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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1696 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 174
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1696

                          [Report No. 110-272]

  To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian 
  Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to allow the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 
  tribe to determine blood quantum requirement for membership in that 
                                 Tribe.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2007

  Mr. Reyes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             July 30, 2007

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian 
  Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to allow the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 
  tribe to determine blood quantum requirement for membership in that 
                                 Tribe.

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

SECTION 1. BLOOD QUANTUM REQUIREMENT DETERMINED BY TRIBE.

    Section 108(a)(2) of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and 
Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 1300g-7(2)) 
is amended by striking ``if the descendant'' and all that follows 
through the end of the paragraph and inserting ``if the descendant is 
enrolled by the tribe''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 174

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1696

                          [Report No. 110-272]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian 
  Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to allow the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 
  tribe to determine blood quantum requirement for membership in that 
                                 Tribe.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 30, 2007

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

 

I, William W. Krippaehne, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Fisher Communications, Inc., certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of FisherCommunications, Inc.; 

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, thisannual 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 theperiod covered by this annual report; 

 

3.    Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report; 

 

4.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: September 12, 2003
Amendment One to ConAgra Foods 2004 Executive Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.6 
 AMENDMENT ONE 
 CONAGRA FOODS, INC. EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PLAN (2004)

 ConAgra Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), granted awards pursuant to the ConAgra Foods, Inc. Executive
Incentive Plan (2004). It is desirable to amend the Plan to avoid the need to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended from time to time (the “Code”). 
 The Plan is amended, effective January 1, 2009, as follows: 
  

	1.	The third paragraph of Section 4 is amended by adding the following at the end thereof: 

 Unless the Committee specifies otherwise in the terms of an Award, payment shall be made on or before the later of (a) the fifteenth day of the third
month that begins after the month containing the end of the fiscal year for which performance is certified, or (b) the fifteenth day of the third month that begins after the end of the Participant’s tax year in which the end of the fiscal
year for which performance is certified occurs. 
  

	2.	A new section 7 is added as follows: 

 7. Code
Section 409A — Unless the Committee expressly determines otherwise, Awards are intended to be exempt from Code Section 409A as short-term deferrals and, accordingly, the terms of any Awards shall be construed to preserve such
exemption. To the extent the Committee determines that Code Section 409A applies to a particular Award granted under the Plan, then the terms of the Award shall be construed and administered to permit the Award to comply with Code
Section 409A. In the event anyone is subject to income inclusion, additional interest or taxes, or any other adverse consequences under Code Section 409A (“Non-compliance”), then neither the Company, the Committee, the Board nor
its or their employees, designees, agents or contractors shall be liable to any Participant or other persons in connection with any Non-compliance, except to the extent the Non-compliance was the direct result of any Company action or failure to act
that was under taken in bad faith. 
  

 111 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this document is executed on the date set forth below. 
  

			
	CONAGRA FOODS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Charles Salter

	Title:	 	Vice President, Human Resources
		
	Date:	 	September 25, 2008

  

 112
#### James A. WAKEFIELD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-3112.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 13, 2010.

James A. Wakefield, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied as premature.

PADOVANO, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
No. 75-6825.

#### Mullins *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Texas & Pacific R’y Co. v. R. B. Cuteman.

(No. 3088.)

Appeal from Wood Oounty.

Whittaker & Bonner, counsel for appellant..

H. M. Oates, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, *J.*

§ 1. *Bill of lading; statutory requirements in regard to; “car-load” of lumber not a sufficient statement of quantity.*Outeman recovered a judgment in the county court against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, under article 280 of the Revised Statutes, for $300, for a failure and refusal by said company to give him a proper bill of lading or memorandum in writing of certain lumber shipped by Outeman on said company’s railway, upon demand made therefor by said Outeman. Said article of the statute provides that “ common carriers are required, when they receive goods for transportation, to give to the shipper,' when it is demanded, a bill of lading or memorandum in writing stating the quantity, character, order and condition of the goods,” etc. And it is further provided that, in case of a refusal to execute and deliver such a bill of lading or memorandum, the carrier shall *18be liable to a penalty of not less than $5 nor more than $500. In this case the evidence shows that the company executed and delivered to Cuteman a bill of lading for the lumber shipped, describing it as a “car-load,” but giving no other description of its quantity. Cuteman demanded a bill of lading stating the weight of the lumber, and the company refused to give such a bill.

October 16, 1889.

It is shown by the evidence that a car-load of lumber is an indefinite quantity. The only question in the case is, Did the company refuse to give such a bill of lading or memorandum in writing of the lumber shipped as is required by the statute or as was demanded by Cute-man? We are of the opinion that it did so refuse. It gave no description by which the quantity of the lumber could be known or ascertained with certainty. “Quantity” is that which answers the question, “How much?” It is the attribute of being so much, and not more or less. [Webst. Diet., “Quantity.”] In the case of lumber, quantity might be ascertained with certainty by measurement or by weight. Freight charges by railroads are regulated by weight, and the proper, way to ascertain the quantity of lumber to be transported would be to weigh it, and this should be done and the weight stated in the bill of lading. Article *280 of the*Revised Statutes was enacted for the protection of shippers from loss of goods and from overcharge of freight. If a bill of lading, such as was given the shipper in this case, were held to be a compliance with the statute, the protection intended would not be afforded, for such a bill furnishes no *data*from which could be determined the quantity of lumber shipped. It could not be determined from such a bill whether the amount of freight charged was legal or illegal, and in case of loss it could not be determined from the bill how much lumber the carrier had received. We are of the opinion that there is no error in the judgment.

Affirmed.
#### John Drew BELANGER, Jr. v. Brian Anthony WASHINGTON, Safeway Insurance Company of Louisiana, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company and QBE Specialty Insurance Company.

No. 2011-CC-1207.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 2011.

In re QBE Specialty Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying For Superviso*1159ry and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terre-bonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 159996; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0350.

Denied.

VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ, would grant.
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 State

      ( print page 59782)    
Pursuant to section 7086(c)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Division F, Pub. L. 111-117) (“the Act”), and Department of State Delegation of Authority Number 245-1, I hereby determine that it is important to the national interest of the United States to waive the requirements of section 7086(c)(1) of the Act with respect to the Government of Saudi Arabia, and I hereby waive such restriction.

                    This determination shall be reported to the Congress, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: August 13, 2010.

Jacob J. Lew,

Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

[FR Doc. 2010-24297 Filed 9-27-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-31-P
#### Javbrki J. DICKERSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-6237.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 10, 2011.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 24, 2011.

Javbrki J. Dickerson, pro se, Petitioner.

*602Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

DAVIS, HAWKES, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
#### Lena Steptow v. Laura Martin.

(No. 3512.)

Appeal from Mitchell County.

Opinion by

WiLlr son, J.

§ 755. *Surviving widow; suit against, to recover a community debt; petition must allege what; case*stated. H. W. Steptow was indebted to appellee $550 for money borrowed by him. He died leaving appellant, his wife, surviving him. Appellee brought this suit against appellant to recover said debt, alleging that deceased left no separate estate, but left community property which appellant had taken possession of and was using, etc. Appellant answered by general demurrer, etc. Her demurrer was overruled and judgment was rendered against her for the debt, to be collected out of the corn*662munity property. *Held,*the general demurrer to the petition should have been sustained. It does not allege facts which show a legal cause of action against appellant. It is provided by statute that, *“*where the husband or wife dies intestate, leaving no child or children, and no separate property, the common property passes to the survivor charged with the debts of the community, and no administration thereon is required.” [R S. art. .2165.] Under this provision the community property, upon the death of the husband, passed to and vested in appellant, there being no child, and no separate property of the husband. It so passed and vested charged with the community debts. But suppose it was property •. which, under the constitution and laws of the state, was exempt from debts, and the estate of the husband was insolvent, would it pass and vest thus charged? Clearly not. In such case the widow would take an absolute title to it free from all community debts. [E. S. title 37, ch. 18, p. 291.] It was therefore essential, in order to show a good cause of action against appellant, for appellee to allege and prove that the community property which had come to the possession of appellant was such as was legally chargeable with the debt sued for, and to allege with reasonable certainty the kind and value of such property, and that there were no other community debts with which said property was chargeable. *[Ante,*§§ 376, 377.]

June 10, 1885.

Eeversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1337 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1337

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to augment the water 
supplies of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and cities 
                        served by the District.

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

SECTION 1. CENTRAL OKLAHOMA MASTER CONSERVATORY DISTRICT FEASIBILITY 
              STUDY.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) Thunderbird Lake, located on Little River in central 
        Oklahoma, was constructed in 1965 by the Bureau of Reclamation 
        for flood control, water supply, recreation, and fish and 
        wildlife purposes;
            (2) the available yield of Thunderbird Lake is allocated to 
        the Central Oklahoma Master Conservatory District, which 
        supplies municipal and industrial water supplies to the cities 
        of Norman, Midwest City, and Del City, Oklahoma; and
            (3) studies conducted by the Bureau during fiscal year 2003 
        indicate that the District will require additional water 
        supplies to meet the future needs of the District, including 
        through--
                    (A) the drilling of additional wells;
                    (B) the implementation of a seasonal pool plan at 
                Thunderbird Lake;
                    (C) the construction of terminal storage to hold 
                wet-weather yield from Thunderbird Lake;
                    (D) a reallocation of water storage; and
                    (E) the importation of surplus water from sources 
                outside the basin of Thunderbird Lake.
    (b) Study.--Beginning no later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation 
shall conduct a feasibility study of alternatives to augment the water 
supplies of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservatory District and 
cities served by the District, including recommendations of the 
Commissioner, if any.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation $900,000 
to conduct the study under subsection (b).

            Passed the House of Representatives October 22, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1337

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to augment the water 
supplies of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and cities 
                        served by the District.
```
#### Raymon Lee HARTZO and Debra Elaine Hartzo v. AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and Allstate Insurance Company.

No. 2011-C-0041.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re ANPAC Louisiana Ins. Co.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 523,390; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0247.

Denied.