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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1314 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1314

  To provide an enhanced penalty for threatening to kill, injure, or 
intimidate an individual, or to cause property damage, by means of fire 
                  or an explosive on school property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2001

    Mrs. Lowey (for herself, Mr. Engel, Mr. Gilman, and Mrs. Kelly) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                                  the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide an enhanced penalty for threatening to kill, injure, or 
intimidate an individual, or to cause property damage, by means of fire 
                  or an explosive on school property.

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

SECTION 1. ENHANCED PENALTY FOR THREATENING TO KILL, INJURE, OR 
              INTIMIDATE AN INDIVIDUAL, OR TO CAUSE PROPERTY DAMAGE, BY 
              MEANS OF FIRE OR AN EXPLOSIVE ON SCHOOL PROPERTY.

    Section 844(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following: ``If the threat or conveying of false 
information referred to in the preceding sentence concerns conduct on 
the grounds of a school which provides elementary or secondary 
education (as determined under State law), the maximum term of 
imprisonment under this subsection shall be 20 years.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Samuel J. Bourne 

v. Civil No. 05-cv-365-JD 

Town of Madison, et al. 

Procedural Order 

The court held a telephone conference with counsel on 

December 15, 2009, to address a motion to withdraw filed by the 

plaintiff’s out-of-state counsel, which followed the withdrawal 

of local counsel. The plaintiff’s counsel explained his reasons 

to support the motion. The motion was granted. 

Counsel for the individual defendants raised a question 

about the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss their 

counterclaim. In the course of the discussion, the court noted 

that it appeared that the defendants had not filed an answer to 

the amended complaint, which was filed on December 5, 2006. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. 

An order issued on December 15, 2009, notifying the 

plaintiff that because his attorney of record has withdrawn from 

representing him in this case, he must advise the court, on or 

before January 4, 2010, of the name of his new attorney or of his 

decision to proceed pro se. Although the parties have made 

several recent filings, those matters will not be addressed until 

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 145 Filed 12/18/09 Page 1 of 2
after January 4, 2010, when the plaintiff will have notified the 

court of whether he will proceed represented by a new attorney or 

by himself. 

SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

United States District Judge 

December 18, 2009 

cc: Samuel J. Bourne 

Brian J. S. Cullen, Esquire 

Richard D. Sager, Esquire 

2 

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 145 Filed 12/18/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rhonda S. Abbott

v. Civil No. 05-cv-127-SM

Town of Salem, NH., et al.

O R D E R

 Defendant Control Security Service’s, Inc. moves to strike

plaintiff’s responses to Requests for Admissions as untimely. 

Plaintiff, of course, objects. 

Discussion

The Requests for Admission were served on plaintiff on

November 27, 2006. The certificate of service states that

service was by pre-paid first class mail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)

provides, in pertinent part that: 

(t)he matter is admitted unless, within 30

days after service of the request, or within

such . . . longer time as the court may allow

. . . the party upon whom the request is

directed serves . . . a written answer or

objection . . . .

No request to the court was made for a longer time and none was

granted. The requests are deemed admitted and the responses

filed one month late are a nullity. 

Plaintiff’s reading of AP2.1 is simply wrong. The rule does

Case 1:05-cv-00127-SM Document 87 Filed 04/27/07 Page 1 of 2
2

not require that discovery be done electronically. The

electronic information agreement deals with discovery of

electronic data. It does not switch a requirement of discovery

by electronics to paper. The objection is without basis. In any

event, all “information and belief” responses also fail to comply

with the rule. 

Since the responses are not a pleading they are not subject

to being struck. They are a nullity and the requests are all

deemed admitted. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 27, 2007

cc: John P. Coakley, Esq.

 Catherine M. Costanzo, Esq.

 Donald E. Gardner, Esq.

 Meredith M. Lasna, Esq.

 Debra L. Mayotte, Esq.

 Richard J. Riley, Esq.

 William R. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.

 William R. Sullivan, Sr., Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00127-SM Document 87 Filed 04/27/07 Page 2 of 2
#### TOWN OF PALM BEACH, Florida, a Municipal Corporation under the Laws of the State of Florida, and Edward Ehinger, Jr., Building Inspector of the Town of Palm Beach, Florida, Appellants, v. SEIDEN HOLDING CORPORATION, Inc., a Corporation Existing under the Laws of the State of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.

May 25, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 31, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.5    
    


 
 

ADDENDUM TO EXECUTIVE TERMINATION BENEFITS AGREEMENTS


	1.
	Continuation Period pursuant to Subparagraph 1(d) of the Executive Termination Benefits Agreement shall mean "the period of time
beginning on the Termination Date and ending twenty-four (24) months thereafter."



	2.
	The
following language shall be added as Subparagraph 4(a) of the Executive Termination Benefits Agreement: 



The
Company will pay to the Executive the sum of (i) two (2) times the greater of (A) the Executive's effective annual base salary at the Termination Date or (B) the
Executive's effective annual base salary immediately prior to the Change in Control, plus (ii) two (2) times the greater of (X) the highest annual bonus awarded to the Executive
under the Company's Variable Compensation Plan or any other bonus plan (whether paid currently or on a deferred basis) with respect to any twelve (12) consecutive month period during the last
two (2) fiscal years ending prior to the Termination Date or (Y) the highest target bonus rate applicable to the Executive for any period during such prior two (2) year period,
multiplied by the applicable annual base salary determined under clause (i) of this Section 4(a); the resulting amount to be paid in a lump sum on the first day of the month following
the Termination Date. 



	 	 	Dated: [insert date]
	

 	
 	

SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION
	

 	
 	

By	

 
	 	 	 	
 James F. Brashear

Corporate Secretary
	

 	
 	

SABRE INC.
	

 	
 	

By	

 
	 	 	 	
 James F. Brashear

Senior Vice President, Deputy General Counsel and Corporate Secretary





	

 	
 	

[Executive]
	

 	
 	

Signed:	

 
	 	 	 	














QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.5


ADDENDUM TO EXECUTIVE TERMINATION BENEFITS AGREEMENTS
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rogue Wave
Software, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John Floisand, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: February 14, 2003



/s/    John FloisandJohn Floisand Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.2



          Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

     Solely  for the  purposes  of  complying  with 18  U.S.C.  ss.1350,  I, the
undersigned  Chief  Financial  Officer  of  Avenue   Entertainment   Group  (the
"Company"),  hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter  ended March 31, 2003 (the  "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.




                                               Gene Feldman


May 16, 2003
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XXI,  Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XXI,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as  adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The  Report  fully  complies with the  requirements  of
          Section  13(a) or 15(d) of 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 Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              May 5, 2006



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              May 5, 2006
#### Succession of NICHOLICH.

No. 16305.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 7, 1936.

H. J. Rayl, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Jas. N. Brittingham, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This matter comes before us on motion to dismiss the appeal because of alleged acquiescence in the judgment. The acquiescence is said to be evidenced by the fact that appellant has accepted from the administrator a check for $1,057.45, which is *832the amount which the judgment ordered the administrator to pay to appellant.

It appears from the record that more than the amount set forth was claimed by the appellant, and that there were other issues involved.

Appellant, after the expiration of the time within which a suspensive appeal might have been taken by the administrator, indicated to the said administrator that he intended to -take a devolutive appeal from the judgment and to complain in said appeal that the judgment should have been for a larger sum, and he requested that since the administrator could no longer appeal suspensively from the judgment, that he should pay to appellant the amount set forth therein, leaving for determination on the devolutive appeal the question of whether any additional amount should be due. It appears that the check was paid and accepted with the understanding that the said acceptance should not interfere with the right of appellant to prosecute a devolutive appeal and to therein claim an additional amount, consequently, the motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.

Motion denied.
EX-10.2





 Exhibit 10.2 

ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT 

This ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT (the “Assignment”), is made this August 29, 2019, by and between NAVIOS CORPORATION (the
“NC”), NAVIOS SOUTH AMERICAN LOGISTICS INC. (“NSAL”) and NAVIOS SHIPMANAGEMENT INC. (“Assignee”) and relates to the Administrative Services Agreement (the “Agreement”) entered into between NSAL and
Navios Maritime Holdings Inc. on April 12, 2011 as such Agreement was assigned to NC via an assignment dated May 28, 2014 and subsequently amended on April 6, 2016. 

RECITALS: 
 A. NC has
provided NSAL with administrative services pursuant to the Agreement; 
 B. NC wishes to assign to Assignee, and Assignee wishes to assume,
the Agreement; and 
 C. NSAL is willing to consent to assignment of the Agreement to Assignee, subject to the terms and conditions set forth
below. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties, intending to
be legally bound, mutually agree as follows: 
 SECTION I. Assignment. Subject to the terms hereinafter set forth, NC hereby assigns
to Assignee all of its right, title and interest and all of its covenants, obligations and duties under the Agreement. 
 SECTION 2.
Acceptance. Assignee hereby accepts the foregoing assignment. 
 SECTION 3. Consent of NSAL. NSAL hereby consents to the
foregoing assignment. 
 SECTION 4. Release. NSAL hereby releases and discharges NC from any and all claims, debts, or demands which
NSAL may have, or may ever have, against NC that arise or relate to NC’s or Assignee’s performance or non-performance of its contractual duties and obligations under the Agreement. 

SECTION 5. Execution in Counterparts. This Assignment Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, and such counterparts shall
constitute a single instrument. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 












 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized
signatories with effect on the date first above written. 
  

			
	NAVIOS SOUTH AMERICAN LOGISTICS INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Ioannis Karyotis

		 	Name: Ioannis Karyotis
		 	Title:   CFO
	
	NAVIOS SHIPMANAGEMENT INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Pantazis Michalas

		 	Name: Pantazis Michalas
		 	Title:   Operations Manager
	
	NAVIOS CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Shunji Sasada

		 	Name: Shunji Sasada
		 	Title:   President
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7365-7366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2207]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint

Notification of American Eagle Gold Proof and Uncirculated Coin 
Price Increase

SUMMARY: The United States Mint is adjusting prices for its 2007 
American Eagle Gold Proof and Uncirculated Coins.
    Pursuant to the authority that 31 U.S.C. 5111(a) and 5112(a)(7-10) 
grant the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue gold coins, and 
to prepare and distribute numismatic items, the United States Mint 
mints and issues 2007 American Eagle Gold Proof and Uncirculated Coins 
with the following weights: One-ounce, one-half ounce, one-quarter 
ounce, one-tenth ounce. The United States Mint also produces an 
American Eagle four-coin set that contains one coin of each 
denomination. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)(2)(B), the United 
States Mint is changing the price of these coins to reflect the 
increase in value of the underlying precious metal content of the 
coins--the result of increases in the market price of gold.

[[Page 7366]]

    Accordingly, effective February 1, 2008, the United States Mint 
will commence selling the following 2007 American Eagle Gold 
Uncirculated Coins and the 2007 American Eagle \1/10\-Ounce Proof Coin 
according to the following price schedule:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Description                             Price
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 American Eagle \1/10\-Ounce Gold Proof Coin:..........      $146.95
American Eagle Gold Uncirculated Coins:
  One-ounce gold uncirculated coin.........................     1,045.95
  One-half ounce gold uncirculated coin....................       529.95
  One-quarter ounce gold uncirculated coin.................       279.95
  One-tenth ounce gold uncirculated coin...................       119.95
  Four-coin gold uncirculated set..........................     1,939.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria C. Eskridge, Associate Director 
for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 Ninth Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701.

    Dated: January 31, 2008.
Daniel P. Shaver,
Acting Deputy Director, United States Mint.
 [FR Doc. E8-2207 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
```
#### Fausto CEPEDA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Al HERRERA, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 01-56824.

D.C. No. CV-01-05085-RNB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T. G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Federal prisoner Fausto Cepeda appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his sentence based on *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cepeda contends that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective for assertion of his *Apprendi*claim, so he should be permitted to pursue this claim under 28 U. S.C. § 2241. The district court correctly determined that Cepeda failed to demonstrate that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is “inade*739quate or ineffective” to test the legality of his detention. *See Lorentsen v. Hood,*223 F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir.2000) (stating general rule that the unavailability of a second or successive petition does not itself make section 2255 inadequate or ineffective). Nor does Cepeda make a colorable assertion of “actual innocence.” Even if *Apprendi*applied to Cepeda’s claim, *cf. United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes,*282 F.3d 664, 671 (9th Cir.) (concluding that *Apprendi*does not apply retroactively to cases on initial collateral review), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 48, 154 L.Ed.2d 243 (2002), it would have had no effect on his sentence, much less on his conviction. *See*21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A) (establishing life sentence as maximum for amount of crack charged and admitted); *Lorentsen,*223 F.3d at 953-56 (rejecting actual innocence claim).

The district court properly dismissed Cepeda’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. *See Moore v. Reno,*185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (rejecting the use of § 2241 as substitute for a dismissed § 2255 motion).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ALEXZANDRA BLANCO,

Defendant.

8:23MJ251

ORDER

The court has been presented a Financial Affidavit (CJA Form 23) signed by the 

above-named defendant in support of a request for appointed counsel. After a review of 

the Financial Affidavit, I find that the above-named defendant is eligible for appointment 

of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, and Amended 

Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of Nebraska.

IT IS ORDERED that James R. Kozel is appointed as attorney of record for the 

above-named defendant in this matter and shall forthwith file an appearance in this 

matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender’s Office shall 

forthwith provide counsel with a draft appointment order (CJA Form 20) bearing the 

name and other identifying information of the CJA Panel attorney identified in 

accordance with the Criminal Justice Act Plan for this district.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to 

the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska and James R. Kozel.

DATED this 4th day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ F.A. Gossett, III

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00117-BCB-RCC Doc # 15 Filed: 05/04/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 44
---

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures Year
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total1982
          2
          3
          3
          3
          111983
          1
          1
          2
          3
          71984
          3
          7
          10
          12
          321985
          12
          21
          17
          18
          681986
          14
          14
          21
          16
          651987
          22
          19
          12
          16
          691988
          11
          6
          12
          7
          361989
          5
          7
          5
          5
          221990
          3
          5
          6
          3
          171991
          2
          2
          3
          1
          81992
          1
          1
          1
          4
          71993
          1
          2
          2
          0
          51994
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01995
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01996
          0
          2
          0
          0
          21997
          0
          0
          0
          1
          11998
          0
          0
          1
          0
          11999
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12000
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02001
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02002
          1
          0
          0
          1
          22003
          0
          1
          0
          0
          1 Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.
Industrial banks and mutual savings banks also are
excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: December 30, 2003