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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1937 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1937

    To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to engage in certain 
    feasibility studies of water resource projects in the State of 
                              Washington.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2001

 Mr. Larsen of Washington (for himself, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Inslee, and Mr. 
Smith of Washington) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                     to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to engage in certain 
    feasibility studies of water resource projects in the State of 
                              Washington.

    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 ``Pacific Northwest Feasibility 
Studies Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior may engage in the 
following feasibility studies:
            (1) The Tulalip Tribes Water Quality Feasibility Study, to 
        identify ways to meet future domestic and commercial water 
        distribution needs of the Tulalip Indian Reservation on the 
        Eastern Shore of Puget Sound, Washington.
            (2) The Lower Elwha Klallam Rural Water Supply Feasibility 
        Study, to identify additional groundwater supply sources for 
        the Lower Elwha Indian Reservation on the Olympic Peninsula, 
        Washington.
            (3) The Makah Community Water Source Project Feasibility 
        Study, to identify ways to meet the current and future domestic 
        and commercial water supply and distribution needs of the Makah 
        Indian Tribe on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington.
    (b) Public Availability of Results.--The Secretary of the Interior 
shall make available to the public, upon request, the results of each 
feasibility study authorized under subsection (a), and shall promptly 
publish in the Federal Register a notice of the availability of those 
results.
                                 <all>
```
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM

ADAMS COUNTY, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LELAND ASAY,

SAMUEL VIDAL GOMEZ,

STACEY LYNN PARKIN, f/k/a Stacey Lynn Spera,

JERRY LEE RHEA,

DENNIS GLENN COEN,

HEATH ALLEN RUSSO,

LOUIE GEORGE SCHIMPF,

QUALITY PAVING CO., a Colorado corporation, and

QUALITY RESURFACING CO., a Colorado corporation,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Samuel Vidal Gomez’s (“Gomez”)

Motion to Suspend the Proceedings [Docket No. 25; Filed October 21, 2011] (the

“Motion”). Defendant Gomez proceeds in this matter pro se.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for

Defendant Gomez’s failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A., which provides as

follows: 

The Court will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before

filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good faith efforts to

confer with opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter.

The moving party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the

motion, the specific efforts to comply with this rule.

The Motion is subject to denial on this basis alone. The Motion is further subject to denial

Case 1:11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM Document 29 Filed 10/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
-2-

for Defendant Gomez’s failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1E., which prescribes

that “[a]ll papers shall be double-spaced.” If he so chooses, Defendant Gomez may refile

his Motion after complying fully with the Local Rules.

Dated: October 25, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM Document 29 Filed 10/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Third Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 
  
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Employment Agreement”) is made and entered into this
16th day of February 2004, by and between THE TRIZETTO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), and Jeffrey H. Margolis, an individual (the “Executive”). 
  
 R E C I T A L S 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company entered into an Employment Agreement with Executive on January 1, 2002; 
  
 WHEREAS, the Employment Agreement was amended on July 1, 2002 and April 16, 2003; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive each desire to further amend the Employment Agreement, effective as of February 16,
2004, as set forth below. 
  
 A G R E E M E N T 

 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that, effective
as of February 16, 2004, Section 4.1 of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to read, in its entirety, as follows: 
  
 “4. Compensation. 
  
 4.1 Base Salary. As compensation for all services to be rendered by Executive under this Agreement, the Company shall pay to
Executive a base annual salary of Four Hundred Thirty-Four Thousand Dollars ($434,000) (“Base Salary”), which shall be paid on a regular basis in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll procedures and policies. The amount of the
Base Salary shall be reviewed annually by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors on or before April 1st of each year. Executive’s performance, the performance of the Company and such other factors as the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors deems appropriate shall be considered in such review. Executive shall also
participate in a bonus plan as approved by the Compensation Committee.” 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Third Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the day and year set forth above. 
  

			
	 	 	 “Company”

		
	 	 	 THE TRIZETTO GROUP, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ DEBRA A. BRIGHTON


	 	 	 Debra A. Brighton

	 	 	 Senior Vice President

		
	 	 	 “Executive”

		
	 	 	 /s/ JEFFREY H. MARGOLIS


	 	 	 Jeffrey H. Margolis
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MoneyLogix
Group, Inc. for the three month period ending September 30, 2009, I, Gary
Cilevitz, Chief Financial Officer of MoneyLogix Group, Inc. hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
that:




1.
  Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ending 
September 30, 2009, 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 such Quarterly  Report on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2009, fairly represents in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
MoneyLogix Group, Inc.




Dated:
November 20, 2009





MONEYLOGIX
      GROUP, INC.By:
                /s/ Gary CilevitzGary
      CilevitzPresident,
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2115 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2115

     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
 participate in the design, planning, and construction of a project to 
reclaim and reuse wastewater within and outside of the service area of 
              the Lakehaven Utility District, Washington.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2001

   Mr. Smith of Washington introduced the following bill; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
 participate in the design, planning, and construction of a project to 
reclaim and reuse wastewater within and outside of the service area of 
              the Lakehaven Utility District, Washington.

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

SECTION 1. LAKEHAVEN, WASHINGTON, WASTEWATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 
              PROJECT.

    (a) Authorization.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h 
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1635. LAKEHAVEN, WASHINGTON, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 
              PROJECT.

    ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
Lakehaven Utility District, Washington, is authorized to participate in 
the design, planning, and construction of, and land acquisition for, a 
project to reclaim and reuse wastewater, including degraded 
groundwaters, within and outside of the service area of the Lakehaven 
Utility District.
    ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the project 
authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 percent of the total 
cost of the project.
    ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds for the 
operation and maintenance of the project authorized by this section.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in section 2 of such 
Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1634 the 
following:

        ``Sec. 1635. Lakehaven, Washington, Water Reclamation and Reuse 
                            Project.''.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION

I, James A. Tilton, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed  this 2003  year-end  report on Form 10-KSB of China
Food and Beverage Company;
         2. Based on my knowledge,  this  quarterly  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
quarterly report;
         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
         4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-4 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
         a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls
and  procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
         c)  presented  in this  quarterly  report  our  conclusions  about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;
         5. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee  of  registrant's  board  of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the
equivalent function):
         a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
         b) any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
controls; and
         6. The registrant's  other certifying  officers and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether or not there were significant  changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 Date: April 13,2004

 /s/ James A. Tilton
  -------------------
 James A. Tilton,
 Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2112

To authorize the use of certain Federal funding programs to remove arsenic

from drinking water when the Environmental Protection Agency promulgates a new national primary drinking water regulation for arsenic,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 7, 2001

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To authorize the use of certain Federal funding programs

to remove arsenic from drinking water when the Environmental Protection Agency promulgates a new national

primary drinking water regulation for arsenic, 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 ‘‘Safe Drinking Water

5 and Arsenic Removal Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 2112 IH

1 SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ARSENIC

2 REMOVAL FROM DRINKING WATER.

3 (a) SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT REVOLVING

4 FUNDS.—Section 1452(a)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water

5 Act (42 U.S.C. 300j–12(a)(2)) is amended by inserting

6 the following after the second sentence: ‘‘The funds may

7 also be used to assist community water systems in remov8 ing arsenic from drinking water to the maximum level es9 tablished in any national primary drinking water regula10 tion for arsenic that is promulgated after the enactment

11 of this sentence, notwithstanding any delay or phase-in of

12 the date on which such systems are required to comply

13 with such maximum contaminant level.’’.

14 (b) CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL DEVELOP15 MENT ACT.—Section 306(a) of the Consolidated Farm

16 and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)) is amend17 ed by adding the following at the end thereof:

18 ‘‘(22) Loans and grants under this subsection may

19 also be used to assist recipients that own or operate com20 munity water systems subject to the Safe Drinking Water

21 Act in removing arsenic from drinking water to the max22 imum level established in any national primary drinking

23 water regulation for arsenic that is promulgated under

24 that Act after the enactment of this paragraph, notwith25 standing any delay or phase-in of the date on which com-
3

•HR 2112 IH

1 munity water systems are required to comply with such

2 maximum contaminant level.’’.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02233-WYD-MJW

CBS OUTDOOR, INC., a Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

800 LINCOLN LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Stay Pending

Ruling on the Parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment (docket no. 40) is GRANTED for

those reasons as stated in the subject motion and finding good cause shown. 

Discovery is STAYED pending ruling by Chief Judge Daniel on the cross-motions for

summary judgment (docket nos. 13 and 26). 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a Joint Status Report with

the court concerning the two outstanding motions for summary judgment (docket nos.

13 and 26) on the first day of each month beginning June 1, 2012, and for each month

thereafter until the two outstanding motions for summary judgment (docket nos. 13 and

26) are ruled upon by Chief Judge Daniel. 

Date: May 2, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02233-WYD-MJW Document 42 Filed 05/02/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Ex parte Eugene WADDLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45697.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 12, 1972.

W. C. Shead, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., and James C. Brough, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying bail pending trial. The petitioner was charged with the offense of rape.

The petitioner made application to the trial court for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was under indictment in six causes; three for robbery by assault and three for rape.

The trial court conducted a hearing on the application for writ of habeas corpus and granted bail in one of the six causes in the amount of $25,000. On the same day, the trial court denied bail in this cause which resulted in this appeal. However, while the appeal from that order denying bail was pending, the petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge. Punishment was assessed at thirty (30) years in the Texas Department of Corrections.1

Since the appellant has already been convicted of the offense for which bail was denied, the issue before this Court is moot. We, therefore, decline to answer appellant’s other contentions. However, we do not condone the delay in preparing and transmitting this record to this Court.

The appeal is dismissed.

1

. Although this is not an appeal from an order denying post conviction bail, we note that the Legislature has specifically provided that one who has been assessed a penalty in excess of fifteen years is not entitled to bail pending appeal. Article 44.04, Yernon’s Ann.C.C.P., Ex parte Nielssen, Tex.Cr.App., 446 S.W.2d 882.
17

A.12. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, February 2-6, 20Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,637,936 75,496 103,344 687,318 561,861 41,235 4,02Number of loans 19,597 892 1,937 9,867 3,810 730 5Weighted average maturity (months)1 17.34 11.76 17.60 19.97 14.05 12.36 31.

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 6.54 3.78 3.74 6.61 6.63 1.63 9.0

Weighted average risk rating3 3.27 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n

Weighted average interest rate 4 4.85 5.03 5.19 4.88 4.64 5.04 4.4

 Standard error5 .28 .44 .48 .37 .42 .54 1.

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 6.18 5.50 5.83 6.26 6.66 6.38 5.9 25th percentile 3.30 4.08 5.00 3.50 3.09 3.30 2.5 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.53 5.20 4.95 4.53 4.27 4.29 n Other livestock 3.49 n.a. 4.82 4.36 2.55 3.80 n Other current operating expenses7 5.27 4.90 5.25 5.42 5.11 5.17 n

 Farm machinery and equipment 5.25 6.70 5.31 4.94 5.26 7.08 n Farm real estate 5.51 5.25 6.09 5.46 5.54 3.75 6.4 Other8 3.55 5.28 4.51 3.25 3.32 4.79 2.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 64.70 61.90 76.40 62.24 65.76 87.80 85.2 Under commitment 79.17 72.56 66.05 85.79 82.37 82.91 51.4 Callable 11.19 29.37 19.37 14.05 2.32 10.86 n Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.02 9.27 13.09 2.61 3.09 1.19 n Other livestock 5.50 n.a. 1.36 6.52 7.79 .20 n Other current operating expenses7 62.98 68.97 68.83 62.01 64.55 60.77 n Farm machinery and equipment 3.86 .94 10.57 5.02 .82 1.00 n Farm real estate 5.84 5.10 1.34 4.08 7.99 .11 47. Other8 17.80 15.72 4.81 19.75 15.76 36.73 52.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 10.83 6.62 6.44 9.95 6.54 20.17 33. Other 87.06 93.10 89.36 87.89 92.77 76.87 51.4 Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1886

To amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for appeals by third

parties in certain patent reexamination proceedings.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 17, 2001

Mr. COBLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for appeals by third parties in certain patent reexamination

proceedings.

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

3 SECTION 1. APPEALS IN INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION

4 PROCEEDINGS.

5 (a) APPEALS BY THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER IN PRO6 CEEDINGS.—Section 315(b) of title 35, United States

7 Code, is amended to read as follows:

8 ‘‘(b) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER.—A third-party

9 requester—
2

•HR 1886 IH

1 ‘‘(1) may appeal under the provisions of section

2 134, and may appeal under the provisions of sec3 tions 141 through 144, with respect to any final de4 cision favorable to the patentability of any original

5 or proposed amended or new claim of the patent;

6 and

7 ‘‘(2) may, subject to subsection (c), be a party

8 to any appeal taken by the patent owner under the

9 provisions of section 134 or sections 141 through

10 144.’’.

11 (b) APPEAL TO BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND

12 INTERFERENCES.—Section 134(c) of title 35, United

13 States Code, is amended by striking the last sentence.

14 (c) APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FED15 ERAL CIRCUIT.—Section 141 of title 35, United States

16 Code, is amended in the third sentence by inserting ‘‘, or

17 a third-party requester in an inter partes reexamination

18 proceeding, who is’’ after ‘‘patent owner’’.

19 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

20 The amendments made by this Act apply with respect

21 to any reexamination proceeding commenced on or after

22 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