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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4565 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4565

                   For the relief of Obain Attouoman.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2004

  Mr. Markey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Obain Attouoman.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR OBAIN ATTOUOMAN.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Obain Attouoman shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Obain Attouoman enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall 
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Obain Attouoman, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Obain 
Attouoman shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
Abatement Order filed November 17, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00541-CV

____________

TAHIR ENTERPRISES, INC. and TAHIR MAHMOOD, Appellants

V.

REDHA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., AYSHA INVESTMENTS, INC., and 

MANUEL EDUARDO GONZALEZ, Appellees

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-03521

A B A T E M E N T O R D E R

This court has been notified that appellant, Tahir Mahmood, has petitioned for 

voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern 

District of Texas, under cause number 11-80597. Because a stay is automatically effected

by Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, we have stayed all proceedings in the appeal. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.
2

For administrative purposes only, and without surrendering jurisdiction, this court 

orders the cause abated and treated as a closed case. It may be reinstated on motion of any 

party, showing the stay has been lifted and specifying what further action, if any, is 

required from this court, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 8.3.

PER CURIAM
**SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE**

**RUBY TUESDAY, INC. SALARY DEFERRAL PLAN**

 

THIS SIXTH AMENDMENT is made on this 8th day of July, 2008 by Ruby Tuesday, Inc. a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia (hereinafter called the “Primary Sponsor”). 

 

**INTRODUCTION**:

 

WHEREAS, the Primary Sponsor maintains the Ruby Tuesday, Inc. Salary Deferral Plan (the “Plan”), which was last amended and restated by an indenture dated April 9, 2001, and subsequently amended by the First through Fifth Amendments thereto; and

 

WHEREAS, the Primary Sponsor now desires to amend the Plan to reflect changes required or permitted by the Pension Protection Act of 2006; to update the Plan for final Treasury regulations issued under Section 415 of the Internal Revenue Code, which are generally effective for limitation years beginning on or after July 1, 2007; to reflect other changes in the law for which Plan amendments are required as indicated by the 2007 cumulative list of changes in plan qualification requirements published by the Internal Revenue Service under Revenue Procedure 2007-44; and to clarify the computation of matching contributions.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Primary Sponsor does hereby amend the Plan, effective as of January 1, 2008, except as otherwise provided herein, as follows:

 

1.         By replacing the references to “Treasury Regulations Section 1.415-2(d)(2)” and  “Treasury Regulations Section 1.415-2(d)(3)” in the header paragraph of Section 1.3 with references to “Treasury Regulations Section 1.415(c)-2(b)” and “Treasury Regulations Section 1.415(c)-2(c)” respectively.

2.         By deleting the “and” at the end of the existing Section 1.3(d), by deleting the period at the end of the existing Section 1.3(e) and substituting therefor “; and” and by adding the following new Section 1.3(f) to read as follows: 

“(f)      for purposes of applying the annual addition limits in Appendix A, Annual Compensation:

(1)       shall be measured by the limitation year;

(2)       shall include compensation paid following a Termination of Employment if such compensation is for services during or outside the Employee’s regular working hours, commissions, bonuses, or other similar payments and the compensation would have been paid to the Employee prior to the Termination of Employment if the Employee had continued in employment with the Plan Sponsor or an Affiliate, in accordance with Treasury Regulations Section 1.415(c)-2(e)(3)(ii); and

 

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30616 

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JUNIOR LEE ELEY,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. CA-95-1081

- - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues only

that the district court erred in applying an enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, career offender, rather than apply § 4B1.4,

armed career criminal.

We have reviewed the argument and the record and perceive no

reversible error. Eley’s challenge to the district court’s

application of the Guidelines is not cognizable in § 2255 because

a district court’s technical application of the Guidelines does 

not give rise to a constitutional issue. United States v.

Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992).
No. 95-30616

-2-

AFFIRMED.
#### John D. Kinney *v.*Twelve Mile Turnpike Road Company.

Torts — Entry by Owner Upon Right of Way.

Although, the relinquishment of a right of way of a turnpike road does not pass the absolute title, an entry by the owner in fee upon the possession of the company, and destroying or injuring tie easement, constitutes a tort.

APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL -CIRCUIT COURT.

