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

Calendar No. 652 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4115 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 20, 2004 

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To amend the Act of November 2, 1966 (80 Stat. 1112), 

to allow binding arbitration clauses to be included in 

all contracts affecting the land within the Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa Indian Reservation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BINDING ARBITRATION FOR SALT RIVER PIMA4 MARICOPA INDIAN RESERVATION CON5 TRACTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2(c) of the Act of Novem7 ber 2, 1966 (25 U.S.C. 416a(c)), is amended— 

8 (1) in the first sentence— 

9 (A) by striking ‘‘Any lease’’ and all that 

10 follows through ‘‘affecting land’’ and inserting 
2 

HR 4115 PCS 

1 ‘‘Any contract, including a lease, affecting 

2 land’’; and 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘such lease or contract’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘such contract’’; and 

5 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘Such 

6 leases or contracts entered into pursuant to such 

7 Acts’’ and inserting ‘‘Such contracts’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall take effect as if included in the Indian 

10 Tribal Economic Development and Contract Encourage11 ment Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–179). 

Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk. 

Calendar No. 652 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4115 

AN ACT 

To amend the Act of November 2, 1966 (80 Stat. 

tion. the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Reservaincluded in all contracts affecting the land within 1112), to allow binding arbitration clauses to be 

JULY 20, 2004 

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 16 36 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 02 09 3- CV-T-2 7M SS
W RESTLEREUNION, LL C, a Fl or id a li m it edli ab il it y co rp or at io n,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t-C ou nt er Defe nd an t,
ve rs us LIVE NATION, INC., a fo rei gn co rp or at io n, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee, LIVE NATION TELEV ISION HOLDINGS, INC., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee-C ou nt er-C la im an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 20 , 20 10 )Befo re BLACK, PRYOR an d HILL, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Thi s i s an ap pe al fro m

a jury verd ic t an d ju dg m en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt
en te redon be ha lf o f de fen da nt/app el le e, Liv e Nat io n Tel ev is io n Ho ld in gs , Inc
. (Liv e Nat io n) , aga in stpl ai nt iff /app el la nt , Wres tl eRe un io n, LLC (Wrest le reu ni on ). The fact s o f th e cas e in vo lv eda di sp ut e o ve r Liv e Nat io n’s co nt ractua l o bl ig at io n to pro du ce an d m ark etpro gr amm in g o f Wres tl eRe un io n’s wre st li ng ev en ts . After
an eig ht -d ay

tri al , th e jury retu rn eda ve rd ic t i n fa vo r of Liv e Nat io n. Itfou ndth at Wres tl eRe un io n h adno t p ro ve n b y th e g reat er wei gh t o f th e ev id en ce t ha t Li ve Nati on ha d b reac he d t he co nt ract . W e h av e rev ie wedth e rec or d i n t hi s ap pe al , th e b rie fs , andth e arg um en ts of
co un se l. Fi nd in g n o e rro r, we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt. AFFIR MED.

2
#### Dubard *v.*Nevin.

Opinion delivered November 26, 1928.

*438
      *J. G. Waskom,*for appellant.

*Ogan & Shaver,*for appellee.

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The judgment of the circuit court was correct. Payment of the warrants was refused by the county treasurer on the ground that the bank, which had them for collection, held them for three days without presenting them, and that this was an unreasonable time, and resulted in loss to the county treasurer because the bank became insolvent; for, if the warrant had been presented in time, he had on deposit in the bank a sum more than sufficient to pay the warrants. This was no defense. The school warrants were orders upon the county treasurer to pay out of the school funds in his hands the amounts specified; and, although the warrants are negotiable in form and transferable by delivery, they are not negotiable instruments in the sense of the law merchant. *First National Bank of Waldron v. Wisenhunt,*94 Ark. 583, 127 S. W. 968; and *Vale*v. *Buchanan,*98 Ark. 299, 135 6. W. 848. Hence the rule in regard to the presentation of negotiable paper is not applicable. Our statute did not require the warrants to be presented within any particular period of time, and there was no reason why the county treasurer should not have paid them when they were presented by the State Bank Commissioner. The affairs of the insolvent bank had been turned over to him for liquidation under the' statute, and he had a right to collect the warrants.

Again, it is insisted that the writ of mandamus should not be issued against the county treasurer in this case because the officers of the bank did not present the warrants to the treasurer for payment during the first three days they were in the hands of the bank for collee*439tion, for the reason that the officers of the bank knew that the treasurer would pay the warrants out of the funds on hand in the bank belonging to him as -county treasurer, and that this might result in hastening the insolvency of the 'bank, which the officers, at the time, were trying to prevent. Even if this were true, it would not defeat this action. The holders of the warrants were not guilty of any improper conduct whatever. In good faith they sent the warrants to the bank for collection, without any qualifications or restrictions of any kind as to the time within which they should be presented for payment. - The holders of the warrants could not be held liable in any sense for any misconduct of their collecting agent in withholding the warrants during the three days in question. The holders could in no sense be held parties to any wrongful or illegal act of their agent in the premises.

