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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6887 

To prohibit the owner or operator of a port in the United States to enter 

into a contract with certain entities for operation or management of 

such port. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2022 

Mrs. STEEL (for herself, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, Mr. 

GARCIA of California, Mr. RUTHERFORD, Mr. RICE of South Carolina, 

Mr. LAMALFA, and Mr. CALVERT) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To prohibit the owner or operator of a port in the United 

States to enter into a contract with certain entities for 

operation or management of such port. 

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 ‘‘Secure Our Ports Act 

5 of 2022’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6887 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR PORT 

2 OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT. 

3 An owner or operator of a port in the United States 

4 may not enter into a contract for the operation or manage5 ment of such port with an entity that is— 

6 (1) a Chinese, Russian, North Korean, or Ira7 nian state-owned enterprise; or 

8 (2) any foreign entity for which any percentage 

9 is owned by a country listed in paragraph (1). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Robinson, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.), rendered September 6, 1988, convicting him of menacing, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant threatened the complainant with a gun, causing the complainant to fear for his physical safety and flee. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

**PSEG POWER LLCCOMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

|                                                  |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                  |
|                                                  | **For      the Three Months Ended****March          31,** |   |  **For    the Years Ended****December    31,** |
|                                                  |   | **2009** |   |   |   | **2008** |   |   |   | **2008** |   |   |   | **2007** |   |   | **2006** |   |   | **2005** |   |   |   | **2004** |   |
|                                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | **(Millions,    except ratios)** |
| Earnings as Defined in        Regulation S-K(A):      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                  |
| Pre-tax Income from ContinuingOperations              | $ | 318 |   |   | $ | 275 |   |   | $ | 1,711 |   |   | $ | 1,590 |   |   | $ | 878 |   |   | $ | 752 |   |   | $ | 594 |   |
| Fixed Charges                                         |   | 52 |   |   |   | 49 |   |   |   | 197 |   |   |   | 193 |   |   |   | 190 |   |   |   | 197 |   |   |   | 198 |   |
| Capitalized Interest (B)                              |   | (8 | ) |   |   | (7 | ) |   |   | (31 | ) |   |   | (23 | ) |   |   | (30 | ) |   |   | (89 | ) |   |   | (107 | ) |
| Preferred Stock Dividend        Requirements          |   | - |   |   |   | - |   |   |   | - |   |   |   | - |   |   |   | - |   |   |   | - |   |   |   | - |   |
| Total Earnings                                        | $ | 362 |   |   | $ | 317 |   |   | $ | 1,877 |   |   | $ | 1,760 |   |   | $ | 1,038 |   |   | $ | 860 |   |   | $ | 685 |   |
|                                                  |
| Fixed Charges as Defined        in Regulation S-K (B) |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                  |
| Interest Expense                                      | $ | 51 |   |   | $ | 49 |   |   | $ | 195 |   |   | $ | 192 |   |   | $ | 189 |   |   | $ | 195 |   |   | $ | 197 |   |
| Interest Factor in Rentals                            |   | 1 |   |   |   | - |   |   |   | 2 |   |   |   | 1 |   |   |   | 1 |   |   |   | 2 |   |   |   | 1 |   |
| Preferred Stock Dividend        Requirements          |   | - |   |   |   | - |   |   |   | - |   |   |   | - |   |   |   | - |   |   |   | - |   |   |   | - |   |
| Total Fixed Charges                                   | $ | 52 |   |   | $ | 49 |   |   | $ | 197 |   |   | $ | 193 |   |   | $ | 190 |   |   | $ | 197 |   |   | $ | 198 |   |
|                                                  |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed        Charges             |   | 6.96 |   |   |   | 6.47 |   |   |   | 9.53 |   |   |   | 9.12 |   |   |   | 5.46 |   |   |   | 4.37 |   |   |   | 3.46 |   |
Exhbit 10.27




