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

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 471

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the two-year

waiting period for divorced spouse’s benefits following the divorce.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 29, 2003

Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. FROST, Ms. LEE,

Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. WATSON, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. WYNN, and

Mr. FARR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate

the two-year waiting period for divorced spouse’s benefits

following the divorce.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD

4 FOR DIVORCED SPOUSE’S BENEFITS FOL5 LOWING THE DIVORCE IN CASES OF PRIOR

6 RECEIPT OF SPOUSE’S BENEFITS.

7 (a) WIFE’S INSURANCE BENEFITS.—Section

8 202(b)(5)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

9 402(b)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘divorced wife—’’
2

•HR 471 IH

1 and all that follows through ‘‘shall be entitled’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘divorced wife meets the requirements of subpara3 graphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1), shall be enti4 tled’’.

5 (b) HUSBAND’S INSURANCE BENEFITS.—Section

6 202(c)(5)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(5)(A)) is

7 amended by striking ‘‘divorced husband—’’ and all that

8 follows through ‘‘shall be entitled’’ and inserting ‘‘divorced

9 husband meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A)

10 through (D) of paragraph (1), shall be entitled’’.

11 (c) EXEMPTION FROM DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF

12 WORK.—Section 203(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C.

13 403(b)(2)) is amended—

14 (1) by striking ‘‘(2)(A) Except as’’ and all that

15 follows through ‘‘the benefit to which’’ and inserting

16 the following: ‘‘(2) In any case in which any of the

17 other persons referred to in paragraph (1)(B) is en18 titled to monthly benefits as a divorced spouse under

19 subsection (b) or (c) of section 202 for any month,

20 the benefit to which’’; and

21 (2) by striking subparagraph (B).
3

•HR 471 IH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendments made by section 1 shall apply with

3 respect to benefits for months after the date of the enact4 ment of this Act.

Æ
NIST Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems - May 2015 

one-off newsletter

You’re Invited: Global City Teams Challenge Expo on June 1, 

2015 

The culminating event of this year’s Global City Teams Challenge (GCTC) is coming on June 1, 2015, 

at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C. The Expo, sponsored by the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology (NIST) and US Ignite, will showcase more than 65 “smart cities” projects 

that are poised to be deployed this year in communities around the world. Each is a collaborative 

effort between businesses, university researchers, and communities to harness Internet of Things 

(IoT) technologies in ways that address needs of the world’s rapidly urbanizing population. 

Details, including an agenda and a link for the registration (which is free), are available on the US 

IGNITE website. https://www.us-ignite.org/globalcityteamsexpo/ 

The Global City Teams Challenge, launched by NIST in September 2014, has been a nine-month 

initiative designed to advance the deployment of IoT technologies—also called “cyber-physical 

systems (CPS)”—within a smart city environment. At the Expo, more than 65 teams will be exhibiting 

their CPS projects, which demonstrate how cyber-physical systems—in sectors such as energy, health 

care, education, disaster response, and transportation—will enable communities to improve services, 

promote economic growth, and enhance their citizens’ quality of life. 

Among the high-level national and international leaders who are scheduled to appear are the king and 

queen of the Netherlands, who will visit the Expo in the early afternoon. Several of the projects involve 

companies and communities in the Netherlands, which has long focused on sustainable urban design 

and finding solutions to water- and energy-related problems. 

Keynote speakers will be U.S. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx; Tom Kalil, Deputy Director 

for Technology and Innovation at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; and Willie 

May, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and NIST Director. 

For more information on all aspects of the Challenge, please contact: 

Sokwoo Rhee (sokwoo.rhee@nist.gov) 

Associate Director of Cyber-Physical Systems Program, NIST
10103.

#### Downs *v.*Berryman.

Decided September 18, 1919.

Trover; from Madison superior court—Judge Hodges. July *22,*1918.

*B. T. Moseley, Erwin, Ruclcer & Nix,*for plaintiff.

*Alexander & Johnson,*contra.

Stephens, J.

