alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 6722 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

An Act 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic 

in French Camp, California, as the ‘‘Richard A. Pittman VA Clinic’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) Richard A. Pittman was born on May 26, 1945, in 

French Camp, California. 

(2) Richard A. Pittman enlisted in the Marine Corps in 

1965 and was later promoted to Lance Corporal. 

(3) On July 24, 1966, Lance Corporal Pittman’s unit, First 

Platoon, Company I, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, was 

moving along a trail near the Demilitarized Zone in the 

Republic of Vietnam when the Marines ahead of them came 

under attack. 

(4) Upon hearing the attack, Lance Corporal Pittman took 

a machine gun and several belts of ammunition and rushed 

to aid his comrades. As he advanced, Lance Corporal Pittman 

encountered intense small-arms fire at point-blank range. He 

was able to return fire and silence the enemy combatants. 

Continuing towards the attacked Marines, Lance Corporal Pittman came under heavy fire from two automatic weapons, which 

he was able to destroy. 

(5) When Lance Corporal Pittman learned there were additional wounded Marines further along the trail, he endured 

enemy mortar and gunfire to get to them. As he reached them, 

he faced an attack by 30 to 40 enemy fighters. 

(6) Lance Corporal Pittman used a combination of machinegun fire, an enemy submachine gun, a pistol from a fallen 

comrade, and a grenade to cause enemy forces to withdraw. 

Due to his courageous actions, many of his wounded comrades 

were saved. 

(7) In recognition of his bravery that day, Richard A. Pittman, who was then a Sergeant, was awarded the Medal of 

Honor by President Lyndon B. Johnson on May 14, 1968. 

(8) Richard A. Pittman retired in 1988 as a Master Sergeant, after having served in the Marine Corps for more than 

two decades. 

SEC. 2. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMUNITYBASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC, FRENCH CAMP, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in French Camp, California, shall after 
H. R. 6722—2 

the date of the enactment of this Act be known and designated 

as the ‘‘Richard A. Pittman VA Clinic’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the clinic 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Richard A. Pittman VA Clinic’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF  THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this report on Form 10-K for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.





Steven J. Johnston, the chief executive officer, and Michael J. Sewell, the chief financial officer, of Cincinnati Financial Corporation each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:


|   |                                                                                                   
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                          
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cincinnati Financial Corporation.




Date: February 27, 2015








/S/ Steven J. Johnston


Steven J. Johnston, FCAS, MAAA, CFA, CERA


President and Chief Executive Officer








/S/ Michael J. Sewell


Michael J. Sewell, CPA


Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2036
JOSEPH R. THAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEBORAH Y. MILLER, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 04-1097
JOSEPH R. THAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEBORAH Y. MILLER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-419-5-H) Submitted: August 30, 2004 Decided: September 16, 2004- 2 - Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph R. Thames, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Y. Miller, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Joseph R. Thames seeks to appeal the district court’s orders remanding this action to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction and denying his subsequent motion to reconsider the remand order. The district court’s remand order is not reviewable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2000). Therefore the appeal in No. 03- 2036 must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In No. 04-1097, Thames seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on December 3, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on January 9, 2004. Because Thames failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss his appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we dismiss both appeals for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and- 4 - legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO THE

 QUANTA SERVICES, INC. 

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the Quanta Services, Inc. Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation Plan (effective as of
April 30, 2013) is adopted by Quanta Services, Inc. (“Quanta”) as of the 20th day of December 2013, effective as set forth herein. 

RECITALS 

WHEREAS, Quanta has adopted and maintains the Plan, which is a non-qualified deferred compensation plan intended to comply
with applicable requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), pursuant to which non-employee directors are permitted to defer all or a portion of their eligible director fees under the
Plan; 
 WHEREAS, Quanta desires to amend the Plan to eliminate the requirement that deferred amounts will be paid earlier
than the scheduled payment date in the event of a separation from service prior to such scheduled payment date effective with respect to amounts deferred under the Plan by a Participant pursuant to a deferral agreement entered into on or after
December 13, 2013; and 
 WHEREAS, Quanta has reserved the right to amend the Plan pursuant to Article 8 thereof. 

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Article 8 of the Plan, Quanta hereby amends the Plan, effective as of the date hereof, in the
following respects: 
 1. Section 6.2(a) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

Effective December 13, 2013, except as otherwise provided in Article 8 hereof, a Participant’s Account (other than
the Pre-2014 Amount (as defined below)) shall be distributed to the Participant (or, in the case of a Participant’s death, his or her Beneficiary) in its entirety no later than sixty (60) days after the earlier to occur of the following:
(i) a Change in Control, and (ii) the date designated in a Deferral Agreement, which date shall be 3, 5, 7 or 10 years from the Award Date or, if elected by the Participant in the Deferral Agreement, the earlier of such date and the
Participant’s Separation from Service, unless a subsequent deferral election is made pursuant to Section 6.2(b). Solely with respect to the Pre-2014 Amount, except as otherwise provided in Article 8 hereof, a Participant’s Account
shall be distributed to the Participant (or, in the case of a Participant’s death, his or her Beneficiary) in its entirety no later than sixty (60) days after the earliest to occur of the following: (i) a Participant’s Separation
from Service; (ii) a Change in Control; and (iii) the date designated in a Deferral Agreement, which date shall be 3, 5, 7 or 10 years from the Award Date, unless a subsequent deferral election is made pursuant to Section 6.2(b). The
“Pre-2014 Amount” means those amounts deferred under the Plan by a Participant pursuant to a Deferral Agreement entered into prior to December 13, 2013 and any earnings thereon. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Quanta has adopted this Amendment No. 1 to the Plan as
of the day and year first written above. 
  

			
	QUANTA SERVICES, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Derrick A. Jensen

	Name:	 	Derrick A. Jensen
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.4
 
 May 14, 2009
 th
 RECITALS:
    AGREEMENT:
 1. Marketing Contract Termination.
 2. Previous Contractual Purchase Obligation. ONEP042809-1, ONEP042809-1 i.e., $.0075 per net gallon,
 3. Non-Disparagement and Non-Disclosure Clause.




---



##### 



4. Entireties.
  Eco-Energy Inc.By:
    /s/ Larry BeckwithName:
    Larry BeckwithTitle:
    CEOOne Earth Energy, LLCBy:
    /s/ Steven KellyName:
    Steven KellyTitle:
    President




---



#####
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ORIOLE HOMES CORPORATION 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>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996<F1>
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,644,402
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  278,104
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                144,024,190
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      33,341,481
<DEPRECIATION>                             (10,034,515)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             185,687,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     90,549,787
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       462,553
<OTHER-SE>                                  67,791,699
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               185,687,846
<SALES>                                     63,742,037
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            71,354,280
<CGS>                                       55,177,974
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               57,429,505
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,459,815
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             514,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                950,169
<INCOME-TAX>                                   357,366
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            592,803
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   592,803
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
<FN>
<F1>COMPANY REPORTS ON A NON-CLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Simeon Wolfman, Plaintiff, *v.*Wilson Building, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

November 14, 1956.

*875
      *Gerald Blumberg*and *Jacob Imberman*for plaintiff.

*George M. Clarke, Lewis J. Alessio*and *Lewis A. Clarke*for defendants.

Vincent A. Lupiano, J.

Beargument in this matter was granted informally, and counsel have been heard and their briefs considered. As no order was entered herein upon the decision made July 11,1956, the motion, for summary judgment, has not been finally determined. Now, upon reargument, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

Three counts are included in the complaint, each of them for an accounting. But it is only where an action is brought ‘ ‘ For an accounting arising on a written contract, sealed or unsealed ” (Buies Civ. Prac., rule 113, subd. 8) that a motion for summary judgment may properly be made (see *Fiscella*v. *Fridman,*169 Misc. 327, and cases there cited). An accounting is sought here because of alleged acts of conversion by the defendants. It is worth noting that even in an action at law for conversion a motion for summary judgment may not be made by the plaintiff *(Formel*v. *National City Bank,*152 Misc. 275). Nor is the fact that a statute may be incidentally involved make this an action on *“*a statute where the sum sought to be recovered is a sum of money other than a penalty ” (Bules Civ. Prac., rule 113, subd. 3). Plainly, the said subdivision 3 relates only to actions at law *(Fiscella*v. *Fridman, supra).*

I am also of the opinion that it is questionable whether the prior judgment upon which the plaintiff here relies is a binding adjudication with respect to the present action. An examination of the whole record of the prior action would be necessary in this connection. There is moreover considerable doubt as to the merits of plaintiff’s alleged causes of action in view of the fact that the infants whose interests in those choses in action have now allegedly passed to the plaintiff were not parties to the mortgage agreements complained of and thus no court approval was necessary with respect thereto. As to those infants there remained an open mortgage covering their undi*876vided interests in the real estate involved, which could have been foreclosed at any time if payments were not made. There is *no*indication that the payments of which the plaintiff now complains were greater in amount than required by the original mortgage which bound the respective interests of the infants in the said real property.

Order signed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31(b) CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934, AS AMENDED (ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-
OXLEY ACT OF 2002) I, Richard L. Travis, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Peerless Mfg. Co.,
certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Peerless Mfg. Co.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [Omitted in accordance with SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986](c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants third
fiscal quarter in the case of this quarterly report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal controls over financial reporting. /s/ Richard L. Travis, Jr.Richard L. Travis, Jr.Chief Financial OfficerDate: May 14, 2004
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6840 

To prohibit COVID–19 travel restrictions with respect to any nationals of 

Canada, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 

Mr. JACOBS of New York (for himself, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. BERGMAN, Mr. 

GARBARINO, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. STAUBER, and Mr. ZELDIN) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit COVID–19 travel restrictions with respect to 

any nationals of Canada, 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 ‘‘Northern Border Re5 opening Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING COVID–19 TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS 

7 FOR CANADIAN NATIONALS. 

8 Notwithstanding Presidential Proclamation 10294 

9 (86 Fed. Reg. 59603), published October 28, 2021, relat10 ing to advancing the safe resumption of global travel durVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:28 Mar 03, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6840.IH H6840

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6840 IH

1 ing the COVID–19 pandemic, or any other provision of 

2 law, neither a suspension nor limitation on entry to the 

3 United States shall apply to a national of Canada based 

4 on any COVID–19 travel restriction. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as Adopted

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Brown & Brown, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Cory T. Walker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78m or § 78o(d)); and

(2) 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: May 6, 2010



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Cory T. Walker     
|Cory T. Walker         
|Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben REYNA-VIDAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50196.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Ruben Reyna-Vidal appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Reyna contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Reyna maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Reyna acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.