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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 30

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting

the right to decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 6, 2001

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States respecting the right to decent, safe, sanitary, and

affordable housing.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States:
2

•HJ 30 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. All citizens of the United States shall

3 have a right to decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable hous4 ing, which right shall not be denied or abridged by the

5 United States or any State.

6 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to imple7 ment this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-057-JD

Gordon Reid

O R D E R

Attorney Richard Monteith moves to quash a subpoena served

on him requiring his testimony at trial next week. In support of

his motion, Monteith represents that he is counsel to Deborah

Poirier in an unrelated criminal case in this court and that

Poirier has cooperated with the government in this case against

Reid. Monteith asserts that Poirier is asserting her attorneyclient privilege with respect to his communications with her,

which will prevent him from testifying at Reid’s trial.

“Familiarly, the attorney-client privilege--somewhat

simplified--is a privilege of a client to refuse to testify or to

have his counsel testify as to confidential communications

between the two made in connection with the rendering of legal

representation . . . .” In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 417 F.3d

18, 21 (1st Cir. 2005). The privilege applies only to

communications between a client and her attorney, for the purpose

of legal representation, but not to communications with third

parties. United States v. Bisanti, 414 F.3d 168, 171 (1st Cir.

2005). The person invoking attorney-client “privilege bears the

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 138 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 2
2

burden of establishing that it applies to the communications at

issue and that it has not been waived.” In re Keeper of Records,

348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2003).

At the present juncture of the case, the nature of the

testimony Reid seeks from Monteith has not been established. 

Although Monteith asserts that he has no information relevant to

Reid’s case other than privileged communications with Poirier, he

has not made a sufficient showing to invoke the protection of the

privilege on behalf of Poirier for the purpose of quashing the

subpoena. He may, however, assert attorney-client privilege in

the course of his testimony at trial, if he can show that the

privilege applies as to the particular inquiry and that it has

not been waived.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to quash the subpoena

filed by Attorney Monteith (document no. 128) is denied without

prejudice to assert the privilege at trial. 

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

February 10, 2006

cc: Gordon Reid, pro se

Michael J. Iacopino, Esquire

Helen W. Fitzbiggon, Esquire

Clyde R. W. Garrigan, Esquire

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 138 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5186-N-38]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         September 19, 2008.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration*, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: September 11, 2008.

Mark R. Johnston,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.

[FR Doc. E8-21696 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
DENY and Opinion Filed April 17, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00332-CV IN RE REDBIRD TRAILS APARTM ENTS, BRIDGEWAY CAPITAL, LLC AND NCM MANAGEMENT, LTD., Relators Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-00945-A MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Carlyle, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness Before the Court are relators’ April 10, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for temporary stay of tr ial. In their petition, relators challenge the trial court’s order denying their motion for discovery of documents considered confidential under the Texas Family Code. Th ey complain that the trial court abused its discretion by determining after an in ca mera inspection that none of the requested documents were relevant. Relators’ burden is to provide this Court with a sufficient record for mandamus review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.7. This burden re quires them “to request that any documents submitted to the trial c ourt for in camera inspection be carried–2– forward under seal so that the appellate court can evaluate this information.” In re
Barnes , 655 S.W.3d 658, 668 (Tex. App.—D allas 2022, orig. proceeding); see also Lesher v. Coyel , 435 S.W.3d 423, 431–32 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied) (noting that if documents have been subm itted for in camera inspection, complaining party must request that the exhibits be ca rried forward under seal so that appellate court can evaluate them). Here, the mandamus record does not incl ude the records inspected by the trial court in camera, and nothing before us reflect s that relators have asked the trial court to carry the documents forward to this C ourt under seal. We are unable to assess the merits of the petition without them. Accordingly, relators have failed to meet their burden to provide the Court with a suffi cient record, and we deny the petition. Having denied the petition, we also deny the emergency motion as moot.

230332F.P05 / Robbie Partida-Kipness / ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE
Exhibit 10.7


 


AMENDMENT


TO


EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT


 


THIS
AMENDMENT, by and between MAGELLAN
HEALTH SERVICES, INC., on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries and
affiliates (collectively referred to as “Employer”), and Anthony Kotin (“Employee”),
is entered into as of the effective date of the Employment Agreement by and
between Employer and Employee (“Agreement”).


 


WHEREAS,
Employer desires to obtain the services of Employee and Employee desires to
render services to Employer; and


 


WHEREAS,
the parties wish to modify the Agreement.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound and upon good and
valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.     The following shall be inserted in Section
4 of the Agreement as Subsection (c):


 


“(c)    Additional
Compensation.  In addition to the
base salary and benefits provided for in Sections 4(a) and (b), Employee will
receive a $50,000 sign-on bonus, which will be payable no later than thirty
days after Employee’s first day of employment. 
Employee will also receive an additional $25,000 bonus, which will be
payable at the time Employer’s Short Term Incentive Plan is funded and awarded,
based on 2003 results.  If Employee’s
employment with Employer terminates, payment or nonpayment of the bonuses in
this Subsection will be in accordance to the terms of the Employment
Agreement.  In addition, Employee is
eligible to participate in Magellan’s Short Term Incentive Plan for the fiscal
year beginning January 1, 2004.  The
award of a bonus under this Plan, and the amount of any such bonus awarded, is
at the complete discretion of Employer and is based upon corporate performance
and individual performance against goals for the Plan year in addition to the
funding level approved by Employer’s Board of Directors.  The terms and provisions of the Short Term
Incentive Plan will apply.  Though the
bonus remains discretionary, the target level for Employee’s bonus under this
Plan is 50% of his annual base salary.”


 


2.     All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment
shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.


 


3.     All other terms and provisions of the Agreement not modified as
set forth herein shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement on the 27th day of October, 2003.


 


	
   

  	
  MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

  
	
  “Employee”

  	
  “Employer”

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Anthony M. Kotin

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   /s/ Steve Shulman

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Steve Shulman

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  
								



 


1
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00054-CV

Catlin R. Edwards, Appellant

v.

Jessica C. Sayre, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-FM-04-002976, HONORABLE TEXANNA DAVIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant has filed a motion requesting that this appeal be dismissed. We grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: March 20, 2013
Exhibit 31.b  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Larry Bruce, certify that: (1)I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of DataJungle Software Inc.;  (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 operation and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods represented in this report;  (4)The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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)Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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  (c)Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  (5)The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting.   /s/ Larry Bruce Larry Bruce Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer Date: August 13, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Glenn L. Forni

v. Case No. 05-fp-406

U.S. Social Security Administration,

Commissioner

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee. 

This case has been assigned number 05-cv-406- PB . 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge 

Date: November 23, 2005

cc: Jonathan P. Baird, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00406-PB Document 3 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 1
#### GORE PRODUCTS, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD CO., Defendant and Appellant.

No. 18904.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 10, 1949.

Miller & Bloch, of New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellee.

Chaffe, McCall, Toler & Phillips and Harry McCall, Jr., all of New Orleans, for defendant and appellant.

REGAN, Judge.

A careful reconsideration and thorough analysis of this matter convinces us that our former opinion and decree are correct and that they should be reinstated.

For the reasons assigned, our original opinion and decree herein are reinstated as the final judgment of this Court.

Original decree reinstated.
Exhibit 10.11



 




Exhibit 10.11




THE KEITH COMPANIES, INC.




BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPENSATION




2005



     
Each director who is independent under the rules and regulations
of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Nasdaq
National Market, which we refer to as an independent director,
receives compensation as set forth below, in accordance with the
compensation program for independent directors approved by the
Board of Directors.




	 	 	 
	
    
    Retainer

    	 	
    $20,000 annually
	
    
    In Person Board, Shareholder or Committee Meeting

    	 	
    $2,000 per day
	
    
    Telephonic Meeting or Attendance Via Telephone

    	 	
    $1,000 per day
	
    
    Audit Committee Chair Fee

    	 	
    $2,000 annually
	
    
    Equity Compensation

    	 	
    On the date of each annual shareholder meeting, each independent
    director is entitled to receive an annual option grant to
    purchase 2,000 shares of our common stock under our
    1994 Stock Incentive Plan. These options vest in two equal
    annual installments beginning on the first anniversary of the
    grant date and are exercisable at the fair market value of the
    underlying stock on the grant date. In addition, the option
    agreements provide that upon a change of control (as defined in
    the agreement), the portion of the option not otherwise vested
    shall become vested and exercisable generally from the date the
    Board of Directors approves the change of control event until
    the fifth business day immediately before the effective date of
    the change in control event. Unless specific written provision
    is made in connection with the change in control event to the
    contrary, the Option shall terminate thereafter.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 06-cr-19-01, 02-SM

Starr Parrish, et al

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 23) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the May 2006 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver of

Speedy Trial Rights not later than March 7, 2005. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary 

Case 1:06-cr-00019-SM Document 25 Filed 03/02/06 Page 1 of 2
2

for effective preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: April 20, 2006 at 9:30 AM

Jury Selection: May 2, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

March 2, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Donald Feith, Esq.

 Donald Kennedy, Esq. 

 Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00019-SM Document 25 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Calvin P. MALLORY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHAIRMAN, VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-6711.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 21, 2003.

Calvin P. Mallory, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Calvin P. Mallory seeks to appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his civil action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

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, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States*
      *283
      *v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 4, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on April 30, 2003. Because Mallory failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 6725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2096]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8525-2]


Gulf of Mexico Program Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), EPA 
gives notice of a meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) Citizens 
Advisory Committee (CAC).
    For information on access or services for individuals with 
disabilities, please contact Gloria Car, U.S. EPA, at (228) 688-2421 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86e5e7f4a8e1eae9f4efe7c6e3f6e7a8e1e9f0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f7c7e6d317873706d767e5f7a6f7e31787069">[email protected]</span></a>. To request accommodation of a disability, please 
contact Gloria Car, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, 
to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 27 from 8:30 
a.m. to 5 p.m. and Thursday, February 28, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Louisiana Universities 
Marine Consortium, DeFelice Marine Center, 8124 Highway 56, Chauvin, LA 
70344.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria D. Car, Designated Federal 
Officer, Gulf of Mexico Program Office, Mail Code EPA/GMPO, Stennis 
Space Center, MS 39529-6000 at (228) 688-2421.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed agenda includes the following 
topics: Gulf of Mexico Alliance Updates; Discussions of Citizens 
Advisory Committee involvement in Gulf Alliance activities; 
Presentation on Sustainable Fisheries in Agriculture; Presentation on 
Hypoxia in the Gulf Coast; Citizens Advisory Committee membership 
status; Field trip to a USDA facility to examine coastal sugarcane 
production practices and to the Terrebonne Levee & Conservation 
District to review hurricane and flood protection measure in the 
coastal Louisiana area.
    The meeting is open to the public.

    Dated: January 29, 2008.
Gloria D. Car,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-2096 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>