1. In an action of trover where the plaintiff elects to take a money verdict, a nonsuit is properly awarded where there is no proof of the value of the property. *Moats*v. *Farks,*17 *Ga. App.*778 (18 S. E. 685), and eases there cited. The defendant in such action, by the giving of a replevy bond, which is required by law to be in “double the amount sworn to” by the plaintiff as the value of the property in the latter’s application for bail, does not admit the value of the property, and such bond is not prima facie evidence of such value.

2. The agreed price of property as stated in a contract of sale is not evidence of the value of the property in a trover suit against one who was not a party to the contract of sale.

*Judgment affirmed..*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in the Prospectus constituting part of this
Registration Statement on Form S-1 of our report dated March 6, 1998, relating
to the financial statements of Brigham Exploration Corporation, which appears
in such Prospectus. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in such Prospectus.


/S/ PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP


Houston, Texas
May 28, 1998
Exhibit 10.2


 


Non-Management
Director Compensation Summary 


 


Effective at the start of
fiscal year 2006, as described in detail below, our non-management directors (“Outside
Directors”) will be compensated as follows through a combination of cash
payments and equity grants:


 


1.               Cash Retainer:


 


Each director will receive $12,500 within two
business days after each regularly scheduled Board meeting.  The Chair of the Audit Committee will receive
an additional $3,750 in connection with each regularly scheduled Board meeting.


 


2.               Equity Grants for All Outside Directors:


 


Each director will receive a grant of options to
purchase 22,500 shares of Staples common stock upon his or her initial election
to the Board.  Each director will also
receive grants of options to purchase 4,500 shares of Staples common stock and
600 shares of restricted Staples common stock for each regularly scheduled
meeting day attended, with each director subject to an annual maximum aggregate
grant of options for 22,500 shares of Staples common stock and 3,000 shares of
restricted stock.  Outside Directors will
receive their equity awards for meeting attendance within two business days
after the relevant meeting date.


 


3.               Equity Grants for the Lead Director/Committee
Chairpersons:


 


The lead director will receive a grant for 1,500
shares of restricted Staples common stock at the end of each fiscal year. Chairs
of the Audit, Compensation, Finance and Nominating and Corporate Governance
Committees will be granted 1,200 shares of restricted Staples common stock at
the end of each fiscal year.


 


Stock options are granted at
an exercise price equal to the fair market value at the time of grant and vest
ratably over four years.  The restricted
stock grants cliff vest at the end of three years.


 


Summary Table


 


	
  Event

  	
   

  	
  Payment/Award

  
	
  Annual Cash Retainer

  	
   

  	
  $12,500 per meeting (4 meetings); Audit Committee Chair receives an
  additional $3,750 per meeting. Payments are not attendance based.

  
	
  One-Time Initial Election
  Award

  	
   

  	
  22,500 options

  
	
  Meeting Attendance (per
  meeting day)

  	
   

  	
  4,500 options (22,500
  share annual cap); 600 shares of restricted stock (3,000 share annual cap)

  
	
  Lead Director

  	
   

  	
  1,500 shares of restricted
  stock

  
	
  Committee Chairperson

  	
   

  	
  1,200 shares of restricted
  stock

  



 





















 


Through the end of fiscal
year 2005, our Outside Directors are compensated through a combination of cash payments
and equity grants described in Exhibit 10.16 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2005.
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

I, Paul E. Berger, M.D., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                             |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Dated: March 5, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    PAUL E. BERGER,
M.D.
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                       |  | Paul E. Berger, M.D.                 
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Title:                      |  | Chief Executive Officer and President
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                             |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.5


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of WorldCom, Inc. of our report dated April 9, 1998
relating to the consolidated financial statements of MCI Communications
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in
WorldCom, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K/A-3 dated November 9, 1997 (filed
May 28, 1998).



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
August 28, 1998
Washington, D.C.
#### Weeks *vs.*Merritt.

1. Want of service of the summons, in an action, is not a mere irregularity, but affects the jurisdiction, and is not affected by the statutory limitation of two ' years, against motions to set aside for irregularity.

2. The court is bound to consider the service as made at the time stated in the proof of it, after a motion to set a judgment aside, founded on it for want of service, has been denied; and if such service appears therein to have been more than ten years ago, and no excuse is offered for the laches in not applying before, a motion to open the judgment and let the .defendant in to defend will be denied.

(Before Robertson, Ch. J.

at special term, February —, 1866.)
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.6

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration
statement on Form S-8 of our report dated February 3, 1997 on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of Point Communications Limited Partnership as
of December 31, 1996 and for the year then ended.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
August 31, 1998
No. 87-6386.

#### Odle *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Nanophotonic Devices Based on Diamond
 

Marko Lončar
 

School of Engineering and Applied Science
 

Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138
 

loncar@seas.harvard.edu
 

Individual color centers in diamond have recently emerged as a solid‐state platform for

quantum communication systems, quantum information processing architectures, and sensitive

nanoscale magnetometers with optical read‐out. Here we present novel nanophotonic devices

that engineer the optical properties of diamond color centers. In particular, we describe a high‐

flux, room temperature, source of single photons based on an individual Nitrogen‐Vacancy (NV)

center embedded in a top‐down nanofabricated, single crystal diamond nanowires. Using the

nanowire geometry, an order of magnitude brighter single photon source is realized with an

order of magnitude lower pump power, compared to an NV center in a bulk diamond. We also

describe the integration of these diamond nanowire antennas with metallic nanostructures in

order to further increase photon production rate (via Purcell effect) and collection efficiency of

emitted photons. Finally, we describe a system consisting of a diamond nanoparticle containing

individual NVs coupled to a high‐Q photonic crystal nanobeam cavity made in silicon nitride.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. (the Registrant) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant,
hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                           
|/S/    LEO F. WELLS,
III                                   
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief
Executive Officer August 10, 2006  
|                                                           
|/S/    DOUGLAS P.
WILLIAMS                                 
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial Officer August 10, 2006
EXHIBIT 4.51


 


Sale of
National Europe Holdings (Ireland) Limited


 


The
Sale of National Europe Holdings (Ireland) Limited is incorporated by reference
to National Australia Bank Limited’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Commission on January 20,
2005
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.8
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
 
     We hereby consent to the references to our firm under the captions
"Information about the Registrant -- Oil and Gas Properties", "Oil and Natural
Gas Properties" in Note 12 to the Financial Statements of Remington Oil and Gas
Corporation and "Experts", and to the use of the summary of our report setting
forth the oil and gas reserves of Remington Oil and Gas Corporation (the
"Company"), as of December 31, 1998, in its Form S-4, and all amendments thereto
and in the related Prospectus and Proxy Statement, as may be amended from time
to time, of the Company.
 
                                            MILLER AND LENTS, LTD.
 
Dallas, Texas
August 13, 1998
EXHIBIT 4.4
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GARY L. REED,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D23-646

[June 1, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Sherwood Bauer, Jr., 

Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 432017CF000353D and 432019CF000311A.

Gary L. Reed, Indiantown, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, LEVINE and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit
      32(b)


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 accompanying Annual Report of Alltel Corporation (the
      Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sharilyn
      S. Gasaway, Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
                Company.








/s/
      Sharilyn S.
      Gasaway


Sharilyn
      S. Gasaway


Executive
      Vice President - Chief Financial Officer


March
      20,
      2008






































A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Alltel Corporation and will be retained by Alltel Corporation and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6416

WALTER STEVE WILSON, JR., 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

GENE JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections, 

 Respondent - Appellee, 

 and 

STATE OF VIRGINIA, 

 Respondent. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior 

District Judge. (7:08-cv-00578-jlk-mfu) 

Submitted: August 21, 2009 Decided: September 30, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Walter Steve Wilson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Walter Steve Wilson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<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>                                          13,756
<SECURITIES>                                    70,901
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,394
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (629)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,303
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,404
<PP&E>                                           7,442
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,407
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 121,181
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,158
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           154
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   121,181
<SALES>                                         10,097
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,743
<CGS>                                            6,464
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    29
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,067
<INCOME-TAX>                                       368
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,699
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,699
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk May 22, 2013

p0515 

# Order

May 22, 2013

146344

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146344

COA: 311602

Jackson CC: 11

- 004850

- FH

FREDERICK DEBER WILLIAMS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.