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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1406 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1406

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase, and make 
        permanent certain improvements to, the child tax credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 2007

Mr. Ellsworth introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase, and make 
        permanent certain improvements to, the child tax credit.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASED CHILD TAX CREDIT FOR FIRST YEAR CHILD IS CLAIMED 
              AS A QUALIFYING CHILD.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 24 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to child tax credit) is amended by 
striking ``with respect to each qualifying child of the taxpayer an 
amount equal to $1,000.'' and inserting ``with respect to each 
individual who is a qualifying child of the taxpayer an amount equal 
to--
            ``(1) $2,000, for the first taxable year in which such 
        individual is a qualifying child, and
            ``(2) $1,000, for any other taxable year in which such 
        individual is a qualifying child.''.
    (b) Improvements to Credit Made Permanent.--Section 901 of the 
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not 
apply to the amendments made by section 201 of such Act.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
#### Mohamad Riad ALTAWIL, Petitioner, v. Janet RENO, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 99-71501.

I & NS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 15, 2000.

Decided Jan. 3, 2001.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, NOONAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM1

Mohamad Riad Altawil challenges, for the second time, the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision refusing to reopen his deportation proceedings. He claims denial of due process because he was not properly notified of his deportation hearing that was conducted in absentia. The issue was before this court before, and we affirmed. In the proceeding then before us we asked, however, that the BIA examine supplemental materials that petitioner had proffered, although we indicated some skepticism about their genuineness. In proceedings on a second motion to reopen, Altawil was unable to cite any evidence shedding further light on the due process claim. There is therefore no basis for granting a reopening on due process grounds.

Altawil also submitted a claim for relief under the Torture Convention. He did not make out a prima facie case, because his testimony lacked credibility and he failed to otherwise support his claim. *See 8*C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).

AFFIRMED.

1

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
CERTIFICATION
I, Robert W. Winston, III, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2005 of Winston Hotels, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4.  The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the Company, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditorsand the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: May 10, 2005    /s/ Robert W. Winston, III   Robert W. Winston, III
#### Martha Sullivan v. G. E. & R. I. White.

(No. 2831.)

Appeal from Grimes County.

J. Earle Preston, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 56. *Statement of facts; absence of, ground for reversal when.*It appears from the record that within due time appellant prepared a statement of facts, and submitted the same to opposing counsel, but counsel could not agree upon a statement of facts, and submit*85ted their respective statements to the judge, requesting him to prepare and certify a statement of the facts; but owing to the inability of the judge, from sickness, to perform this duty, no statement of facts was prepared, certified and filed in the cause. We think that appellant has been thus deprived of a valuable right without fault or negligence on her part, or on the part of her counsel, . and that justice requires that she should have a new trial of the cause.

February 6, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.
Unassociated Document


     

    EXHIBIT
4

     

     

    AGREEMENT

     

     

    In
accordance with Rule 13d-1(k)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, the undersigned hereby agree that this Statement on Schedule 13D
relating to the Common Stock, $0.001 par value, of Ardea Biosciences, Inc. is
being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of each of
them.

     

    

      December
19, 2008

       

    

    
      By:  /s/ Julian C.
Baker                                                                

              Julian
C. Baker

      


      By:  /s/ Felix J.
Baker                                                                           

             Felix
J. Baker
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5461]
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 Extensions of Remarks.]

                          ____________________
```
#### St. Louis, Ark. & Tex. R’y Co. v. John Sandal et al.

(No. 2938.)

Error from Bowie County.

Todd & Hudgins, counsel for plaintiff in error.

Jno. J. King, counsel for defendants in error.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 379. *Laborers1 lien on railroad equipments; county court has jurisdiction to foreclose, when;*“equipments” *are personal property; case stated.*Defendants in error brought this suit in the county court against plaintiff in error and one Warren to recover $288.31- for railroad cross-ties made and delivered by them under contract to said Warren, who was a contractor with plaintiff in error to furnish its railway with cross-ties. - Said cross-ties involved in this suit were received by said Warren for the use of said railway, and were used by plaintiff in error upon said railway. Defendants in error prayed for a judgment against said Warren for the amount of their claim and for the foreclosure of their laborers’ lien upon the equipments of said railway. Judgment was rendered as prayed for by them. *Held:*The county court had jurisdiction to foreclose the laborers’ lien upon the “equipments” of the railway. “Equipments,” as used in the statute creating said lien, mean the rolling stock and other movable property used in operating the railway. The word does not embrace other than personal property, and the county court has jurisdiction to foreclose a lien upon personal property. [R. S. art. 1169; 1 *454App. C. C. § 568.] It has no jurisdiction to foreclose a lien upon the “road-bed” or upon any property of the railway not embraced within the meaning of the term “equipments” [1 App. C. C. §§ 163, 572], and no such jurisdiction was attempted to be exercised in this case.

October 24, 1888.

§ 380. *Judgment of foreclosure of lien need not particularly describe the property.*The judgment foreclosing a laborer’s lien upon the equipments of a railroad need not specify the particular articles upon which it is •to operate. It is sufficient to declare the lien foreclosed upon the equipments of the railroad to an extent sufficient to satisfy the judgment.

Affirmed.
Order entered April 10, 2019 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00322-CV 

IN RE WILBERT NORWOOD STARKS, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 5 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 005-03474-2018 

ORDER 

Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Carlyle 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. 

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

 JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6534

MARK CORRIGAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DIANA CARMACK; MS. ATKINS; MS. BOLLOT; DR.

CERVIE; SARGEANT BAILEY; OFFICER BARNES;

HOWARD ADAMS,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

PITT COUNTY; WILSON COUNTY,

Defendants.

No. 00-7611

MARK CORRIGAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MS. ATKINS; MS. BOLLOT; DR. CERVIE; SARGEANT

BAILEY; OFFICER BARNES; HOWARD ADAMS; DIANA

CARMACK; KATHARINA DEWALD,

Defendants - Appellees,
2

and

PITT COUNTY; WILSON COUNTY,

Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-667-5-CT-BR)

Submitted: February 16, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Corrigan, Appellant Pro Se. Edwin Constant Bryson, Jr.,

PATTERSON, DILTHEY, CLAY & BRYSON, Raleigh, North Carolina; JoAnne

Keeler Burgdorff, PITT COUNTY LEGAL DEPARTMENT, Greenville, North

Carolina; Tommy Willis Jarrett, DEES, SMITH, POWELL, JARRETT, DEES

& JONES, Goldsboro, North Carolina; John Dale Madden, SMITH,

ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, Raleigh, North

Carolina; G. Christopher Olson, Christopher W. Jones, WOMBLE,

CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Mark Corrigan appeals the district court’s order, which accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in part and rejected

it in part, granting summary judgment in favor of all but one of

the Defendants named in Corrigan’s action filed under 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 1983 (West Supp. 2000), and the order denying without prejudice

Corrigan’s motion for reconsideration (No. 00-7611). Corrigan also

appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend the

complaint and to appoint an expert witness (No. 00-6534). We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are

not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable

interlocutory or collateral orders.

We dismiss the appeals as interlocutory. We deny the motion

to strike Corrigan’s informal reply brief and dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4967]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

     MEMBERS NEED TO STAND UP AND OPPOSE THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET PLAN

  (Mr. WARD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is being cut in the Republican budget 
proposal, make no mistake about it. They are reducing the projected 
spending level, which means higher co-pays, reduced benefits, and 
reduced services. Why? Why are they doing this? To pay for a tax break 
for the wealthy. It is a cut in Medicare to pay for a tax break for the 
wealthy. If there were no tax break in this bill, there would be no 
need for the reduction in projected spending in Medicare in this 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to stand up and oppose this plan.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-57985) of Docucorp International, Inc. of our
report dated September 20, 2002 relating to the financial statements, which
appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report dated September 20, 2002 relating to the financial statement
schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Dallas, Texas
October 25, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         136,911
<SECURITIES>                                     4,835
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,004
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     26,912
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               242,517
<PP&E>                                          53,554
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,166
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 304,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,508
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       202,105
<OTHER-SE>                                    (39,445)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   304,502
<SALES>                                        246,947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               246,947
<CGS>                                          109,003
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,003
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                86,825
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,635
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 49,484
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,865
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,742
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,742
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.85
        

</TABLE>
EX-10.3





Exhibit
10.3




AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 18 day of
December, 2008, by and between CHICO’S FAS, INC., a Florida corporation (the “Company”), and
MORI CAMERON MACKENZIE (the “Employee”).



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, the parties hereto have entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated
September 26, 1995, as amended effective August 21, 2000, by and between the Company and the
Employee (the “Employment Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have agreed to amend the terms of the Employment
Agreement in certain respects as set forth in this Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement (the
“Amendment”), to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.



     NOW, THEREFORE, effective January 1, 2005, it is agreed as follows:




	1.	 	DELAYED PAYMENT OF BENEFITS





     Sections 7(b)(ii), 8(a), and 8(c)(i) of the Employment Agreement are amended and a new section
8(d) is inserted to add the following to the end of each such section, which shall read as follows:




Notwithstanding the above to the contrary, in the event the Employee is a
“specified employee” (as such term is defined in Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”)), any payment due and
payable to the Employee hereunder as a result of the Employee’s severance from
service with the Employer shall not be made before the date which is six (6) months
after such severance from service.




	2.	 	409A COMPLIANCE






A new Section 20 of the Employment Agreement is added which shall read as follows:




Section 20. 409A Compliance. Notwithstanding any Employment Agreement
provisions to the contrary and, to the extent applicable, the Employment Agreement
shall be interpreted, construed, and administered (including with respect to any
amendment, modification, or termination of the Employment Agreement) in such a
manner so as to comply with the provisions of Code Section 409A and any related
Internal Revenue Service guidance promulgated thereunder.



 









 






	3.	 	MISCELLANEOUS





     Except to the extent specifically modified, added or deleted by this Amendment No. 2, the
terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall otherwise remain in full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment the day and year first
above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	CHICO’S FAS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Scott A. Edmonds
 	 
	 	 	
“Company” 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Mori Cameron Mackenzie
 	 
	 	MORI CAMERON MACKENZIE  	 
	 	
“Employee”
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Steven Purcell,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis Form 10-Q/A of Alternative Resources Corporation;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15eand 15d-15e) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluations; and

 

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):

 

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:   January 28, 2004 |   |       /s/ Steven  Purcell |
|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |   | Steven Purcell                                          |
|                          |   | Chief Financial Officer                                 |

 

----