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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4301 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4301

   To authorize an additional district judgeship for the district of 
                               Nebraska.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 2004

 Mr. Terry (for himself, Mr. Bereuter, and Mr. Osborne) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize an additional district judgeship for the district of 
                               Nebraska.

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

SECTION 1. DISTRICT JUDGESHIP FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA.

    (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district judge for the 
district of Nebraska.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--In order that the table 
contained in section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, will 
reflect the change in the number of judgeships authorized by subsection 
(a), such table is amended by striking the item relating to Nebraska 
and inserting the following:

    ``Nebraska.....................
                                        4''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 10.3
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
SYNERGETICS USA, INC.
2005 NON-EMPLOYEE
DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN
 Purpose. "
 Definitions.




---



##### 



Shares and Options
 Automatic Grant of Options
     2




---



##### 



Discretionary Grant of Options
 Option Price
 Exercise of Options
 Termination of Option Period.
   3




---



##### 



Adjustment of Shares
      Transferability of Options. provided however
 4




---



##### 



Issuance of Shares.
    Administration of the Plan.
   5




---



##### 



Interpretation
    Section 83(b) Election.
 Effective Date and Termination Date
 6
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ON PAGES 17, 18 AND 21 - 27, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE MAY
DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY 1997 ANNUAL REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                              14
<SECURITIES>                                       185
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,260
<ALLOWANCES>                                        96
<INVENTORY>                                      2,433
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,878
<PP&E>                                           6,787
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,563
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,930
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,866
<BONDS>                                          3,745
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           115
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,930
<SALES>                                         12,352
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,685
<CGS>                                            8,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,732
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,279
<INCOME-TAX>                                       500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                779
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (4)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       775
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.10
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
   
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.6
    

   
The Board of Directors
of WorldCom, Inc.:
    

   
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-3 of WorldCom, Inc. of our report dated February 12, 1998, with respect
to the consolidated balance sheets of Brooks Fiber Properties, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in
the Form 8-K of WorldCom, Inc. dated May 28, 1998.
    

   
                                            KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
St. Louis, Missouri
June 12, 1998
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8) of MultiMedia Access Corporation of our report dated March 6, 1998
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of MultiMedia Access
Corporation included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1997, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                -----------------------------------
                                ERNST & YOUNG, LLP
Dallas, Texas
May 14, 1998
Exhibit 23.1



The Board of Directors

of Mellon Financial Corporation:



We consent to incorporation by reference in:



| | Registration Statement Nos. 33-34430 (Form S-8), 33-41796 (Form S-8), 33-65824 (Form S-8), 33-65826 (Form S-8), 333-16743 (Form S-8), 333-38213 (Form S-3), 333-65275 (Form S-8),
333-75601 (Form S-8), 333-87961 (Form S-8), 333-54050 (Form S-8), 333-54054 (Form S-8), 333-60460 (Form S-8), 333-60464 (Form S-8), 333-105695 (Form S-8), 333-107400 (Form S-3), 333-108697 (Form S-3), and 333-109193 (Form S-8) of Mellon Financial
Corporation;
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | Registration Statement No. 333-107400-01 (Form S-3) of Mellon Funding Corporation;
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | Registration Statement No. 333-107400-02 (Form S-3) of Mellon Capital V;
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | Registration Statement No. 333-107400-03 (Form S-3) of Mellon Capital IV; and
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | Registration Statement No. 333-107400-04 (Form S-3) of Mellon Capital III
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------



of our report dated February 13, 2004 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Mellon Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002
and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report is incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form
10-K of Mellon Financial Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2003. Our report refers to a change, in 2002, in Mellon Financial Corporations method of accounting for goodwill and other intangibles resulting from business combinations in
accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142.



/s/    KPMG LLP

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

March 10, 2004
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER and PRINCIPAL
       FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
          OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Everest Fund, L.P.
(the "Partnership"), for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Lamoureux, President
of Everest Asset Management, Inc., the general partner of
the Everest Fund, L.P. (the "Fund"), hereby 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 Fund.


      By:  /s/ Peter Lamoureux
         ----------------------
      Name: 	Peter Lamoureux
      Title: 	Director, President and
      		Treasurer

      May 15, 2008


		E-3
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 436

To suspend the phase-in of additional tax reductions under the Economic 

Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 while the United 

States is in a state of war or on high military alert. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2003

Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend the phase-in of additional tax reductions under 

the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 

of 2001 while the United States is in a state of war 

or on high military alert.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘War Should Involve 

5 Shared Sacrifice Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 436 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF PHASE-IN OF ADDITIONAL TAX RE2 DUCTIONS UNDER ECONOMIC GROWTH AND 

3 TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 

4 DURING CURRENT PERIOD OF HIGH MILI5 TARY ALERT OR STATE OF WAR. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The phase-in of additional tax re7 ductions under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Rec8 onciliation Act of 2001 shall be suspended (as provided 

9 in subsection (c)) during the current international conflict 

10 period. 

