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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 690 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 690

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the maximum penalty 
                            for mail theft.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2021

 Mr. Calvert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the maximum penalty 
                            for mail theft.

    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 ``Ensuring the Safety of Our Mail Act 
of 2021''.

SEC. 2. INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR MAIL THEFT.

    Section 1708 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``not more than five years'' and inserting ``not more than 10 
years''.
                                 <all>
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s tha tthi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f or ** d e c is io n w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). G T / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T C AR L OT T A L . S MI T H, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. N E W W E S T S T A T I O N S , I N C ., D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 15500 D. C . No . 2 : 0 3 - C V- 0 0 6 7 2 - F C DDA D ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia F r ank C . D a m r e l l , J r . , D i s tr i c tJudge S ubm i tt e d J anua ry11, 2010 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T R O T T , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C ar l ott a L . S m i th app ea l s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s Rul e 52(c) ju d g m e n t o n p artia l f

in d in g s in h e rT itle V I I a c tio n a lle g in g u n law f u l r e ta lia tio n . W e h av e ju risd icti o n p u rs u an t t o 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s 

# FI LED JAN 25 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSG T / Res ea r ch 08- 15500 2 f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o rc le are rr o r . G olde n v . L oc al 55 , of the I nt ’ l A s s ’ n of Fi ref i gh ters , 6 3 3 F. 2 d8 1 7 , 8 2 0 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 8 0 ) . W e a f f i rm. S ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e s up p o rts th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t S m ith f a ile dto p r o v e th a t s h e w a s f ir e din r e ta lia tio n f

o ro p p o s in g r a c e d is c r im in a tio n . See id . a t822. S m ith ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e n o t p e r s u a s iv e . A FFI R M ED .
174 La. 760

#### RHODES v. RHODES.

No. 31137.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 30, 1932.

Rehearing Denied April 25, 1932.

Julius T. Long, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Joseph B. Crow, of Shreveport, for appel-lee.

ROGERS, J.

The defendant is appellant from a judgment of separation from bed and board, with its consequence of a dissolution of the matrimonial community, and from a judgment condemning him to pay alimony pendente lite.

Plaintiff bases her action on charges of ill treatment, excesses, and outrages. Defendant dehies generally the charges of plaintiff, and, specifically alleging that plaintiff was guilty of excesses, cruel treatment, and outrages towards him, reconvened for a judgment of separation from bed and board in his favor.

The case, like most eases of the same kind, -presents only questions of fact. The testimony tends to some extent to prove mutual wrongs between the parties, but they are not of the same nature. We are convinced from our examination of the record that any ebul-litions of ill temper displayed by the plaintiff were the natural consequences of the treatment accorded her by' defendant.

It is in the record that plaintiff was subjected to repeated acts of cruelty at the hand of the defendant. She was struck blows, pushed about, pulled by the hair, and frequently cursed and abused; much of the ill treatment being in the presence of other persons.

In these circumstances, the plaintiff is clearly entitled to relief.

Appellant does not argue his appeal from the interlocutory judgment condemning him to pay plaintiff alimony pendente lite at the rate of $5 a week. Appellant earns $45 a week; hence the alimony awarded .is not excessive; and his complaint against the judgment is not well founded.

For the reasons assigned, the judgments herein appealed from are affirmed.

O’NIELL, O. J., absent.
#### Public Administrator of the County of New York, as Representative of the Estate of Nelson Marquez, Deceased, Respondent, v Alfred M. Markowitz et al., Defendants, and Peter Green, Appellant.

Order Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered December 1, 1988, denying defendant Peter Green’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissing an affirmative defense, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this medical malpractice action, the conflicting testimonies of the process server and of the defendant at the traverse hearing were not so irreconcilable as to foreclose a determination based upon an evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. All that is required under CPLR 308 (2), with respect to personal service, is that process be served upon "a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business”, regardless of whether or not that person is an employee or is *101otherwise officially authorized to accept service on behalf of the defendant *(Oxhandler v Sekhar,*88 AD2d 817 [1st Dept 1982]). With regard to the mailing requirement, the hearing court accepted the testimony of the process server that the papers were properly mailed to the defendant’s home address. *(Altman v Wallach,*104 AD2d 391, 392 [2d Dept 1984].) The defendant’s mere denial of receipt by mail at his home, without further probative facts, is insufficient to overcome the presumption of delivery which attaches to a properly mailed letter. *(Colon v Beekman Downtown Hosp.,*Ill AD2d 841 [2d Dept 1985].) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Smith, JJ.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00148-CR

DEVUNTRA CLAY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District Court 

No. 1

of Tarrant County (1685361D)

September 7, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

(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/ Brian Walker

 Justice Brian Walker
#### Robert LUTHER and Edward Hartsfield, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Dec. 3, 1954.

*277Robert Luther in pro. per.

No appearance for'Edward Hartsfield, appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Bart L. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MATHEWS, Justice.

The appellants appealed from a conviction on an information charging grand larceny of 127 boxes of oranges. , f

The appellants claim they were not properly charged with the offense of grand larceny but should have been charged instead with the taking of fruitifrom a citrus grove. It is apparent that the contention is that the charge should have been brought under F. S. Section 821.12, F.S.A. This section relates to trespass and particularly to farms, gardens, orchards, orange or lemon groves, and makes it a crime for anyone to take and carry away from such property, or who destroys any farm products, vegetables, fruits or flowers, corn or cotton from the stalk, or from any vineyard any grapes of any money value, without the consent of the owner or manager, and provides for punishment not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding fifty dollars. This contention is without merit.

‘In the case of McKenna v. State, 119 Fla. 576, 161 So. 561, the defendknt’was found guilty of the larceny of forty boxes of grapefruit. The contention was made that he should have been prosecuted under F. S. Section 821.12, F.S.A. This Court said:

> “ * * * That section is designed to denounce and punish the severing of fruit and crops from the freehold as a trespass, but it was never intended to be used as a shield from prosecution for larceny where the facts warrant such prosecution.”

There is no attack upon the sufficiency of the evidence. A mere reading of the record shows that the evidence warranted the prosecution and conviction for grand larceny. ' ■

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, G. J./and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ„ concur.
EXHIBIT 32.5

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
                            OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

      I, Thomas M. O'Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the
best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Power LLC on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSEG
Power LLC.

                               /s/ Thomas M. O'Flynn
                             ------------------------------------------------
                               THOMAS M. O'FLYNN
                               PSEG Power LLC
                               Chief Financial Officer
                               May 4, 2007
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF


THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this report on Form 10-Q for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Exchange Act 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: October 25, 2016


/S/ Steven J. JohnstonSteven J. Johnston, FCAS, MAAA, CFA, CERAPresident and Chief Executive Officer/S/ Michael J. SewellMichael J. Sewell, CPAChief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer
Exhibit 10(d) to The Valspar Corporation Form 10-Q dated January 28, 2005







Exhibit 10(d) 



ARRANGEMENTS WITH NEW PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 



LAWRENCE PERLMAN

818 WEST 46TH STREET

SUITE 201

MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55419-4841

612/824-5259 





CONFIDENTIAL 





January 12, 2005 





Mr. William L. Mansfield

The Valspar Corporation

1101 Third Street South

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 



Dear Bill: 



On behalf of the Valspar Board of Directors, I am offering you the position
of President and Chief Executive Officer of Valspar. Following are the terms of the offer. 



Title  



      President
and Chief Executive Officer 



Board Membership  



        Election to Board at the
first meeting of the Board of Directors after commencement of CEO position 



Salary  



        $800,000 – per annum,
effective commencement date 



Bonus Opportunity for Fiscal 2005  



        Same as current CEO (110% at
target; with 137.5% maximum) 



Stock Option Grant  



        125,000 shares under current
Valspar Plan, issued on commencement date 



Restricted Stock Grant  



        10,000 shares under current
Valspar Plan, issued on commencement date and vesting at the end of three years 



Physical Exam  



        Mayo Clinic executive
physical (spouse as well) on a bi-annual basis beginning in 2005 


















	William L. Mansfield	 	 	January 12, 2005	 	 
	Page 2	 	 





Other  



	  	
–   Continued participation in all applicable Valspar benefit plans

–   All reasonable business expenses including club membership as appropriate 






SERP  



	  	A Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan designed to provide
additional retirement benefits on retirement at or after age 60, tied to a percentage of final average pay and offset by other
Valspar retirement plan benefits. 






Non-Compete  



	  	Industry-wide for three years following termination of employment
and a non-solicitation of employees agreement covering all activities for the same period. 






This letter represents all of the terms of this offer. Please indicate your
acceptance by signing the enclosed counterpart of this letter. 


	Very truly yours, 	 	 	Accepted  	 	 
	 
	 
	/s/   Lawrence Perlman 	 	 	/s/   William L. Mansfield	 	 
	
	 	 	
	 	 
	Lawrence Perlman 	 	 	William L. Mansfield
January 12, 2005
PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD
                              FORM 10-Q

                          MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS


          All of Registrant's railroad properties are on long-term lease
to Norfolk and Western Railway Company for the fixed, unvarying amount
of $915,000 cash rental per year. The lease also requires that
additional, large amounts be recorded as non-cash rent income.

          With fixed revenue and expenses relatively constant, there is
very little fluctuation in operating results between periods. In
comparing the third quarter of 1997 with the preceding second quarter
1997 and the third quarter of 1996, revenues totaled $229,000, $229,000
and $229,000, respectively. Net income and income available for
distribution was $208,000, $202,000 and $205,000, respectively.


PART II.  OTHER INFORMATION

Item 6.   Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K
          
          None



                              SIGNATURES
 

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

                              PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD



                                                                 
    11/07/97                  Herbert E. Jones, Jr.
      Date                    (Signature)
                              Chairman of the Board


                                                                 
    11/07/97                  Robert A. Hamstead
      Date                    (Signature)
                              Secretary and Treasurer

November 7, 1997
II 

Calendar No. 471 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 700 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2022 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AUGUST 4, 2022 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 303 East Mississippi Avenue in Elwood, Illinois, as the ‘‘Lawrence M. ‘Larry’ Walsh Sr. Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LAWRENCE M. ‘‘LARRY’’ WALSH SR. POST OF4 FICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 303 East Mississippi Avenue in 

7 Elwood, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Lawrence M. ‘Larry’ Walsh Sr. Post Office’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 700 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lawrence M. ‘Larry’ 

5 Walsh Sr. Post Office’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 471 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 700 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostWalsh Sr. Post Office’’. in Elwood, Illinois, as the ‘‘Lawrence M. ‘Larry’ al Service located at 303 East Mississippi Avenue 

AUGUST 4, 2022 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
      23.2


**CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
        Statement No. 333-140205 on Form S-8 of
        our
        report dated April 2, 2007, relating to (i) the consolidated financial
        statements of EV Energy Partners, L.P. and (ii) the combined financial statements of the Combined Predecessor Entities,
        appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of EV Energy Partners, L.P.,
        for the
        year ended December 31, 2006.
 
 Houston,
        Texas
 April
        2,
        2007
Form of Grant Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 GRANT AGREEMENT 
  
 [DATE] 
  
 [NAME] 
 [ADDRESS] 
  

	Re:	Material Sciences Corporation (the “Company”) 

  
 Dear [NAME]: 
  
 The Company is pleased to advise you that a Grant has been awarded to you under the Material Sciences Corporation Fiscal 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan for
Non Employee Directors (the “Plan”), a copy of which has been previously provided to you. 
  
 1. Definitions. Every term which is defined or given a special meaning in the Plan and which is not given a different meaning in this Agreement has
the same meaning wherever it is used in this Agreement as the meaning it is given in the Plan. 
  
 2. Award of Grant. You are hereby awarded              units. 
  

3. Redemption Date. Subject to the terms of the Plan, the scheduled Redemption Date for the Grant awarded hereunder is
            . 
  
 4. Conformity with Plan. Your Grant and this Agreement is intended to conform in all respects with, and is subject to all applicable provisions of, the Plan (which is incorporated herein by reference).
Inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Plan shall be resolved in accordance with the terms of the Plan. By executing and returning the enclosed copy of this Agreement, you acknowledge your receipt of this Agreement and the Plan and agree to
be bound by all of the terms of this Agreement and the Plan. 
  
 5. Amendment. Except as otherwise provided herein and in the Plan, any provision of this Agreement may be amended or waived only with the prior written consent of you and the Company. 
  
 6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two
or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same Agreement. 
  
 7. Governing Law. All questions concerning the construction, validity and interpretation of this Agreement shall be governed by the internal law,
and not the law of conflicts, of Delaware. 







 GRANT AGREEMENT 
 Page Two

  
  
 Please execute the extra copy of this Agreement in the space below and return it to the Company’s Secretary at its executive offices to confirm your understanding and acceptance of the agreements contained in
this Agreement. 
  
 Very truly yours, 
  
 MATERIAL SCIENCES CORPORATION 
  
  
  

			
		
	By	 	 
		
	Its	 	 

  
 The undersigned hereby
acknowledges having read this Agreement and the Plan and hereby agrees to be bound by all provisions set forth herein and in the Plan. 
  
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR 
  
  

			
	 	 	 
		
	 	 	 

  
 Dated as of
Exhibit 33.1.4.1

 

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH**

**§1122(d)(2)(vi) and §1122(d)(4)(xi)**

**of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA**

 

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc. (affiliates of Assurant Inc., collectively the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the “Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs with respect to all mortgage loan-tracking transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered by this report include all mortgage loan-tracking transactions for which the Asserting Party served as a Vendor on behalf of Servicers for such asset-backedsecurities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Platform”). The scope of the Asserting Party assertions excludes §1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, which relates to servicing activities that are performed by the Asserting Party with respect to the Platform, but are not reported on herein.

 

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with §1122(d)(2)(vi) and §1122(d)(4)(xi) ("the Applicable Servicing Criteria") for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform taken as a whole. The Asserting Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

 

The Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period ending December 31, 2006 as set forth in this assertion. 

 

| American Security Insurance Company |  
Standard Guaranty Insurance Company

 
Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.

 

 

 
/s/ John Frobose

 
By: John Frobose

 
 
Senior Vice President

 

 

Date: February 23, 2007   

 

 

 

U:\REMIC\USER\Master Servicing\CMLTI\10-k 2006\2006-ar3\greenpoint_assurant1122.htm

 

 

  |
|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Preformed Line Products Company
for the period ended March 31, 2009 which this certification accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
 2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Preformed Line Products Company.
 May 8, 2009
    
    /s / Eric R. Graef

Eric R. GraefChief Financial Officer and Vice President  Finance(Principal Accounting Officer)