Exhibit
10.27

M/I
Homes

Award
Formulas and Performance Goals

Chief
Operating Officer

Effective
January 1, 2005







In
accordance with the terms of the M/I Homes 2004 Executive Officer Compensation
Plan (the “Plan”), the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) shall, for each
Participant, establish the award formulas and performance goals (as those terms
are defined in the Plan) annually to be measured to determine the amount of
bonus awards for each Plan Year. The following are the performance goals and
award formulas for the 2005 Plan Year for the Chief Operating Officer. As stated
in the Plan, the maximum amount that any Executive Officer can receive in one
year is 500% of his 2004 base salary.





	
      I.
	 	
      Actual
      Net Income:
      In the event the actual net income of the Company is at least 75% of
      budgeted net income, the Chief Operating Officer will receive 70% of
      December 31 base salary. A maximum of 219% will be earned at 100% of
      budgeted income achievement; 9% higher than 2004’s achievement.
      

	 	 	 
	
      II.
	 	
      Customer
      Service:
      If 92% of the Company’s homeowners respond “yes” to Question #14 on the
      related questionnaire, the Chief Operating Officer will receive 50% of
      December 31 base salary. A maximum bonus of 73% will be earned at 100%
      customer satisfaction achievement. If the actual net income of the Company
      is less than 50% of budget, a bonus will not be earned for this
      criteria.

	 	 	 
	
      III.
      
	 	
      Return
      on Beginning Equity(“ROE”):
      If the ROE of the Company is 10%, the Chief Operating Officer will receive
      50% of December 31 base salary, with the amount increasing to a maximum of
      73% at a 20% ROE achievement.







2005 cash
bonus is capped at 350% of 12/31/05 base salary.




PAYMENT




The
individual must be employed in this capacity with the Company on the date
bonuses are distributed to receive a bonus. No amounts are considered due or
payable if the employment relationship with the Company is terminated.





ACKNOWLEDGED:





	 	 	 
	
      Name
	 	
      Date
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6640 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6640

 To require the Department of Housing and Urban Development to inspect 
 certain public housing developments to ensure compliance with housing 
         quality and safety standards, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2022

 Ms. Malliotakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Department of Housing and Urban Development to inspect 
 certain public housing developments to ensure compliance with housing 
         quality and safety standards, 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 ``Dignity in Housing Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. INSPECTIONS.

