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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4517]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           THE GIVING INCENTIVE AND VOLUNTEER EMPOWERMENT ACT

  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, the Cato Institute estimates that spending 
on welfare programs by all levels of government runs over $35,000 for 
every family of four below the poverty line. But it is painfully 
obvious that the average poor family does not even come close to 
receiving this much money. The bulk is spent on bureaucratic overhead, 
not on the people it is intended to help.
  Today, I will be introducing a bill to expand the tax incentive for 
charitable giving, thereby offering average citizens a chance to do 
more for those in need than the government ever could. My bill--the 
Giving Incentive and Volunteer Empowerment Act, or the GIVE Act--will 
encourage more charitable donations to private sector charities and 
other nonprofits, which get a much bigger bang for their bucks than do 
government-run programs.
  The GIVE Act will do four things:
  First, allow all individual filers to deduct from taxable income 120 
percent of the value of their charitable donation.
  Second, once again allow non-itemizers to deduct for charitable 
deductions, as long as they give more than $1,000, or $2,000 filing 
jointly.
  Third, exclude charitable giving from the overall limitation on 
itemized deductions.
  Fourth, extend the deadline for making tax-deductible charitable 
donations until April 15, when taxpayers are past the end-of-the-year 
cash crunch and can better estimate their tax liability.
  I want to make it plain the GIVE Act is not meant to supplant all 
Government spending on social programs. But as we seek to reassert 
fiscal responsibility in government, increased private giving and 
volunteer involvement can fill a need the deficit spending cannot--and 
with more success, efficiency, and compassion.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 13.1

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code), I, Christian J. Beckett, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

1. the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the
for the year ended December 31, 2012, as amended by Amendment No. 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 Company.

Date: December 20, 2013



|       |  |                         
|------ |  | ------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Christian J. Beckett
|       |  |                         
|Name:  |  | Christian J. Beckett    
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2963 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 613
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2963

                          [Report No. 113-284]

    To remove a limitation on a prohibition relating to permits for 
         discharges incidental to normal operation of vessels.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 20, 2014

 Mrs. Boxer (for herself, Mr. Begich, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. 
 Cantwell, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Markey, Ms. Warren, Mr. Cardin, 
Mr. Booker, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Wyden) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

                            December 4, 2014

               Reported by Mrs. Boxer, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To remove a limitation on a prohibition relating to permits for 
         discharges incidental to normal operation of vessels.

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

SECTION 1. DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF CERTAIN 
              VESSELS.

    Section 2(a) of Public Law 110-299 (33 U.S.C. 1342 note) is amended 
by striking ``during the period beginning on the date of the enactment 
of this Act and ending on December 18, 2014,''.
                                                       Calendar No. 613

113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2963

                          [Report No. 113-284]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To remove a limitation on a prohibition relating to permits for 
         discharges incidental to normal operation of vessels.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 4, 2014