Therefore the judgment of the circuit court, directing the issuance of the writ of mandamus to the county treasurer to pay the warrants, was correct, and it will be affirmed.
II 

Calendar No. 450

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 408 

[Report No. 108–240] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 14, 2003

Received 

DECEMBER 9, 2003

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

MARCH 9, 2004

Reported by Mr. DOMENICI, without amendment 

AN ACT

To provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NA4 TIONAL LAKESHORE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—When title to the land described 

6 in subsection (b) has vested in the United States in fee 
2

•HR 408 RS 

1 simple, the boundary of Sleeping Bear Dunes National 

2 Lakeshore is revised to include such land in that park. 

3 (b) LAND DESCRIBED.—The land referred to in sub4 section (a) consists of approximately 104.45 acres of un5 improved lands generally depicted on National Park Serv6 ice map number 634/80078, entitled ‘‘Bayberry Mills, Inc. 

7 Crystal River, MI Proposed Expansion Unit to Sleeping 

8 Bear Dunes National Lakeshore’’. The Secretary of the 

9 Interior shall keep such map on file and available for pub10 lic inspection in the appropriate offices of the National 

11 Park Service. 

12 (c) PURCHASE OF LANDS AUTHORIZED.—The Sec13 retary of the Interior may acquire the land described in 

14 subsection (b), only by purchase from a willing seller. 

15 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ACQUISITION BY EXCHANGE OR 

16 CONVEYANCE. 

17 The Secretary of the Interior may not acquire any 

18 of the land described in subsection (b) of section 1 through 

19 any exchange or conveyance of lands that are within the 

20 boundary of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 

21 as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Calendar No. 450

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 408

[Report No. 108–240] 

AN ACT

To provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshore. 

MARCH 9, 2004

Reported without amendment
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration
statement on Form S-8 of our report dated February 13, 1997, on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of Community Pacific Broadcasting Company L.P.
as of December 31, 1996 and for the year then ended.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
July 22, 1998
EXHIBIT 15.(a).1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-120559, 333-164250 and 333-164351) pertaining to the Employees Stock Option Plans of Syneron Medical Ltd. of our reports dated March 25, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Syneron Medical Ltd. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2009, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Syneron Medical Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009.




Haifa, Israel

KOST, FORER, GABBAY and KASIERERMarch 25, 2010

A member of Ernst & Young Global
Exhibit 10.3


FAVRILLE,
INC.

STOCK OPTION GRANT NOTICE


 


INITIAL GRANT

(2005
Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan)


FAVRILLE, INC. (the “Company”), pursuant to its 2005 Non-Employee
Directors’ Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”), hereby grants to Optionholder an
option to purchase the number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock set forth
below.  This option is subject to all of
the terms and conditions as set forth herein and in the Stock Option Agreement,
the Plan and the Notice of Exercise, all of which are attached hereto and
incorporated herein in their entirety.


	
  Optionholder:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date of Grant:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Number of Shares
  Subject to Option:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Exercise Price
  (Per Share):

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total Exercise
  Price:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Expiration Date:

  	
   

  	
  The day before
  the 10th anniversary of the Date of Grant

  



 


	
  Type of
  Grant:

  	
   

  	
  Nonstatutory
  Stock Option

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Exercise
  Schedule:

  	
   

  	
  Same as Vesting
  Schedule

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Vesting
  Schedule:

  	
   

  	
  1/36th of
  the shares vest each month following the Date of Grant.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Payment:

  	
   

  	
  By one or a
  combination of the following items (described in the Stock Option Agreement)
  and/or the Plan:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  o

  	
  By cash or check

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  o

  	
  Pursuant to a
  Regulation T Program if the Shares are publicly traded

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  o

  	
  By delivery of
  already-owned shares if the Shares are publicly traded

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  o

  	
  Net exercise if
  the Company has adopted FAS 123, as revised, and has established procedures
  for net exercise at the time of such exercise

  



 


Additional
Terms/Acknowledgements:  The undersigned Optionholder
acknowledges receipt of, and understands and agrees to, this Grant Notice, the
Stock Option Agreement and the Plan. 
Optionholder further acknowledges that as of the Date of Grant, this
Grant Notice, the Stock Option Agreement and the Plan set forth the entire
understanding between Optionholder and the Company regarding the acquisition of
stock in the Company and supersede all prior oral and written agreements on
that subject with the exception of (i) options previously granted and delivered
to Optionholder under the Plan, and (ii) the following agreements only:


	
  OTHER AGREEMENTS:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  



 


	
  FAVRILLE, INC.

  	
  OPTIONHOLDER:

  
	
   

  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Signature

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Signature

  	
   

  
	
   

  Title:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  Date:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  Date:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


ATTACHMENTS:                         Stock Option Agreement, 2005 Non-Employee Directors’
Stock Option Plan and Notice of Exercise
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TANDY
BRANDS ACCESSORIES, INC.'S DECEMBER 31, 1997 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FILINGS. DOLLARS ARE IN THOUSANDS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             948
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,138
<INVENTORY>                                     36,479
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,060
<PP&E>                                          10,208
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,304
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,338
<BONDS>                                         20,636
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,562
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,844
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,626
<SALES>                                         67,688
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,688
<CGS>                                           42,541
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   880
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,563
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,663
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,663
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .82
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERTO ESPARZA,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00007

- CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#20100D00656)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
DENY; and Opinion Filed November 9, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-01340-CV

No. 05-15-01341-CV

No. 05-15-01342-CV

No. 05-15-01343-CV

No. 05-15-01344-CV

IN RE ELVIN OMAR VASQUEZ, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1035051-Q, F-1035052-Q, F-1035053-Q, F-1035054-Q, F-1035055-Q

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Myers, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Schenck

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial 

court to rule on his “Motion to Strike Void Court Orders and Supplemental Orders,” which he 

states he filed on June 27, 2015. Relator’s petition does not comply with the rules of appellate 

procedure. The petition is not accompanied by an appendix or record. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.3(k)(1)(a) (appendix must contain certified or sworn copy of order complained of, or any other 
–2–

document showing the matter complained of), 52.7(a) (relator must file with petition certified or 

sworn copy of every document material to relator’s claim for relief).1 

To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that the 

trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. 

Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). We noted in our opinion 

denying relator’s most recent petition for writ of mandamus it is the responsibility of the parties to 

assemble the record in support of a petition for writ of mandamus. See In re Vasquez, No. 05-15-

00592-CV, 2015 WL 2375504, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 18, 2015, orig. proceeding). 

Because relator has not provided a mandamus record, he has not shown he is entitled to relief.

We deny the petition.

151340F.P05

 1 Relator has included with his petition for writ of mandamus a letter addressed to Felicia Pitre, the Dallas County District Clerk, but filed in 

this court, requesting that she forward us certified copies of the “Motion to Strike Void Orders,” his letters requesting a ruling on the motion, a copy 

of the 2011 order of which he complains in the motion, a copy of the judgment, and a copy of the docket sheet, but relator has not filed any of the 

requested documents with this Court in support of his petition.

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00110

- CV

K EISHA D UKE

, Appellants

V

.

W ILMINGTON S AVINGS F UND

S OCIETY

, FSB DB A C HRISTI A NA

T RUST AS O WNER T RUSTEE OF THE

R ESIDENTIAL C REDIT O PPORTUNITIES

T RUST V , Appellee §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2018

- 008057

- 1)

December 12, 2019

Opinion by Justice Wallach

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgmen t . It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant Keisha Duke shall pay all of the costs of

this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mike Wall ach

_______ _

__ _

________ Justice Mike Wallach
#### Owsley County Court *v.*Lee County Court.

Counties — New County — Liability for Taxes.

Where a new county is created from territory which formerly belonged to another county or counties the detached territory is not liable for taxes levied by the county from which it was. detached, tout only to levies by the new county.

*570APPEAL PROM LEE CIRCUIT COURT.

March 19, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The character of the proceeding adopted by the appellant is proper if any such right has been manifested by the petition as authorizes a recovery.

The act of March *9,*1854, 2 Revised Statutes 251, is not, in our opinion, to be applied to any boundary of land taken from1 one or more counties for the purpose of forming a new county. The act reads: “that whenever a change has been,, or shall be made in the boundary of any county or counties of this commonwealth after the 10th of January in. each year, whereby a portion of the territory of one county is added to another county, the state revenues and county levy shall be'assessed and collected for such year in the same manner as if such change had not been made,” etc.

The reason for the enactment of this statute was doubtless to secure for the county losing the territory all the revenue, or rather the. county levy, for the purpose of relieving it of its indebtedness which had been created on the faith and credit of its entire .population. Whilst this benefit results to the county losing its population, it works no injury to the county to which the territory is attached, as its indebtedness must have also been created alone upon the faith and credit of those-at the time living within its boundary.

In regard to the formation of new counties the inhabitants must necessarily assume a heavy burden in the way of taxation for the purpose of erecting their public buildings, and in order to enable them to do this there seems to have been no reservation by any enactment to the counties out of which the new counties had been created enabling the former to proceed with the collection of the county levy in order to- meet their indebtedness. It is a sacrifice that such counties must make, viz., the loss of their territory and revenue for the public good. If any other rule should be adopted the new county would be unable to collect one dollar of revenue for the first year of its existence. Whether the county from- which the territory has been detached is compelled to pay allowances made to those living in the deducted territory for public improvements made in that part of the old county that at the time of the construction of *571the improvement belongs to the new county is a question not necessary to determine in this proceeding. The act creating the county of Lee made all those within its boundary-subject to the jurisdiction of the courts answerable to its orders in regard to the county levy, and the assessment and levies made for county purposes they were compelled to pay.

*Jno. L. Scott, James M. Sebastian, A. H. Clarke, for appellant.*

*James, H. C. Lilly, for appellee.*

The demurrer was properly sustained and the judgment is therefore *affirmed.*
Exhibit 32

                          TEMPCO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Tempco, Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Stanley L. Schloz, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
Company.

By: /s/ Stanley L. Schloz
    ---------------------
    Stanley L. Schloz
    President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

May 7, 2010