March 14, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

There is no doubt but what Morris relinquished the right of way over his land, as well as the right to the rental, for the purposes of the road; and whether the road was built in accordance with *580the survey or not, it was constructed or located as Morris desired it should be, and has been in the actual occupancy of the company and its lessees since the spring of 1856. A fence was erected by Morris, or those claiming under him, between the boundary of his farm and that portion of the land occupied by the road, for many years prior to the time at which the appellant became the purchaser. The possession of this land by the company, constituting the road 60 feet in width, was notice to the appellant of the extent of the company’s claim, and the fence designated the actual boundary line, so that the appellant must have had actual notice of the extent of appellee’s claim, when he became the owner of the Morris tract. Tire proof of the loss of the paper evidencing the relinquishment is ample, both as to the signing by Morris and its contents.

*Hallam & Hallam, for appellant.*

*Webster, for appellee.*

This action, as we understand it, is for an injury committed to this corporation, by the acts of the appellant in destroying or damaging the culverts on the road, taking therefrom rock that had been quarried by the company, and erecting his stone wall in such a manner as to cause the water to run upon the bed of the road, by which it has been much injured. Although a relinquishment of the right of way does not pass the absolute title, still, an entry by the owner in fee upon the possession of the company, by reason of this right, and destroying or injuring the easement, is as much a tort as if the wrong had been committed by a stranger. This use of the land by the company, as well as the right to the use, enables it to maintain the action.

If the proof conduces to show that the company was to erect fences, and whether it does or not is unnecessary to decide, still this does not divest the company of the right when they have constructed, used and occupied the land for nearly fifteen -years, by the consent or acquiescence, at least, of those owning the fee.

If the contract has been violated in regard to the fencing, there is an ample remedy for those who have been injured by it.

The instructions given by the court presented the law of the case to the jtiry. Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Qwest Corporation (Qwest),
that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of Qwest on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Qwest. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed
original of this statement has been provided to Qwest and will be retained by Qwest and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                         |  |     |  |                                                                        
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 12, 2008 |  | By: |  | /S/ EDWARD A. MUELLER                                                  
|                         |  |     |  | Edward A. Mueller Chief Executive Officer and President                
|                         |  |    
|Dated: February 12, 2008 |  | By: |  | /S/ JOHN W. RICHARDSON                                                 
|                         |  |     |  | John W. Richardson Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TRACY ALLEN, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 08-00227-WS-B 

ISAAC MOODY, et al., : 

 

 Defendants. : 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file 

deemed relevant to the issue raised, and there having been no 

objections filed, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made 

under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this 

Court. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff=s Complaint be and is hereby 

DISMISSED with prejudice. 

DONE this 24th day of August, 2010. 

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cv-00227-WS-B Document 119 Filed 08/24/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 21


<Table>
                       SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


<Caption>
                                  State of            Names Under Which
    Names of Subsidiaries       Incorporation         They do Business
<S>                               <C>           <C>
Beaver Lake Concrete, Inc.        Arkansas      Beaver Lake Concrete, Inc.

Capitol Concrete Products         Kansas        Capitol Concrete Products
  Co. Inc.                                        Co., Inc.

City Wide Construction            Missouri      City Wide Construction
  Products Co.                                    Products Co.

Concrete Enterprises, Inc.        Kansas        Concrete Enterprises, Inc.

Concrete Materials, Inc.          Kansas        Concrete Materials, Inc.

Dodge City Concrete, Inc.         Kansas        Dodge City Concrete, Inc.

Joplin Concrete Company, Inc.     Missouri      Joplin Concrete Company, Inc.

Kansas Sand and Concrete, Inc.    Kansas        Kansas Sand and Concrete, Inc.

Monarch Cement of Iowa, Inc.      Iowa          Monarch Cement of Iowa, Inc.

Salina Concrete Products, Inc.    Kansas        Kansas Building Products
                                                Salina Concrete Products, Inc.

Springfield Ready Mix Co.         Missouri      Springfield Ready Mix Co.

Tulsa Dynaspan, Inc.              Oklahoma      Arrow Concrete Company
                                                Tulsa Dynaspan, Inc.
</Table>
#### L. C. Randall’s Adm’r et al. *v.*Samuel Moore.

Husband and Wife — Money of Wife Liable for Husband's Debts.

Money received .by a wife, and by her put into, tbe possession, of her husband, became his, and was liable for his debts.

APPEAL PROM PAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

April 16, 1874.

*Kinkead & Buckner, for appellants.*

*H. M. Buford, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The evidence in this case leaves no room to question the liability of appellants for the debt declared on. There is no evidence of any separate property in the wife, except the reception by her of money to which she seems to have been entitled by reason of relinquishing her contingent right of dower in some real estate in the city of Lexington. This money was, according to the theory of the wife, handed over to the husband, that he might conduct a grocery store as her agent. The husband did have and run a grocery store in his own name, or that of a firm with which, he had been previously connected, and the interest of the wife, if she ever had any, seems not to have been known, by the public at least, until after the husband’s death. The money, when delivered to the husband, became his; and when permitted to use it, as was done by him in this case, it must be subjected to the payment of his debts. The law provides a way by which the wife may trade as a’ *feme sole,*but this case is not within the operation of the statute. Uhrig, etc., v. Horstman & Sons, 8 Bush 172. Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6874

TOMMY LEE NULL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CA-96-376-6)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 25, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tommy Lee Null, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca A. Betts, United States

Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order adopting the

report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

his Bivens* complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by

Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321

(1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the on the

reasoning of the district court. Null v. United States, No. CA-96-

376-6 (S.D.W. Va. May 15, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
10604.

#### Mincey *v.*Edwards.

Decided November 19, 1919.

Trover; from Barrow superior court—Judge Cobb. April 3, 1919.

*J. M. Merritt, T. J. Shackelford,*for plaintiff in error.

*Richard B. Bussell Jr.,*contra.

Jenkins, P. J.

Where property is levied upon under an execution and a claim is filed, and the claimant takes and subscribes the oath in forma pauperis provided for by section 5164 of the Civil Code (1910), but files the affidavit with the clerk and fails to file it with the levying officer as provided by law, and the property is sold under a “short order” regularly granted by the ordinary, the purchaser at the sale obtains a good title thereto. The ruling here made is squarely controlled by what was held by the Supreme Court in *Wilson*v. *Garrick,*72 *Ga.*660. The request by counsel that the Supreme Court be asked to review that case is denied. See, as bearing- somewhat upon the principle, *Reynolds Banking Co.*v. *Southern Pacific Cuano Co.,*140 *Ga.*498 (79 S. E. 132)*; Reynolds Banking Co.*v. *Beeland,*23 *Ga. App.*228 (97 S. E. 861).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, J.J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFOMRATION  EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX-MONTH  PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      617
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                444
<INVENTORY>                                 14,602
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,049
<PP&E>                                      15,363
<DEPRECIATION>                              4,851
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       31,588
<BONDS>                                     8,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       3,555
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    45
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,368
<SALES>                                     44,794
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,794
<CGS>                                       32,430
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            9,831
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            412
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1,347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             2,533
<INCOME-TAX>                                782
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         1,751
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                1,751
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.30
        

</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4836 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Amarillo, 

Texas, as the ‘‘Thomas E. Creek Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 

Center’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2004 

Mr. THORNBERRY (for himself, Mr. CARTER, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. FROST, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. TURNER of Texas, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. PAUL, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. SESSIONS, 

Mr. HALL, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. REYES, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Mr. 

STENHOLM, Mr. BELL, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. BONILLA, Mr. BRADY

of Texas, Mr. DELAY, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. SMITH of 

Texas, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, 

Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. 

GONZALEZ, and Mr. DOGGETT) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center 

in Amarillo, Texas, as the ‘‘Thomas E. Creek Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center’’. 

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

•HR 4836 IH 

1 SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

2 MEDICAL CENTER IN AMARILLO, TEXAS. 

3 The Department of Veterans Affairs medical center 

4 in Amarillo, Texas, shall after the date of the enactment 

5 of this Act be known and designated as the ‘‘Thomas E. 

6 Creek Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center’’. 

7 Any reference to that medical center in any law, regula8 tion, map, document, record, or other paper of the United 

9 States shall be considered to be a reference to the Thomas 

10 E. Creek Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. 

Æ