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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 69 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 13, 2007 

Received 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 

2008, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Public Law 110–92 is further amended by striking 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HJ 69 RDS 

1 the date specified in section 106(3) and inserting ‘‘Decem2 ber 21, 2007’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 13, 

2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1

LOGO

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-112947 and No. 333-155370) and Form S-3 (No.
333-139895) of Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated March 22, 2011, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2010.

/s/ Yount, Hyde & Barbour, P.C.

Winchester, Virginia

March 22, 2011



59
#### STATE ex rel. Michael RICHARDSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1143.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Richardson, Michael; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 397655-1; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 2332.

Denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, David Mitchell, President and Chief Executive Officer of webMethods, Inc. (the
Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission of the Companys annual report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies
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. Date: June 13, 2005
    /s/ DAVID MITCHELL
Name: David Mitchell
Title:President and Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Jessie Ray BURNS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-1721.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Burns, Jessie Ray; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial Dis*1265trict Court Div. 5, No. 272,752; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-735-KH.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                       
                        
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                            1,003,349
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       439,496
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                         813,645
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  2,419,857
<PP&E>                              447,021
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    3,569,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               718,572
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                         11,453,467
<OTHER-SE>                       (8,602,953)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      3,569,086
<SALES>                           1,617,473
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  1,617,473
<CGS>                               458,249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       458,249
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  1,317,729
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (146,976)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (146,976)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (146,976)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.03)
        


</TABLE>
<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>                                          28,574
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,891
<ALLOWANCES>                                       724
<INVENTORY>                                    159,913
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               224,190
<PP&E>                                         156,079
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 354,305
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,634
<BONDS>                                        110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,359
<OTHER-SE>                                     182,868
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   354,305
<SALES>                                         79,210
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,210
<CGS>                                           44,878
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 649
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,187)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,644)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,543)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,543)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
Amendment No. 1 to Option Agreements - C. John Hartnett



 Exhibit 10.40 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO OPTION AGREEMENTS 
 October 30, 2008 
 This Amendment No. 1 to Option Agreements (this “Amendment”) is hereby entered into by and between Palm, Inc. (the “Company”) and C. John
Hartnett (“Mr. Hartnett”). 
 WHEREAS, Mr. Hartnett has been granted options by the Company and by Handspring Corporation (a
corporation acquired by the Company and whose option plans were assumed by the Company) as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto (the “Options”); and 
 WHEREAS, it is contemplated that Mr. Hartnett’s employment with the Company will terminate on or about November 28, 2008. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Exercisability of Options. Upon the
termination of Mr. Hartnett’s employment with the Company, the Options, to the extent vested as of the date of Mr. Hartnett’s termination of employment with the Company (including any options that vest pursuant to the terms of
Mr. Hartnett’s Severance Agreement with the Company to the extent that Mr. Hartnett is eligible for severance benefits under his Severance Agreement with the Company) will remain exercisable for a period of one (1) year following
the date of Mr. Hartnett’s termination, but in no event will any Option be exercisable later than the expiration of the term of the relevant Option as set forth in the applicable option agreement and/or notice of grant); provided that
(1) Mr. Hartnett complies with all of the terms of his Severance Agreement with the Company (including, without limitation, signing and delivering to the Company a Release of Claims (as defined in the Severance Agreement) satisfactory to
the Company) and (2) Mr. Hartnett complies with all of the terms of his Employee Agreement with the Company. Nothing contained in this Amendment is intended to accelerate, increase or otherwise change the vesting of the Options.

 2. Remaining Terms. Except as expressly set forth in Section 1 above regarding the period of exercisability of the Options,
the terms and conditions of the Options shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be amended hereby. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered as of the date first set forth above. 
  

									
	PALM, INC.	 		 	C. JOHN HARTNETT
				
	By:	 	/s/ Edward T. Colligan	 		 	/s/ C. John Hartnett
		 	Edward T. Colligan	 		 	C. John Hartnett
		 	President and CEO	 		 		 	
					
	Dated:	 	10/30/08	 		 	Dated:	 	10/30/08
#### STATE ex rel. Anthony J. THOMAS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0426.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Thomas, Anthony J.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 499-582; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0180.

Denied.
857 A.2d 674

#### In re Opening of BALLOT BOX OF the 1ST PRECINCT OF DONEGAL, Washington County, Pennsylvania Appeal of Judith Fisher. In re Opening of Ballot Box of the 2nd Precinct of Donegal, Washington County, Pennsylvania Appeal of Judith Fisher. In re Opening of Ballot Box of the Precinct of West Alexander, Washington County, Pennsylvania Appeal of Judith Fisher.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 9, 2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 9th day of September, 2004, the above captioned appeals are quashed.
ADDENDUM

EMPLOYMENT AND
NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT

DANIEL TURISSINI

This Agreement is made as of October
25, 2006, between WidePoint Corporation (WidePoint) and Daniel E. Turissini (Employee),
and represents an Addendum to the Employment and Non-Compete Agreement between the parties
executed in October, 2004. This Addendum is intended to clarify and supplement, and not
replace, the provisions of the executed and existing Employment and Non-Compete Agreement.

| | 1. | The
Employment Agreement shall be annually renewable, as defined in Paragraphs 1
          and 4 of the original Agreement, with such Employment Period continuing
          hereunder, with the current term of Employees employment through October
          31, 2009.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | This
Addendum specifically confirms that the Agreement is hereby extended for           its
third consecutive annual period, through and including October 24, 2007.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 3. | The
Compensation and Benefits provisions (Paragraph 2) of the original Agreement
          shall remain unchanged for the third year of the Agreement. This includes Base
          Salary, Benefits, and Expenses. A Senior Management Incentive Program will be
          separately developed for calendar year 2007, including Cash and Stock award
          opportunities tied to performance metrics.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 4. | The
Termination and Non-Compete provisions (Paragraphs 4 and 5) shall remain
          unchanged and in effect.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In witness whereof, the parties have
executed this Agreement Addendum on the day and year first written above.

|EMPLOYEE:                  | WIDEPOINT CORPORATION:
|-------------------------- | ----------------------
|/s/ Daniel Turissini       | /s/ Steve L. Komar    
|Daniel Turissini, CEO, ORC | Steve L. Komar, CEO
#### STRAX REJUVENATION AND AESTHETICS INSTITUTE, INC., Appellant, v. Donna SHIELD and Roger L. Gordon, M.D., Appellees.

No. 4D09-3587.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 24, 2010.

Dinah Stein of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A., Miami, and Monica L. Pierce of Chimpoulis & Hunter, P.A., Da-vie, for appellant.

Susan S. Lerner of Josephs Jack, Miami, for appellee, Donna Shield.

*ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA*

DAMOORGIAN, J.

We reconsider on remand our opinion in *Strax Rejuvenation & Aesthetics Institute, Inc. v. Shield,*24 So.3d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), which was quashed by the Florida Supreme Court following its decision in *Strax Rejuvenation & Aesthetics Institute, Inc., v. Shield,*49 So.3d 741 (Fla.2010). Pursuant to the Supreme Court mandate, we remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing to determine the actual date the notice of appeal was filed in the circuit court. At the evidentiary hearing, Strax must overcome, by competent and substan*170tial evidence, the presumption that the clerk’s time stamp on the notice of appeal accurately reflects the date the notice was filed in the circuit court. In order for this court to determine whether Strax timely filed its notice of appeal, Strax shall file, with this court, a copy of the circuit court order with its findings as to the filing date of the notice of appeal within ten days from the date of entry of the order.

*Remanded for Further Proceedings.*

TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Andrew F. Puzder, Chief Executive Officer of CKE Restaurants, Inc. (the
Company), certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended
August 9, 2004, of the Company;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included 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 periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 such
disclosure 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, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]; c) 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 end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and d) 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 fiscal quarter 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(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
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 or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls
over financial reporting. Date: December 17, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Andrew F. PuzderAndrew F. PuzderChief Executive Officer
856 A.2d 35

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Edward James McKENNA, Respondent.

No. 943 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 1, 2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 1st day of July, 2004, an Order and Rule to Show Cause having been entered by this Court on June 14, *3922004, and no response to the Rule to Show Cause having been filed, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Rule is made absolute and, pursuant to Rule 208(f)(2), Pa.R.D.E., respondent is placed on temporary suspension until further definitive action by this Court;

2. Respondent shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.;

3. The President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, in accordance with Rule 217(g), Pa.R.D.E., shall take such further action and make such further orders as may be necessary to fully protect the rights and interests of respondent’s clients; and

4. All financial institutions in Pennsylvania in which respondent holds accounts containing fiduciary funds shall freeze such accounts pending further Order of this Court.

This Order constitutes an imposition of public discipline within the meaning of Rule 402, Pa.R.D.E., pertaining to confidentiality.
#### Tex. & Pac. R’y Co. v. G. W. Wills.

(No. 1001.)

Appeal from Fannin County.

Opinion by

Delaney, J.

§ 796. Argument *of counsel; reading law to the jury; case stated.*Appellee purchased a ticket from appellant’s agent to travel from Honey Grove to Paris, Texas. *701After he had started on the journey the conductor of the train demanded his ticket, and he surrendered it, but was given no check in return. After the train had passed an intermediate station the conductor demanded that he pay his fare to Paris, claiming that the ticket taken up only entitled appellee to be carried to said intermediate station. Appellee refused to pay, and was ejected from the train. He sued for $1,000 damages, and recovered judgment for $450. Appellee, in arguing his case to the jury, read law to the jury, that is, he read from page 577 of Thompson on Carriers of Passengers. Appellee’s attorney, in the concluding argument, also referred to this law, and further stated that railroad conductors would often take up passengers’ tickets and afterwards demand of them to pay fare, etc. This manner of argument was excepted to at the time, and is assigned as error. *Held:*In considering this assignment of error we may remark that it must be left largely to the discretion of the trial court how it will hear authorities read upon the trial. Concerning the objectionable, remarks of counsel, we concur fully in what was said in the case of Tex. & Pac. R’y Co. v. Pollard, *ante,*p. 432. We do not think appellant was injured, and, therefore, do not think that the judgment should be reversed because of this impropriety.

April 29, 1885.

§ 7 97. *Erroneous charge as to amount of damages that jury might find; is not reversible error*unless, *etc.*The court charged the jury that they might find for the plaintiff such damage as he had sustained, “not to exceed $1,000,” the amount claimed in the petition. *Held:*This method of charging was condemned in the case of Willis v. McNeill, 57 Tex. 465. But we do not think that it must necessarily lead to a reversal of the judgment when the damages awarded are within proper limits, which, in our opinion, is the case here. [Newman v. Dodson, 61 Tex. 98.]

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1617 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1617

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 15, 2007

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 561 Kingsland Avenue in University City, Missouri, as the ``Harriett 
                    F. Woods Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. HARRIETT F. WOODS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 561 Kingsland Avenue in University City, Missouri, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Harriett F. Woods Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Harriett 
F. Woods Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Order entered December 13, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00213
- CV
MICHAEL DWAIN WILLIA MS, Appellant

V. LUPE VALDEZ, SHERIFF , Appellee On Appeal from th e 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 17
- 09709



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s December 12, 2018 request for a paper copy of the supplemental clerk’s record filed November 27, 2018

. We GRANT the motion and D IRECT
the Clerk of the Court send appellant a paper copy of the November 27 th supplemental clerk’s
record

.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE