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

###### Parole Commission

## Record of Vote of Meeting Closure

(Pub. L. 94-409) (5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b)

I, Isaac Fulwood, of the United States Parole Commission, was present at a meeting of said Commission, which started at approximately 10:30 a.m., on Friday, November 21, 2014 at the U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., Third Floor, Washington, DC 20530. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss seven original jurisdiction cases pursuant to 28 CFR 2.27. Four Commissioners were present, constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was submitted.

Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the meeting and certifications of the Acting General Counsel that this meeting may be closed by votes of the Commissioners present were submitted to the Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted that the meeting be closed: Isaac Fulwood, Cranston, Mitchell, J. Patricia Wilson Smoot and Charles T. Massarone.

*In witness whereof,*                     I make this official record of the vote taken to close this meeting and authorize this record to be made available to the public.                

Dated: November 24, 2014.

Isaac Fulwood,

Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 2014-28204 Filed 11-28-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4410-31-P
#### Alfred S. Cross and Henry E. Beguelin v. Elon G. Eaton.

*Setoff injustice's covH*— Jurisdiction *on appeal.*

The jurisdiction of the circuit court upon an appeal from a justice, is merely appellate and will not admit of enlarging the claim of either party, as that would be to make the jurisdiction original to the extent of the excess.

Comp. L. § 5822 provides that where a defendant in justice’s court has a set-off exceeding $800, defendant shall have judgment for costs and enough shall be applied on plaintiff’s claim to satisfy it, or a judgment of discontinuance shall be entered. *Held,*that an appellate court can render no other judgment than the justice could have given.

Error to Kent.

Submitted April 12.

Decided April 19.

Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

*John T. Miller*and *Taggart <& Wolcott*for appellants.

Judgment on appeal is limited by tbe jurisdiction of the lower court: *Evers v. Sager*28 Mich. 47; *Matter of Jerry Irvin*29 Mich. 43; *Nelson v. People*38 Mich. 619; *Brown v. People*39 Mich. 57; *Louisville & New Albany R. R. v. Breckenridge*64 Ind. 113.

*J. C. FitzGerald*and *Allen G. Adsii*for appellee.

Marston, J.

Where a case has been tried in justice’s court, and an appeal taken to the circuit, the jurisdiction of the latter is appellate. To enlarge the claim of the plaintiff or that of the defendant in the circuit court, would to that extent be original and not appellate jurisdiction.

The statute in relation to set-off in justice’s court provides that if the balance found due to the defendant exceed three hundred dollars, the justice shall set off so much of the defendant’s demand against the plaintiff’s debt as shall be sufficient to satisfy it, if requested to do so by the defendant, and shall render judgment for the defendant for his *185costs; but if tbe defendant shall not require such set-off, the justice shall render judgment of discontinuance against the plaintiff with costs to the defendants. § 5322.

In this case the balance found due the defendant did exceed three hundred dollars, and had the case been in justic’s court, one of two judgments must have been rendered, viz.: a judgment for the defendant for his costs, or a judgment of discontinuance against the plaintiff, with costs to defendant. On appeal no other or different form of judgment could be rendered on the main controversy, and the attempt of the circuit court to render judgment in favor of the defendant in this case for $500 was without authority. Nor can this court render any different judgment upon the finding, than the justice could have done. We cannot therefore render judgment in this court for $300 as requested.

The judgment must therefore be reversed with costs of ■this court.

The other Justices concurred.
Exhibit 10.2


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO LEASE


(Symmetricom
/ Nexus)


 


THAT CERTAIN LEASE dated June 10, 1996
(the “Lease”), by and between NEXUS EQUITY II LLC, a California limited liability
company, as successor in interest to Nexus Equity, Inc., a California corporation
(“Landlord”), and SYMMETRICOM, INC., a
California corporation (“Tenant”), for approximately 117,739 square feet
of space in a building constructed on real property located in the City of San
Jose, County of Santa Clara, California, legally described as Parcel 2 of
Parcel Map filed with the Santa Clara County Recorder on December 6, 1995,
in Book 671 of Maps, Pages 40 and 41, is amended as follows as of October 27,
2005:


 


1.             Basic
Annual Rent.    Commencing December 1,
2005, Basic Annual Rent for the Premises shall be reduced to $1,674,240, and
Monthly Installments of Basic Annual Rent shall be reduced to $139,520, subject
to Section 6.1 of the Lease commencing on April 15, 2006.


 


2.             Term
Expiration Date.    The Term Expiration Date
of the Lease shall be extended to April 15, 2016.


 


In all other respects, the Lease shall remain
in full force and effect as originally written.


 


Terms with an initial capital letter which
are not defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Lease.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have
executed this First Amendment to Lease effective October 27, 2005.


 


	
   

  	
  LANDLORD:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NEXUS EQUITY II LLC

  
	
   

  	
  A California Limited Liability Company

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  Nexus Properties, Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  A California corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Its Manager

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ R. Darrell Gary

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  R. Darrell Gary, President

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  TENANT:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SYMMETRICOM,
  INC.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  A California corporation

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/

  	
  William Slater

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  William Slater

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title: 

  	
  CFO
3 Working Groups

4 Communities of Interest

83 Community Meetings

2,100

MEMBERS

NICE COMMUNITY

COORDINATING

COUNCIL

Including:

NICE Framework Workshops

Federal Cybersecurity Workforce

Summit & Webinars

FISSEA Forums

NICE Symposium

NICE K12 Cybersecurity Education

Conference

1

In

4

cre

1

a

%

se in

LinkedIn

Followers

12 VIRTUAL EVENTS

delivered to

30,000

Subscribers

4 NEWSLETTERS

Competitions

Webinars

Training

Opportunities

Events &

Commitments

7

86

125

400

CYBERSECURITY CAREER

AWARENESS WEEK

20,000

People

Impacted

9 WEBINARS

23 Speakers

1,500 Attendees

- 6 NICE Framework Publications

- NICE Strategic Plan Implementation

Plan

- National K12 Cybersecurity

Education Roadmap

- And More

PUBLICATIONS

BBYYTTHHEENNUUMMBBEERRSS

2021

Data from January - December, 2021 nist.gov/nice

The mission of NICE is to energize, promote,

and coordinate a robust community working

together to advance an integrated ecosystem

of cybersecurity education, training, and

workforce development.

"We want to

recognize the

importance of each

student’s

cybersecurity

career pathways,

and their knowledge

of the NICE

Framework is

paramount to their

success."

Henry Danielson, Program

Manager. Cal Poly

California Cyber

Innovation Challenge

NICE FRAMEWORK

New Translations

Success Stories

Countries

represented

in downloads

2

8

54

"Implementing the NICE

Framework has

allowed us to

accurately match

student expectation

with quality academic

delivery.”

Nigel Phair, Director,

University of New South

Wales, Canberra Cyber

31% of NICE

Framework

downloads

are from

outside the

United States.

70,000 Downloads
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Income and the Consolidated Statement of Financial
Position and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          30,353
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  317,459
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,216
<INVENTORY>                                    238,366
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               687,765
<PP&E>                                       3,816,429
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,688,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,055,822
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          957,375
<BONDS>                                      1,460,941
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          402,900
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           855
<OTHER-SE>                                     846,148
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,055,822
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,748,229
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,647,555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (13,655)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                11,841
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,904
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (41,287)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (12,308)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,979)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (2,872)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (31,851)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.39)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2 Certification required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(b) and section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  18 U.S.C. Section 1350   I,  Ronald E. Schultz, Chief Financial Officer of HuntMountain Resources, certify that:   1. This Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of HuntMountain Resources 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HuntMountain Resources.  Date: April 16, 2007 /s/ Ronald E. Schultz ________________________________ Ronald E. Schultz, Chief Financial Officer
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4372

AN ACT

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to

arrangements for dependent care assistance.benefits in cafeteria plans and flexible spendingprovide for the carryforward of $500 of unused

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4372

AN ACT

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

for the carryforward of $500 of unused benefits in cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements for dependent care assistance.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4372 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Working Families As3 sistance Act of 2004’’.

4 SEC. 2. CARRYFORWARD OF UNUSED BENEFITS IN CAFE5 TERIA PLANS AND FLEXIBLE SPENDING AR6 RANGEMENTS FOR DEPENDENT CARE AS7 SISTANCE.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 125 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 (relating to cafeteria plans) is amended

10 by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections (i)

11 and (j), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (g)

12 the following new subsection:

13 ‘‘(h) CARRYFORWARD OF CERTAIN UNUSED BENE14 FITS FOR DEPENDENT CARE.—

15 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this title,

16 a plan or other arrangement shall not fail to be

17 treated as a cafeteria plan solely because qualified

18 benefits under such plan include a dependent care

19 flexible spending arrangement under which not more

20 than $500 of unused dependent care benefits may be

21 carried forward to the succeeding plan year of such

22 dependent care flexible spending arrangement.

23 ‘‘(2) DEPENDENT CARE FLEXIBLE SPENDING

24 ARRANGEMENT.—For purposes of this subsection,

25 the term ‘dependent care flexible spending arrange26 ment’ means a flexible spending arrangement (as de-
3

•HR 4372 EH

1 fined in section 106(c)) that is a qualified benefit

2 and only permits reimbursement for expenses for de3 pendent care assistance which meets the require4 ments of section 129(d).

5 ‘‘(3) UNUSED DEPENDENT CARE BENEFITS.—

6 For purposes of this subsection, with respect to an

7 employee, the term ‘unused dependent care benefits’

8 means the excess of—

9 ‘‘(A) the maximum amount of reimburse10 ment allowable to the employee for a plan year

11 under a dependent care flexible spending ar12 rangement, over

13 ‘‘(B) the actual amount of reimbursement

14 for such year under such arrangement.’’.

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

16 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

17 December 31, 2003.

Passed the House of Representatives June 22, 2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
10230.

#### Reams *v.*The State.

Stephens, J.

1. Under an indictment for murder the accused may be convicted of a lesser offense if the latter is one involved in the homicide and is sufficiently charged in the indictment. *Watson*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*607 (43 S. E. 32, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1).

*(a)*Where such an indictment contains an allegation that the defendant *136“unlawfully” killed a named person by driving an automobile upon and against sueli person, then and there giving to such person a mortal wound with said automobile, from which mortal wound such person died, there is sufficiently charged the offense of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act. It is a sufficient allegation of an unlawful act that the automobile was driven upon and, against the person alleged to have been killed.

Decided July 23, 1919.

Rehearing denied September 18, 1919.

Indictment for murder; from Lowndes superior court—Judge Thomas. October 20, 1918.

*Bermet & Harrell, Whitaher £ Dulces,*for plaintiff in error.

*Clifford E. Hay, solicitor-general,*contra.

2. For the reasons above stated the demurrer to the indictment was, upon all of the grounds thereof, properly overruled, and the exceptions to the charge of the court and to the admission of evidence, upon the ground that same were not germane to an indictment which failed to charge involuntary manslaughter, are wholly without merit.

3. The portions of the charge of the court relative to the law governing a conviction of the offense of murder were harmless to the defendant, since he was, upon conviction of involuntary manslaughter, acquitted of the offense of murder. *Land*v. State, 11 *Ga. App.*761 (2) (76 S. E. 78).

4. Evidence that the defendant was seen, shortly after the homicide, running his car in the same peculiar manner in which the car which ran over and killed the deceased was being run at the time of the homicide, was relevant for the purpose .of identification and to further illustrate the issue. ,

5. The assignments of error not dealt with above are not insisted upon.

6. The evidence supports the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge; and since no error of law was■ committed, this court will not reverse the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      0
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                           3,247,268
<ALLOWANCES>                       (3,232,769.)
<INVENTORY>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             14,499
<PP&E>                                  33,775
<DEPRECIATION>                         (9,104.)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          135,282,275
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,444,325
<BONDS>
<COMMON>                                152,737
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>
<PREFERRED>
<OTHER-SE>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 135,282,275
<SALES>                                 40,681
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             40,681
<CGS>                                   24,369
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           665,526
<OTHER-EXPENSES>
<LOSS-PROVISION>              
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    (54,057.)             
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (250,998.)
<INCOME-TAX>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>
<DISCONTINUED>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              688,948
<CHANGES>
<NET-INCOME>                            437,950
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .03  
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1  The following
certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350 and in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8238.  These certifications shall not be deemed filed
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, nor shall be incorporated by reference in any filing of the Company
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, whether made before or after the
date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  In
connection with the Annual Report of Maui Land & Pineapple Company, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-k for the year ended December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Robert I. Webber,the President &
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/
  Robert I. WebberRobert
  I. WebberPresident &
  Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
  Officer)
  March 30, 2009 Date  A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
TUL @9 2@@1 16:48 FR NC BOARD OF ELECTIONS919 715 Sud? TO S’ibe?11ibib Pies
1998
Official Ballot for
United States Senator & Member of Congress
Ist (First Congressional District) Ist

— ented -—- + --- = —EE

INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTER

a. To vote for all candidates of one party (a straight ticket), make a cross ®mark in the circle
of the party for whose candidates you wish to vote.

b. You may vote a split ticket by not marking a cross ®mark in the party circle, but by making
a cross ‘xj mark in the square opposite the name of each candidate for whom you wish to vote.

c. You may also vote a sphit.ticket by marking a cross ® mark in the party circle and then making
a cross (xj mark in the squ opposite the name of any candidate you choose of a different
party.

d. If you tear or deface-of wrongly mark this ballot, return it and get another.
(You may vote for one)

DEMOCRATIC— = PUBLICAN LIBERTARIAN

FOR A STRAIGHT TICKET 4 FOR A STRAIGH'’E TICKET FOR A STRAIGHT TICKET

oie
va
MARK WITHIN THIS CIRCLE ARK WITHIN THIS CIRCLE f MARK WITHIN THIS CIRCLE

G

For United States Senator For United aes Sete ir fo For United States Senator
_| JOHN EDWARDS LJ] LAUCH Fé RCLOTH [ BARBARA HOWE
For MEMBER OF CONGRESS For MEMBER OF CONGRESS For MEMBER OF CONGRESS
ist Congressional District ist Congressional Dis¢rict lst Congressional District
_] EVA M. CLAYTON _] TED TYLER [| JACK SCHWARTZ

. ate of North Carolina
: -neral Election
svember 3, 1998

if
Chairman, State Board of Election
Order filed, October 19, 2012.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00479

- CV

____________ SHRIHARI ENTERPRISES , INC , Appellant

V.

SATIESH Y. RAO AND S AI & SAI, INC , Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court Ha rris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010

- 54280



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due July 3, 2012 , 2012

. See Tex. R. App. P.
35.1. On August 30, 2012 , this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 30 days. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Gina Wilburn , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. No further extension will be entertained absent exceptional circumstances

. The trial and appellate courts arejointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App.

P. 35.3(c). If Gina Wilburn does not timely file the record as ordered, we will issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure
to file the record.

PER CURIAM