    Subsection (f) of section 6 of the United States Housing Act of 
1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new paragraph:
            ``(4) Large public housing developments.--
                    ``(A) Biennial inspections.--The Secretary shall 
                make inspections of each public housing project 
                consisting of 100 dwelling units or more not less 
                frequently than biennially to determine whether the 
                project is, and units in the project are, maintained in 
                accordance with the requirements under paragraph (1).
                    ``(B) Inspectors.--Inspections of a public housing 
                project required under this paragraph shall be--
                            ``(i) in addition to inspections required 
                        by paragraph (3); and
                            ``(ii) conducted by employees of the 
                        Department of Housing and Urban Development or 
                        such other inspectors as may be obtained by the 
                        Secretary, but not including any officers or 
                        employees or a public housing agency or any 
                        agent of a public housing agency.
                    ``(C) Public availability.--The Secretary shall 
                make the results of inspections pursuant to this 
                paragraph publicly available online.''.
                                 <all>
```
NUMBER 13-08-00193-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

MICHAEL SCOTT, Appellant,

v.

BEE COUNTY, ET AL., Appellees. 

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 156th District Court

of Bee County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 156 District Court th

of Bee County, Texas, in cause number B-07-1483-CV-B. Appellant has filed a motion to

voluntarily dismiss the appeal. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.
2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s motion to

voluntarily dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See

TEX. R.APP.P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby

DISMISSED. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing

will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 12th day of February, 2009.
Exhibit 11



|                                                                  |  |               |        |  |      |   |       | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------- | ------ |  | ---- | - | ----- | 
|(IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)                              |  |               |        |  |      |  
|                                                                  |  | First Quarter |       
|                                                                  |  | 2009          |        |  | 2008 |  
|Net Earnings (1)                                                  |  | $             | 10,854 |  |      | $ | 6,250 | 
|                                                                  |  |               |        |  |      |   |       | 
|Weighted average common shares outstanding  (2)                   |  |               | 6,849  |  |      |   | 6,840 | 
|                                                                  |  |               |        |  |      |   |       | 
|Common share equivalents relating to stock options when dilutive  |  |               |      |  |      |   |     | 
|                                                                  |  |               |        |  |      |   |       | 
|Adjusted common and common equivalent shares for computation  (3) |  |               | 6,849  |  |      |   | 6,840 | 
|                                                                  |  |               |        |  |      |   |       | 
|Net earnings per share:                                           |  |               |        |  |      |   |       | 
|Basic  (1 divided by 2)                                           |  | $             | 1.58   |  |      | $ | 0.91  | 
|Diluted  (1 divided by 3)                                         |  | $             | 1.58   |  |      | $ | 0.91  |
Amendment No. 2 to Cheniere Energy, Inc. 2003 Stock Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.9 
  
 CHENIERE ENERGY, INC. 2003 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 AMENDMENT No. 2 
  
 WHEREAS, Cheniere Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) previously adopted the Cheniere Energy, Inc. 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan with respect to
determining the fair market value of the Common Stock (as defined in the Plan); and 
  
 WHEREAS, in Section 1.4 of the Plan, the Company reserves the right to amend the Plan; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of January 1, 2005, as follows: 
  
 1. The definition of “Fair Market Value or FMV Per Share” in
Section 1.8 of the Plan is amended to read as follows: 
  
 “Fair Market Value or FMV Per Share”. The Fair Market Value or FMV Per Share of the Common Stock shall be the closing price of the Common Stock on the principal exchange or over-the-counter market on which such shares are
trading, if any, or as reported on any composite index which includes such principal exchange, on the most recent trading date that immediately precedes the date of the determination; provided, however, that any Awards exercised after the close of
trading on any given date shall be deemed to be exercised on the next following trading date for purposes of determining Fair Market Value or FMV Per Share. If shares of the Common Stock are not listed or admitted to trading on any exchange,
over-the-counter market or any similar organization as of the determination date, the Fair Market Value or FMV Per Share shall be determined by the Committee in good faith using any fair and reasonable means selected in its discretion. 

 
 2. Except as modified herein, the Plan is hereby specifically
ratified and affirmed.
#### JOWEIN, Inc. v. SUDY REALTY CORP. OF FLORIDA et al.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

June 4, 1954.

Dubbin, Blatt & Schiff, Miami, for appellant.

Roth & Faber, Miami, and Nathanson, Oka & Spaet, Miami Beach, for appellees.

SEBRING, Justice.

