses before foreign governments and inter16 national entities for the purpose of contributing to 

17 regulatory and trade initiatives which may affect 

18 small businesses.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Notice of Grant of Restricted Stock and Award Agreement (for Executive Officers)



 Exhibit 10(t) 
  
 

 
  
 Notice of Grant of Restricted
Stock and Award Agreement 
  
 ID: «SSN» 

 
 «FIRST_NAME» «MIDDLE_NAME»
«LAST_NAME» 
 «EXTRA_FIELD_1» 
  
 It is a pleasure to inform you that you are hereby granted
             restricted shares of Fifth Third Bancorp stock. These shares of stock are restricted and are subject to the terms and conditions of this Notice and the terms of the
Fifth Third Bancorp Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”): 
  

			
	 Date of Restricted Stock Award
	  	__________, ____
	 Award Number
	  	____
	 Plan
	  	Incentive Compensation Plan
	 Restrictions will Lapse
	  	__________, _____
	 Total Number of Restricted Shares Granted
	  	____
	 Value at Date of Grant
	  	$____
	 Total Value at Date of Grant
	  	$____

  
 This restricted stock
award will vest and the restrictions will lapse on             ,          (the end of the period of restriction) provided you are an
employee of Fifth Third Bancorp or its subsidiaries at that time. 
  
 If you accept the terms of this restricted stock award, you will be deemed to have consented to all of the terms and conditions of this restricted stock award and of Fifth Third Bancorp Incentive Compensation Plan. In the event of any
conflict between the terms of this Notice and the Plan, the terms of the Plan shall control. 
  
 This restricted stock award will expire by its own terms unless accepted within ninety days of the date hereof. 
  
 For Fifth Third Bancorp: 
  

					
			
	 


	 	 	 	  
	 George A. Schaefer, Jr.
 President &
CEO
	 	 	 	Date
			
	  	 	 	 	  
	Grantee	 	 	 	Date
Order entered September 1 3 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00380
- CV RICHARD A. MYERS, ET AL . , Appellant s V. LINDA PAVLIK , ET AL. , Appellee s On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, T exas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 11
- 13928 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellants’ September 10, 2013 unopposed second motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief. Appellants shall file their reply brief on or before Monday, September 30, 2013.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
**PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES**Exhibit 11**COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS**(Unaudited; $ in millions except per share amounts)                      Six Months Ended  Second Quarter June 30,       2006 2005 2006 2005             Income from continuing operations $471.4   675.1   822.1   1,052.5     Income (loss) from discontinued operations  0.3   7.2   (16.6)  16.5                  Net income $471.7   682.3   805.5   1,069.0     Preferred stock dividends  —   (3.4)  —   (6.8)                 Net income applicable to common shares $471.7   678.9   805.5   1,062.2                   Basic:                     Weighted average number of common shares outstanding*  202.4   192.4   202.2   191.9      Diluted:                     Weighted average number of common shares outstanding*  202.4   192.4   202.2   191.9      Weighted average common stock equivalents — stock    options*  0.2   0.7   0.3   0.9      Weighted average common stock equivalents — restricted    stock*  0.9   0.7   0.8   0.8      Weighted average conversion of mandatory convertible preferred    stock*  —   8.3   —   8.3                   Diluted weighted average number of common shares outstanding*  203.5   202.1   203.3   201.9      Basic earnings per common share:                     Income from continuing operations $2.33   3.49   4.06   5.45      Income (loss) from discontinued operations  —   0.04   (0.08)  0.08                   Basic earnings per common share $2.33   3.53   3.98   5.53                   Diluted earnings per common share:                     Income from continuing operations $2.32   3.34   4.04   5.21      Income (loss) from discontinued operations  —   0.04   (0.08)  0.08                   Diluted earnings per common share $2.32   3.38   3.96   5.29               *    Weighted average shares outstanding and earnings per common    share for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005,    have been adjusted to reflect the March 10, 2006, stock    split. (Refer to Note 15, Shareholders’ Equity, to our    unaudited June 30, 2006, Consolidated Financial Information    for further discussion).
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES

OF

SGS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

The following table lists, as of March 14, 2008, the direct and indirect subsidiaries of SGS International, Inc., and their respective jurisdictions
of organization:



|                                                   |  |                             
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|                                                   |  | Where Incorporated/Organized
|Southern Graphic Systems, Inc.                     |  | Kentucky                    
|                                                   | 
|Southern Graphic Systems Mexico, S.de R.L. de C.V. |  | Mexico                      
|                                                   | 
|SGS Packaging Europe Holdings Limited              |  | United Kingdom              
|                                                   | 
|SGS Packaging Europe Limited                       |  | United Kingdom              
|                                                   | 
|Project Dove Holdco, Inc.                          |  | Delaware                    
|                                                   | 
|Project Dove Manitoba, LP                          |  | Manitoba                    
|                                                   | 
|Southern Graphic Systems  Canada, Co.             |  | Nova Scotia                 
|                                                   | 
|MCG Graphics Limited                               |  | United Kingdom              
|                                                   | 
|The Box Room Limited                               |  | United Kingdom              
|                                                   | 
|SGS Packaging Netherlands, B.V.                    |  | Netherlands                 
|                                                   | 
|Synnoflex Inc.                                     |  | Quebec                      
|                                                   | 
|McGurk Studios Limited                             |  | United Kingdom              
|                                                   | 
|Thames McGurk Limited                              |  | United Kingdom              
|                                                   | 
|SGS Asia Pacific Limited                           |  | Hong Kong                   
|                                                   | 
|1043497 Ontario Limited                            |  | Ontario                     
|                                                   | 
|Cooper & Williamson, Inc.                          |  | Ontario                     
|                                                   | 
|Tri-Ad Graphic Communications Ltd.                 |  | Ontario                     
|                                                   | 
|Flex-Art Design Inc.                               |  | Canada
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6642 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6642

        To repeal the corporate average fuel economy standards.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2022

  Mr. Perry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To repeal the corporate average fuel economy standards.

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

SECTION 1. REPEALING THE CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS.

    Chapter 329 of title 49, United States Code, and the item relating 
to such chapter in the analysis of chapters for subtitle VI of such 
title, are repealed.
                                 <all>
```
# United States Court **of Appeals** 
**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 11076

**Mitchell Wagner,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Archie D. Scarborough; Keith F. Meeks; Stanley J. Baldwin; Richard Burgess; James Finley; Clayton**  **Wheeden; Texas Kairos Organization,**

Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15

- CV

- 177

Before **Stewart, Graves,** and **Higginson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Mitchell Wagner, Texas prisoner # 1543049, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal and moves for the appointment of counsel. By moving to appeal IFP, Wagner challenges the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 11, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-11076 Document: 00515670258 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2020No. 19

- 11076

2 certification that his appeal is not in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

T he notice of appeal failed to identify an existing judgment or order
from which Wagner is appealing , and Wagner has not identified a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion for leave to appeal IFP is **DENI ED**  , and the appeal is **DISMISSED** as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; **5th**
**Cir. R.** 42.2. O ur dismissal of this appeal count s as one strike under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson , 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763

- 64 (2015). Wagner is **WARNED** that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of s erious physical injury. His motion for the appointment of counsel is **DENIED**

. Case: 19-11076 Document: 00515670258 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2020
**EXHIBIT 3.1**

 

Peoples Energy Corporation

Consider Amendment to the By-Laws

 

The Chairman recommended that the By-Laws of the Company be amended to provide for an increase in the number of members constituting the Board of Directors effective May 1, 2002.

The directors then discussed the need for and the benefits which would be derived from increasing the number of directors to ten members.

After discussion, on motion duly made and seconded, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:

RESOLVED, That, effective May 1, 2002, Section 3.1 of Article III of the By-Laws of the Company be, and hereby is, amended by increasing the number of members constituting the Board of Directors from nine to ten.

 

 

 

Dated as of: 		April 3, 2002
EXHIBIT 99.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
	In connection with the Quarterly Report of Republic Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), I, David A. Melman, the Principal Executive 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 theSecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and    (2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
	                                                                                    						By: /s/ David A. Melman                                                                                    David A. Melman                                                                                      Principal Executive Officer
Dated: November 11, 2002
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6429

FREDERICK STINSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; COMMISSARY & SECURITY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00771-DJN-MRC)

Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: September 1, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederick Stinson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6429 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Frederick Stinson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action 

without prejudice for failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s order directing Stinson 

to submit certain documents within 30 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). After reviewing 

the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing 

Stinson’s complaint. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding 

that district court did not abuse discretion when it dismissed case for failure to comply with 

prior order after explicitly warning that dismissal would result from failure to comply). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Stinson v. Va. Dep’t of Corr., 

No. 3:22-cv-00771-DJN-MRC (E.D. Va. Apr. 5, 2023). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6429 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6689 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6689

   To amend title 49, United States Code, to repeal certain employee 
            protective arrangements, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 2022

  Mr. Perry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 49, United States Code, to repeal certain employee 
            protective arrangements, 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. REMOVAL OF EMPLOYEE PROTECTIVE ARRANGEMENTS.

    Subsection (b) of section 5333 of title 49, United States Code, is 
hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the Annual Report of Buckeye GP Holdings L.P. (“BGH”)on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,William H. Shea, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of MainLine Management LLC, the general partner of BGH, hereby certify, tomy knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of BGH.

|                            |     | MAINLINE MANAGEMENT LLC,  as general partner of BGH |
|----------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 26,  2007 |     | WILLIAM H. SHEA, JR.                                |
|                       |     | William H. Shea, Jr.                           |
|                       | * * | *Chief Executive Officer*                           |

 

----
#### Downs *v.*Sley System Garages, Appellant.

Argued September 30, 1937.

Before Keeler, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeed, Parker, James and Rhodes, JJ.

*Alma H. Arnold,*with her *Arthur 8. Arnold,*for appellant.

*David F. Maxwell}*with him *Edmonds, Obermayer & Bebmann,*for appellee.

November 10, 1937:

Opinion by

Baldrige, J.,

The appellant in this case maintains an unfenced automobile parking lot in Philadelphia, extending *69from Locust street to Chancellor street and accessible from either street. It has a capacity of 75 cars and in the middle thereof is a small structure where an attendant is stationed.

In the evening of February 19, 1934, the plaintiff’s son drove her car on this lot, delivered it with the key in the ignition to the only employee in attendance, to be placed in an appropriate place, paid a fee of 35 cents, and received a check, which stated, “Not responsible for fire or theft.” About 8:30 p. m. the car Avas stolen and has not been recovered. Suit was brought for the value of the car, and resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff.

In this appeal that followed, the appellant contends that the trial judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury: “Parties to a contract of bailment may substitute a special contract for one implied by law; and when this is done the express agreement determines the rights, liabilities and responsibilities of the parties arising from the bailment.” This point was correctly refused. It, in effect, requested the judge to state that the appellant, as bailee, could, by contract, relieve itself of its own negligence.

*Wendt v. Sley System*Garages, 124 Pa. Superior Ct. 224, 188 A. 624, controls this ease. There, the facts were very similar and the check was identical to the one given in the present ease. We expressly held in that case that the terms of the check did not limit the appellant’s liability against its own negligence, but that whatever construction was placed thereon, the well-recognized rule is that a bailee cannot relieve himself of a liability for his own negligence. See cases cited in that opinion.

The appellant further contends that there can be no recovery as there was a failure of proof of affirmative negligence.

As the bailee failed to return the bailed property, it was incumbent upon it to go forward and prove that *70proper care was exercised over the bailed property. The plaintiff was not required to prove affirmative acts of negligence: *Sign Animation Corp v. Wilkie Buick Co.,*124 Pa. Superior Ct. 234, 188 A. 628.

It was for the jury to consider all the circumstances, including the size of the lot, the easy access thereto by third persons, that but one employee located in the middle of the lot was in attendance, etc.; and to determine if reasonably adequate protection was afforded the bailor’s property.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

   <ARTICLE> 5
   <LEGEND>
   Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
   the Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in
   its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
   </LEGEND>
   <CIK>  0001029307
   <NAME>  Account Portfolios Inc.
          
   <S>                             <C>
   <PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
   <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
   <PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
   <PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
   <CASH>                                          28,124
   <SECURITIES>                                         0
   <RECEIVABLES>                                   23,789
   <ALLOWANCES>                                       850
   <INVENTORY>                                     47,913
   <CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,328
   <PP&E>                                          81,845
   <DEPRECIATION>                                  54,545
   <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 358,234
   <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,981
   <BONDS>                                              0
   <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
   <PREFERRED>                                     11,699
   <COMMON>                                            53
   <OTHER-SE>                                           0
   <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   358,234
   <SALES>                                              0
   <TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,663
   <CGS>                                                0
   <TOTAL-COSTS>                                  206,958
   <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
   <LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
   <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,950
   <INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,245)
   <INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,626)
   <INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,619)
   <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
   <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
   <CHANGES>                                            0
   <NET-INCOME>                                  (20,619)
   <EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
   <EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
           
<PAGE>

   
</TABLE>