11 (b) CURRENT INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT PERIOD.—

12 For purposes of subsection (a), the current international 

13 conflict period is the period beginning on January 1, 2003, 

14 and ending on December 31 of the first calendar year end15 ing after a declaration by the President that—

16 (1) the current Iraqi regime has either been re17 placed or disarmed and there are no substantial 

18 United States military personnel in Iraq that are en19 gaged in military or occupation activities, 

20 (2) the military threat posed by North Korea 

21 (both nuclear and conventional) has been addressed, 

22 (3) all members of the reserve components of 

23 the Armed Forces of the United States who have 

24 been called to active duty by reason of the situation 

25 in Iraq or North Korea have been permitted to re26 turn to their civilian status, 
3

•HR 436 IH 

1 (4) no member of the Armed Forces of the 

2 United States is serving on involuntary extended ac3 tive duty by reason of the situation in either Iraq or 

4 North Korea, and 

5 (5) the threat of domestic terror by groups con6 trolled by Osama bin Laden or others has been ade7 quately addressed. 

8 (c) METHOD OF SUSPENSION.—Subsection (a) shall 

9 be implemented by suspending all tax reductions enacted 

10 by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation 

11 Act of 2001 which first take effect in a calendar year end12 ing during the current international conflict period (or 

13 which increase during such year) until the year which is 

14 the same number of years after the end of such period 

15 as such calendar year is after 2002. 

16 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply to 

17 taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002.

Æ
10765.

#### Rumph *v.*The State.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Macon superior court—Judge Littlejohn. Juno 21, 1919.

*John B.'Guernj,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jule Felton, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bkoyi.es, C. J.

1. While “the law is well settled that when a judge undertakes to charge the law on any subject, he must charge all of it upon that subject that is material aM applicable to the case” *(Harper*v. *State,*17 *Ga. App*561 (2), 87 S. E. 808), in this case the charge of the court upon the subject of impeachment of witnesses sufficiently covered all of that subject which was material and applicable.

(a) It was sought to impeach several of the State’s witnesses by proof that on the commitment trial of the defendant their testimony was materially different from what it was on this trial, but none of them admitted that his testimony on the former trial was false; on the contrary they all denied that their testimony on the two trials was different. Under these facts it was not error for the court, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request, to fail to charge the jury that if a witness wilfully and knowingly swore falsely as to a material matter, his testimony ought to be disregarded entirely unless corroborated by circumstances or other unimpeached evidence. *Robison*v. *State,*114 *Ga.*446, 447 (40 S. E. 253). See also *Millen & Southwestern R. Co.*v. *Allen,*130 *Ga.*656 (5), 660 (61 S. E. 541).

*(b)*The excerpt from the charge of the court complained of was not error for any reason assigned.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*■Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
#### Henry Dent *v.*Frank Parsons.

Wills — Restriction on Devise — Postponing Power of Alienation.

A restriction on a devise in favor of the testator’s son in attempting to postpone the power of alienation until the son arrives at twenty-five years of age, was held to he invalid!

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

April 25, 1873.

*B. F. Camp, for appellmit.*

*Mundy, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

By the will of his father the absolute fee to> the house and ground passed to his son, F. Parsons, and the effort to postpone the power of alienation until he should arrive at 25 years of age was inconsistent with the devise of the fee.

The property would be subject to the debts of appellee contracted after he was 21 years of age, as much as if contracted after he was 25 years old. *Carlin’s Adm'r v. Carlin, etc.,*8 Bush 141.

The attempted restriction on the power of alienation relied upon by appellant can not have the effect contended for. And the judgment of the chancellor is therefore *affirmed.*
#### Jane Ann McHugh v. Charles Curtis.

*jExemption from execution lost by removal from State*— Referee’s *conclusions.*

A married woman who supports her family or contributes to its support by the employment of a team may claim the benefit of the laws-exempting a team from execution.

A referee’s conclusions of fact are not reviewable in this court.

A resident of Michigan who removes to a foreign state thereby loses the-benefit of the Michigan exemption laws as to any property which may be afterwards found within the State.

.Error to Kent.

Submitted April 14.

Decided April 25.

Replevin for a team and harness owned by plaintiff and used by her for the support of her family, but seized on an execution against her during her absence in Canada, where she had gone with intent to take up her residence. Thi& action was brought against the execution purchaser and was referred to a referee who found for defendant. On exceptions to his report, judgment was entered for plaintiff in the circuit court.

Reversed.

*J.W. dh O. G. Ransom*for appellant.

*Wm. Wisner Taylor*for appellee.

Cooley, J.

If Mrs. McHugh was supporting her family or contributing thereto by the employment of the team which is now in dispute, she had the same privilege to hold it exempt from execution that any man would have had under similar circumstances. The exemption laws are not made for one sex only, but are general in their benefits; and a woman whose business is of the humblest and most limited character, is as much entitled to their privileges as one who is a farmer or shop-keeper.

But the difficulty in this case is, that the referee finds a& a fact that Mrs. McHugh, at the time the team was taken in. *263execution, was not a resident of this State, but had removed therefrom to the Dominion of Canada, and was then resident in Canada. It may be, as her counsel insists, the referee ought not to have so found on the evidence; but we cannot review his conclusions of fact, and if we could, the whole evidence has not been returned in a bill of exceptions for the purpose-

States are not accustomed to give exemptions from the laws for the collection of debts for the benefit of persons resident in other jurisdictions. The exemptions are personal privileges, dependent on personal or family circumstances ; and if one who possesses them removes to a foreign state, whereby he would acquire under its laws privileges more or less liberal not possessed by our own people, he thereby abandons those which he possessed before so far as they were local in their nature. And if exemption privileges are not necessarily local, they certainly are in their reasons. They are conferred on grounds of state policy, to add to the comfort and encourage the industry of the people; and every state will mate such regulations on the subject as its own people shall deem wisest and best.

We have no alternative but to set aside the judgment of the circuit, and direct that judgment be entered on the report of the referee.

The other Justices concurred.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40143 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus OSCAR FRANCISCO HERAS-JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-01-CR-691

-------------------- December 12, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Oscar Francisco Heras-Jimenez (“Heras”) pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than one hundred kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Heras contends that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 488 (2000). Heras acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by this court’sNo. 02-40143 -2- precedent, United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Heras’s argument is foreclosed. Slaughter , 238 F.3d at 582;

see United States v. Fort , 248 F.3d 475, 482-83 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 405 (2001). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
NO. 07-07 -004 7-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A SEPTEM BER18, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ C
. W IL LI EN EL L Z IM M ERH AY N ES , ET AL ., A PP EL LA N TS V. MO OR E C OU NTY

GAS PARTNER S, L .P., ET AL. , AP PELLEE S

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 69 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF MO OR E CO UNT Y; TH NO . 01- 72; H ON ORABLE RO N EN NS , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ON M OT ION T O D ISM ISS C. W illienell Zimme r Hay nes, et al., app ellant s, have f iled a mo tion to dismiss this appeal
. No deci si on of thi s C our t hav ing been del iv e re d t o dat e, we g ra nt t he moti on. Acc ordin g ly , t he appe al isdi smi ss ed. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42 .1(a)(1). All costs incurred are adj udg ed ag ain st the par ty inc ur ri ng the s ame. N o moti on for re hear ing w il l be ent ertai ned and our mandate w il l is sue forthw it h. Mackey K. Hancock Justice
#### BARBER v. MARTIN

No. 219P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 746

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1997.
Exhibit 99.1



      Certification of Chief Executive Officer/Principal Financial Officer
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Valley Forge Scientific
Corp., I, Jerry L. Malis, President and Chief Executive Officer of Valley Forge
Scientific Corp., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         o   The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
             or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         o   The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all
             material respects, the financial condition and results of
             operations of Valley Forge Scientific Corp.



Date: February 12, 2003                /s/ JERRY L. MALIS
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Jerry L. Malis
                                       President,
                                       Chief Executive Officer, and
                                       Principal Financial Officer



                                      -16-
10461.

#### Dye *v.*The State.

Decided June 27, 1919.

Indictment for misdemeanor; from Warren superior court— Judge Walker. March 6* 1919.

*M. L. Pelts,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. 0. Norman, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bboyles, P. J.

1. When considered in the light of the charge of the court as a whole* none of the excerpts complained of in the motion for a new trial requires a new trial.

2. The remaining special ground of the motion for a new trial was based upon statements alleged to have been made by one of the jurors before the trial of the case, showing that he was prejudiced and biased against the defendant. The evidence submitted in support of this ground was met with a counter-showing by the State, and on this issue of fact the judge was the trior, and his decision in favor of the State was authorized by the evidence adduced.

*3.*The verdict was authorized by the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*