The single question presented on this appeal pertains to the scope and effect under section 84.26, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., of a waiver of lien executed by the appellant, Jowein, Inc., in the course of construction work by it as subcontractor, as follows: “ * * * for and in consideration of $5,000.00 * * * [Jowein] does hereby waive, release, remise and relinquish any and all right to claim any lien or liens for work done or material furnished, or any kind or class of lien whatsoever, on the following described property: * *

We are of the opinion that the decree of the court below, cancelling appellant’s lien for work and materials furnished under the contract in question subsequent to execution of the waiver, must, on authority of the statute above referred to, be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
#### Carl Chester FIELDS, also known as Harry Gordon, also known as Harry Sitamore, also known as Ervin Seigel, also known as Thomas Green, Appellant v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Oct. 12, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Mrs. Melanie MAITRE v. SMITH HARDWARE COMPANY, Limited.

No. 972.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 3, 1932.

Milner & Porteous, of, New Orleans, and Thos. M. & Jas. T. Burns, of Covington, for appellant.

H. E. *&*F. B. Ellis, of Covington, and H. W. Robinson, of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this case, for the reasons stated in the case of Franz H. Probst v. Smith Hardware Co. (La. App.) 141 So. 508, it is ordered and decreed that the judgment appealed from be avoided and reversed; that the demand of the plaintiff be rejected at her cost.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ray Gene Arrington v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00859-CR

Trial court case number: 2138927

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 11 of Harris County

Appellant pled guilty to driving while intoxicated and the trial court sentenced him to 

confinement for one year, probated for eighteen months and a fine of $500. This court affirmed 

the conviction in an opinion delivered July 2, 2019. On January 8, 2020, Arrington filed a 

petition for discretionary review. 

Appellant has died, and his counsel filed a motion to dismiss the petition for discretionary

review and permanently abate the appeal. On January 29, 2020, the Court of Criminal Appeals

granted the motion and dismissed the petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P.

7.1(a)(2). 

We withdraw our opinion issued July 2, 2019 and permanently abate the appeal of this 

case. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ______/s/ Peter Kelly_______

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Kelly, and Hightower

Date: February 11, 2020
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 October 22, 2014

t1015

Order 

Clerk

October 22, 2014

149580

MATTHEW COLE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149580

COA: 313824 

Macomb CC: 2012-000263-NO

HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

we REMAND this case to the Macomb Circuit Court for entry of an order granting 

summary disposition to the defendant. The Court of Appeals erred by affirming the 

circuit court’s determination that the hazard that caused the plaintiff’s slip and fall was 

not an open and obvious danger that an average user of ordinary intelligence would 

discover on casual inspection. Hoffner v Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450, 461 (2012). Here, the 

so-called “black ice” was detected by four other witnesses who viewed the premises after 

the plaintiff’s accident. There were several patches of ice evident in the area where the 

plaintiff fell. In addition, there were numerous indicia of a potentially hazardous 

condition being present, Janson v Sajewski Funeral Home, Inc, 486 Mich 934 (2010), 

including seven inches of snow on the ground, some precipitation the previous day, and a 

recent thaw followed by consistent temperatures below freezing. A reasonably prudent 

person would foresee the danger of icy conditions on the mid-winter night the plaintiff’s 

accident occurred. In light of the open and obvious nature of the hazard in this case, we 

do not consider the defendant’s arguments regarding the applicability of MCL 600.2955a.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6977 

To provide that, for a 3-year period, applications for the exportation of 

natural gas to member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization be granted without modification or delay, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2022 

Mrs. FLETCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide that, for a 3-year period, applications for the 

exportation of natural gas to member countries of the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization be granted without 

modification or delay, 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 ‘‘American Gas for Al5 lies Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6977 IH

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN APPLICA2 TIONS FOR THE EXPORTATION OF NATURAL 

3 GAS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—During the period described in 

5 subsection (c) of this section, for purposes of section 3(a) 

6 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b(a)), the expor7 tation of natural gas to a foreign country described in sub8 section (b) of this section shall be deemed to be consistent 

9 with the public interest, and applications for such expor10 tation shall be granted without modification or delay. 

11 (b) FOREIGN COUNTRIES.—A foreign country de12 scribed in this subsection is— 

13 (1) a member country of the North Atlantic 

14 Treaty Organization; or 

15 (2) any other foreign country, if the Secretary 

16 of State, in consultation with the Secretary of De17 fense and the Secretary of Energy, determines that 

18 exportation of natural gas to that foreign country 

19 would promote the national security interests of the 

20 United States. 

21 (c) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall apply with re22 spect to applications for the authorization to export nat23 ural gas under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 

24 U.S.C. 717b) to a foreign country described in subsection 

25 (b) of this section that are pending on the date of enact26 ment of this Act, or filed during the period that begins 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6977 IH

1 on such date of enactment and ends on the date that is 

2 3 years after such date of enactment. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS