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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1749 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 335
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1749

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 10, 2001

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

                             March 21, 2002

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 685 Turnberry Road in Newport News, Virginia, as the ``Herbert H. 
                    Bateman Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 685 
Turnberry Road in Newport News, Virginia, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Herbert H. Bateman Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Herbert H. Bateman Post 
Office Building''.

                                                       Calendar No. 335

107th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1749

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 685 Turnberry Road in Newport News, Virginia, as the ``Herbert H. 
                    Bateman Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 21, 2002

                       Reported without amendment
```
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1695 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1695

   To amend section 211 of the Clean Air Act to prohibit the use of 
                        certain fuel additives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2001

  Mr. Pombo (for himself, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Herger, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. 
    Cunningham, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. 
 Schaffer, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Hostettler) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend section 211 of the Clean Air Act to prohibit the use of 
                        certain fuel additives.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 211.

    Section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)) is amended 
as follows:
            (1) By adding at the end of paragraph (1) the following: 
        ``The Administrator shall amend the regulations under this 
        paragraph as promptly as practicable after the date of 
        enactment of this sentence to prohibit the use of methyl 
        tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as a fuel additive.''.
            (2) By adding the following new subparagraph at the end of 
        paragraph (2):
    ``(D) The Administrator shall prohibit under paragraph (1) any 
additive in gasoline registered under subsection (a) after the 
enactment of this subparagraph unless it has been determined (through 
scientific testing and peer review) not to have any adverse effects on 
the public.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2


J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. 2019 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN




NOTICE OF RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD
 NON-ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR ANNUAL GRANT 




Name:   «Name»




Restricted Stock Unit Grant
A restricted stock unit grant for [l] units was granted to you on [l].  Each restricted stock unit shall at all times be deemed to have a value equal to the then-current fair market value of one share of J. C. Penney Company, Inc. Common Stock of 50¢ par value (“Common Stock”).  This grant is subject to all the terms, rules, and conditions of the J. C. Penney Company, Inc. 2019 Long-Term Incentive Plan (“Plan”).  In the event of a change in capitalization of the Company or other similar event, the number of units shall be adjusted as provided in the Plan.  


If the Company declares a dividend, you will be credited with a quarterly distribution of an amount equivalent to the dividend declared on Common Stock on the restricted stock units until such time as the units are converted to shares of Common Stock.  Any such dividends shall be converted into a number of additional restricted stock units equal to the aggregate dividend which would have been paid with respect to the number of restricted stock units then credited to you under this grant divided by the closing price of the Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange on the day on which such dividends are paid.  Any such additional restricted stock units shall vest at the same time as the restricted stock units granted hereunder.  


Payment Date
The Restricted Stock Units shall vest and the restrictions on your Restricted Stock Unit shall lapse on [VESTING DATE].  Your vested Restricted Stock Units shall be settled in shares of Common Stock on or as soon as practicable following the vesting date, but in no event later than 21⁄2 months following the vesting date.  You shall not be allowed to defer the payment of your shares of Common Stock to a later date.  If you have a separation from Board service, prior to the vesting date, for any reason other than a Qualifying Termination as defined in the Plan, the restricted stock units will be forfeited.  The beneficiary listed on your J. C. Penney Company, Inc. Beneficiary Designation Form will receive the vested shares upon separation due to death.


Taxes
At the time the Company issues to you, in cancellation of the restricted stock units, shares of Common Stock, the fair market value of the shares on the vesting date (the closing price of the Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange, or if the Common Stock does not trade on such date, the closing price reported in the composite transaction table on the last trading date immediately preceding such date) multiplied by the number of vested shares will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service on a Form 1099.  The fair market value is subject to Federal Income Tax and Social Security Self-Employment Tax.
U .5 . DISTRiCT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 2

00 8 DEC 2b P 12: 3 b

APPEARANCE

Freedom From Religion Foundation, et at v. Jan Doe, et a l

To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record :

Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for

The Hanover School District, The Dresden School Distric

and School Administrative Unit 70 .

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this t o

December 21, 200 7

Date

Case Number: 1 :07-cv-356-JM

David H. Bradley, Esq . 87

Print Name Bar Numbe r

41 South Park Street

Address

Hanover, NH 03755

City State Zip Code

(603)643-3737 dbradley@stebbinsbradley .com

Phone Number EmailAddress -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this Appearance was served on the following persons on this date and in the manner

specified herein :

Electronically Served Through ECF :

Conventionally Served:

Michael Newdow, P .O. Box 233345, Sacramento, CA 9582 3

Rosanna Fox, O'Brien Law Firm, P .C., One Sundial Ave ., Fifth Floor, Manchester, NH 03103

Eric B. Beckenhauer, U .S . Dept. of Justice, Civil Division, 20 Massachusetts Ave ., NW, Washington, DC 2053 0

Nancy J. Smith, Sr. Assist. Attorney General, Civil Bureau, Office of the Attorney General, 33 Capitol St ., Co ord, NH 03301

Gretchen Witt, U.S . Attorney's Office, James C. Cleveland Fed . Building, APleasaQ St ., 4thyl, Conaordf03301-000 i

December 21, 2007 [Jsl }

Date Signature

Case 1:07-cv-00356-SM Document 6 Filed 12/26/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-24-PB

Cathy Smedes

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the November 1, 2005

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

finalize plea negotiations. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement or properly prepare for trial, the

court will continue the trial from November 1, 2005 to January 4,

2006. In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds

pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated

reasons, the ends of justice served in granting a continuance

outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00024-PB Document 11 Filed 10/17/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The October 17, 2005 final pretrial conference is continued

to December 19, 2005 at 3:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

October 17, 2005

cc: William Christie, Esq.

Robert Veiga, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00024-PB Document 11 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023298
<NAME> AVENUE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         534,231
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  268,099
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    949,106
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          67,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,689,177
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,049,518
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,890
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,593,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,689,177
<SALES>                                         99,926
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,926
<CGS>                                           51,383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  554,408
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               503,025
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (454,482)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       128
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (454,610)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (454,610)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

C.W. Gilluly, Chief Executive Officer of AMASYS Corporation (the "Company")
certifies in his capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the
Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003
and that to the best of his or her knowledge:

     1.   the report fully complies with the  requirements of Sections 13(a) and
          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 Company.

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or it staff upon request.



November 14, 2003                             /s/ C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.
                                              Chief Executive Officer
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CRISTIAN DAVID CARMONA QUINONEZ

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 752

[ August 19, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Bernard I. Bober , Judge; L.T. Case No. 18

- 008209CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender , and Alan T. Lipson , Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allan R. Geesey

, Assi stant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, G ERBER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1709 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1709

             For the relief of Adela T. and Darryl Bailor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2001

Ms. Carson of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             For the relief of Adela T. and Darryl Bailor.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT.

    In consideration of--
            (1) the inability of Adela T. and Darryl Bailor to receive 
        compensation under the Tort Claims Procedure described in 
        chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code;
            (2) the moral responsibility of the United States to 
        protect the right of its law-abiding citizens to be free from 
        attacks by violent felons in the custody of the United States; 
        and
            (3) the recommendation of the United States Court of 
        Appeals for the 7th Circuit in the case entitled Adela T. 
        Bailor and Darryl Bailor v. the Salvation Army and the United 
        States of America, No. 94-2660, that Adela T. and Darryl Bailor 
        seek private legislative relief,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, not later than 18 months after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, out of funds not otherwise 
appropriated, to Adela T. and Darryl Bailor of Colorado Springs, 
Colorado, the amount determined by the Attorney General under section 
2(b), as full compensation for the injuries Adela T. Bailor suffered as 
a result of a brutal rape and beating on May 9, 1991, by an inmate of 
the Federal correctional system in the custody of the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons.

SEC. 2. AMOUNT.

    (a) Transmittal of Claims.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, Adela T. and Darryl Bailor, or their 
representatives, shall transmit to the Attorney General all claims for 
compensation for the injuries referred to in section 1.
    (b) Determination of the Attorney General.--Not later than 1 year 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, with appropriate 
consideration given to the claims transmitted under subsection (a), the 
Attorney General shall determine the amount that the United States 
owes, using Indiana tort law, to Adela T. and Darryl Bailor for the 
injuries referred to in section 1.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS AND BALANCE SHEETS OF POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                      42,575,890
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,761,948
<ALLOWANCES>                                   315,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,327,396
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            57,540,576
<PP&E>                                       7,982,834
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,693,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,176,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,744,983
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    39,649,130
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,461,555
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,176,111
<SALES>                                     47,602,321
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            47,602,321
<CGS>                                       28,384,868
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,664,253
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,981,949
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,793,142
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,188,807
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,188,807
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        

</TABLE>
#### SHAY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Feb. 9, 1954.

Hal S. Ives and .Russell H, McIntosh, West Palm Beach, for appellant. ■

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Mark R. Hawes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*364TERRELL, Justice.

Milton Shay was informed against, tried and convicted for. violating the narcotics law. Sections 398.21 and 398.22, Florida Statutes 1949, F.S.A. He was sentenced to pay a fine of $1500 or in default thereof to he confined in the State Penitentiary at hard labor for a period of eighteen months. We are confronted with an appeal from that judgment

Two questions are presented for deter-minátion. (1) Was the search of Shay’s automobile legal ? (2) Was • the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment?

In answer to the first question' it is sufficient to say that Shay was arrested without a warrant for peddling in the presence of a police officer. He was conducted to the jail where he was searched. Evidence was found which made the officers suspicious'that he possessed flárcotics. Permission was requested and given to search his automobile'. ' Two other officers searched it on Sunday morning and found a number' of marijuana cigarettes.

Appellant contends that permission given the first police officer to search his automobile was not sufficient to authorize two other police officers to search it. In our view, permission given one police officer to search an autombile is sufficient for any. other police officer on the force to do so. The delay complained of in this case is not material. Appellant was arrested late Friday night. The- next day was November 11th, a holiday. , The officer who made the arrest was on night duty. The car was searched Sunday morning. The consent was not withdrawn and there is no suggestion that the automobile was tampered with or “loaded.” So far as the record discloses the consent was free ánd voluntary. We have examined Judd v. United States, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 64, 190 F.2d 649 relied on by appellant, but we do not think it concludes the case.

. As to sufficiency of the< evidence to support the verdict, appellant says that ownership of the automobile and possession of the • cigarettes was. not conclusively shown. Appellant admitted ownership of the shaving kit in which some of the cigarettes were found. There were other admissions about the cigarettes that supported the verdict. Appellant also contended that he was not permitted use of' the phone to interview a lawyer from Friday to Tuesday, but the arresting officers flatly contradict this and the jury believed their story. No constitutional rights are shown to have been invaded.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS,' JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.1




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 Autobytel Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), we, Jeffrey H.
Coats, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Curtis E.
DeWalt, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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; and




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





/s/
      Jeffrey H. CoatsJeffrey
      H. CoatsPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerApril
      23, 2010





/s/
      Curtis E. DeWaltCurtis
      E. DeWaltSenior
      Vice President andChief
      Financial OfficerApril
      23, 2010




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Autobytel Inc. and
will be retained by Autobytel Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.