                       Reported without amendment
```
EX-10.11



 Exhibit 10.11 

Director Compensation Summary 

(Effective October 25, 2013) 
  

	 	•	 	$50,000 annual retainer (paid $12,500 quarterly1); 

  

	 	•	 	Includes attendance, whether in person or by telephone, of up to 10 Board meetings2 per year; 


 

	 	•	 	Includes attendance, whether in person or by telephone and where applicable, of up to 10 meetings of the Audit Committee per year; 

  

	 	•	 	Includes attendance, whether in person or by telephone and where applicable, of any and all other Committees of the Board, individually and separately, as may be constituted by the Board; and 


 

	 	•	 	Includes, without limitation, any and all telephone calls made with management, the Board or management and the Board where minutes are not kept and formal Board or Committee action is not taken; 


 

	 	•	 	$20,000 additional annual retainer to the Chairman of the Board (paid $5,000 quarterly); 

  

	 	•	 	$10,000 additional annual retainer to the Audit Committee chair (paid $2,500 quarterly); 

  

	 	•	 	$5,000 additional annual retainer to the chair of any other Committee that is formally constituted by the Board (paid $1,250 quarterly); 


 

	 	•	 	$2,500 for each Board or Audit Committee meeting attended in person, in excess of attendance, whether in person or by telephone, of 10 Board and where applicable 10 Audit Committee meetings per year; 


 

	 	•	 	$1,000 for each Board or Audit Committee meeting attended by telephone lasting longer than two hours in duration, in excess of attendance, whether in person or by telephone, of 10 Board and where applicable 10 Audit
Committee meetings per year; 

  

	 	•	 	$500 for each Board or Audit Committee meeting attended by telephone lasting less than two hours in duration, in excess of attendance, whether in person or by telephone, of 10 Board and where applicable 10 Audit
Committee meetings per year; 

  

	 	•	 	Annual option grant of 25,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company that will vest on the first anniversary of the grant date; and 

  

	 	•	 	One-time initial grant of options for 25,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company upon becoming a member of the Board that will vest on the first anniversary of the grant date, provided that if a person becomes a
member of the Board subsequent to the previous annual meeting of shareholders of the Company, the number of shares of Common Stock of the Company in respect of such initial grant of options will be reduced on a pro rata basis based on the number of
days (proportionate to 365 and rounded up to the closest whole share) that have elapsed from the date of the previous annual meeting of shareholders to the date of such person’s appointment to the Board. 


 

	1 	All quarterly retainer fees will be paid within ten business days following the end of the quarter in which the director has rendered the applicable Board services. 


	2	As used in this context, a “meeting” means a formal meeting of the Board or Committee thereof where minutes are kept and action is taken.
#### TOWNSHIP OF WEST WINDSOR v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION.

March 14, 1978.

Certification to the Public Employment Relations Commission is granted.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the quarterly report of Video City, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rudolph R.
Patino, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Company.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Rudolph R. PatinoChief Financial Officer




DATED: September
19, 2003
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 312 

To adjust the boundary of the Carson National Forest, New Mexico. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself and Mr. HEINRICH) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To adjust the boundary of the Carson National Forest, New 

Mexico. 

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 ‘‘Carson National For5 est Boundary Adjustment Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CARSON NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY ADJUST7 MENT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The boundary of the Carson Na9 tional Forest in the State of New Mexico is adjusted to 

10 incorporate the approximately 4,990 acres of land genVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:49 Feb 23, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S312.IS S312

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 312 IS

1 erally depicted as ‘‘Miranda Canyon Boundary’’ on the 

2 map entitled ‘‘Carson National Forest Boundary Adjust3 ment’’ and dated September 21, 2010. 

4 (b) LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND.—For 

5 purposes of section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation 

6 Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601–9), the boundaries 

7 of the Carson National Forest, as modified under sub8 section (a), shall be considered to be the boundaries of 

9 the Carson National Forest as in existence on January 

10 1, 1965. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MARCUS ALEX CASH,

Petitioner

v.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,

Respondent

______________________

2022-1852

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-844E-16-0508-I-1.

______________________

Before HUGHES, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Responding to the court’s July 6, 2022 order, the parties jointly request transfer of this matter, involving a 

claim of discrimination, to the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Georgia. See 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(b)(2), Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 137 S. Ct. 1975, 

1985 (2017); Ash v. OPM, 25 F.4th 1009, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 

2022).

Upon consideration thereof,

Case: 22-1852 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 08/08/2022
2 CASH v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this matter and all transmittals are transferred to the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Georgia. 

August 8, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-1852 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 08/08/2022
[No. 44646-1-I.

Division One.

April 17, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. J.N., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 98-8-04929-6, John M. Darrah, J., entered May 10, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Becker, A.C.J., concurred in by Coleman and Kennedy, JJ.
[No. 1513.]

#### John Ruston *v.*The State.

Practice—Statement oe Pacts.—In this case the counsel for appellant, having prepared a statement of facts within the time allowed, presented it to the trial judge for approval, who, according to his own endorsement, because the prosecuting counsel' refused to agree to it, or to make an- . other, declined to approve it, not “feeling authorized, nor being willing to assume the responsibility.” *Held,*error; and that it was the duty of the judge to take the appellant’s statement, and from it and his own knowledge of the proof adduced, prepare a statement of facts. See the opinion for the rule on the subject.

Appeal from the County Court of DeWitt. Tried below before the Hon. J. D. Terry, County Judge.

The appellant was convicted of theft of property under the value of twenty dollars, and his punishment was affixed at confinement in the county jail for six months and a fine of twenty-five dollars.

The opinion discloses the only question involved in the ruling.

Ho brief for the appellant.

*J. H.*Burts, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

White, Presiding Judge.

This is a companion case to cause No. 1514, *John Ruston*v. *The State,*reversed and remanded by us on the twenty-sixth ultimo. In this case, as in that, it is made to appear that appellant used every means available to have his statement of facts certified and approved, so that it might become a part'of the record in this appeal. He made out his statement of facts and presented it for approval to the county judge within the time allowed. That officer, according to his statement found in the record, because, it seems, the county attorney had neither agreed to this statement or made out one himself, “ did not feel authorized, nor was I (he) willing to take the' responsibility of approving this statement.”

The duty of the judge, we think, is clearly pointed out by the statute. “ If the parties do not agree upon such statement of facts, *378or if the judge do not approve or sign it, the parties may submit their respective statements to the judge, who shall, from his own knowledge, with the aid of such statements, during the term make out and sign and file with the clerk a correct statement of the facts proven on the trial, and such statement shall constitute a part of the record.” (Rev. Stats., Art. 1378.) This rule obtains also where time is allowed to prepare the statement after adjournment of the term.

Opinion delivered February 2, 1884.

There being no statement on the part of the county attorney, the judge should have treated the defendant’s as a disagreed statement, and should have received it, and from it and his own knowledge made out a correct statement, in case he could not approve it as correct. Defendant has been deprived of a most important legal right, for which the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] is recognized for 5 minutes.

  [Mr. OWENS addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in 
the Extension of Remarks.]

                          ____________________
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIE G. STRICKLAND.

April 18, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### COURIER SYSTEMS, INC. v. AMERICAN POLICYHOLDERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

Dec. 20, 1979.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000772320
<NAME> CASMYN CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                            5473
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      226
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       1750
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  7584
<PP&E>                                            3173
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (228)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   27504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2931
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             5000
<PREFERRED>                                        271
<COMMON>                                           291
<OTHER-SE>                                       19009
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     27405
<SALES>                                           1066
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1066
<CGS>                                              757
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      757
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  5448
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 136 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (4433)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (4433)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (4433)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.71)
        

</TABLE>
#### TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT LAUREL v. DEPARTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE.

Jan. 14, 1980.

Petition for certification to Superior Court, Law Division granted.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ARCHIE MURPHY.

Nov. 20, 1979.

Petition for certification denied. (See 168 *N.J.Super.*214)
#### GEORGE B. MAC PHERSON v. TOWNSHIP OF WEST MILFORD.

April 18, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 33.2



|                                                 |  |                                                                                                         
|------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO  3000 Leadenhall Road
 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 |  | Glen A. MessinaPresident and CEO 
Tel: (856) 917-6847 Fax: (856)
917-6145glen.messina@phh.comwww.phh.com



REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

PHH Mortgage Corporation (the Asserting Party) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2014 and for the period from
January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR), except for criteria set forth in
Section 229.1122(d)(3)(i)(c), (d)(4)(xv) and (d)(1)(iii) of the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the servicing activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report (the
Applicable Servicing Criteria). The criteria set forth in Section 229.1122 (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(4)(iv), (d)(4)(vii), (d)(4)(viii) and (d)(4)(xi) of the CFR are performed by outsource providers on behalf of the Asserting Party;
however, the Asserting Party has monitored the outsourcing of these criteria and assumes responsibility for compliance. The transactions covered by this report include all non-agency loan sale agreements executed after January 1, 2006 as well
as all re-securitization transactions after January 1, 2006 for which the Asserting Party served as servicer (the Platform).

The
Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2014 and for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

Deloitte & Touche, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an
attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|PHH Mortgage Corporation              
|                                      
|Date: February 26, 2015               
|                                      
|/s/ Glen A. Messina                   
|Glen A. Messina                       
|President                             
|                                      
|/s/ Martin L. Foster                  
|Martin L. Foster                      
|Senior Vice President  Loan Servicing
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. IN09-10-000]

On January 15, 2009, the Commission issued an order in the above-captioned docket designating, with certain listed exceptions, the staff of the Office of Enforcement's Division of Investigations (DOI) as non-decisional staff in deliberations by the Commission in this docket.

By this order, the Commission amends the January 15, 2009 notice to add Larry Gasteiger, Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement to the non-decisional staff in this docket. The Commission also adds Norman Bay, Director, Office of Enforcement, Larry Parkinson, Director, DOI, and Geof Hobday of DOI to the January 15, 2009 list of staff excepted from the DOI non-decisional staff designation.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010-22514 Filed 9-9-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM J. CARRACINO.

Feb. 11, 1980.

Cross-Petition for certification denied.