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

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 472

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for full benefits

for disabled widows and widowers without regard to age.

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 provide

for full benefits for disabled widows and widowers without regard to age.

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

3 SECTION 1. FULL BENEFITS FOR DISABLED WIDOWS AND

4 WIDOWERS WITHOUT REGARD TO AGE.

5 (a) ELIGIBILITY FOR WIDOW’S INSURANCE BENE6 FITS.—Section 202(e) of the Social Security Act (42

7 U.S.C. 402(e)) is amended—

8 (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘has at9 tained age 50 but has not attained age 60 and’’;
2

•HR 472 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ‘‘after at2 taining age 50 if she was entitled before such mar3 riage occurred’’ and inserting ‘‘after having been en4 titled’’; and

5 (3) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ‘‘after at6 taining age 50’’.

7 (b) ELIGIBILITY FOR WIDOWER’S INSURANCE BENE8 FITS.—Section 202(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)) is

9 amended—

10 (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘has at11 tained age 50 but has not attained age 60 and’’;

12 (2) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ‘‘after at13 taining age 50 if he was entitled before such mar14 riage occurred’’ and inserting ‘‘after having been en15 titled’’; and

16 (3) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ‘‘after at17 taining age 50’’.

18 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM REDUCTIONS IN BENEFITS.

19 Section 202(q) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

20 402(q)) is amended—

21 (1) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ‘‘age 50’’

22 and inserting ‘‘age 60’’; and

23 (2) by adding at the end the following new

24 paragraph:
3

•HR 472 IH

1 ‘‘(12) Notwithstanding any other provision of this

2 section, there shall be no reduction under this subsection

3 in the widow’s or widower’s insurance benefit of an indi4 vidual for any month in which such individual is under

5 a disability (as defined in section 223(d)); and none of

6 the provisions of this subsection shall apply with respect

7 to such benefit even though such benefit may have been

8 so reduced prior to the onset of such disability.’’.

9 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND REDETERMINATION OF BEN10 EFITS.

11 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with

12 respect to monthly insurance benefits payable under title

13 II of the Social Security Act for months after the month

14 in which this Act is enacted. The Commissioner of Social

15 Security (without the necessity of any application there16 for) shall redetermine the amount of any widow’s or wid17 ower’s insurance benefit which is payable for the month

18 in which this Act is enacted in order to reflect such

19 amendments as provided in the preceding sentence.

Æ
JASON GREEN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4200

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 21, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County.

Robert Groeb, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Barbara J. Busharis, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Angela R. Hensel, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS,
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AS OF AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         223,501
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  651,868
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (15,743)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,205,927
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,118,540
<PP&E>                                         173,297
<DEPRECIATION>                                (55,735)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,092,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,315,885
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       170,418
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,601,632
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,092,335
<SALES>                                      1,359,988
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,359,988
<CGS>                                          924,245
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  478,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (63,625)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (63,625)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (63,625)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ANTOINE SPANN,

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL D. OVERMYER, ET. AL,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 91 EM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22 nd day of December , 2022, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the “Petition for Writ of Common Law Writ of Habeas

Corpus” and the “Motion for Leave to File Default Judgment” are DENIED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

May 12, 2017

p0509 

# Order

Clerk May 12, 2017

150695

In re APPLICATION OF MICHI GAN ELECTRIC

TRANSMISSION COMPANY FOR

TRANSMISSION LINE

_________________________________________

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF OSHTEMO,

Appellant,

v SC: 150695

COA: 317893

MPSC No.: 00

- 017041

MICHIGAN ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION

COMPANY LLC,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

and

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMIS SION,

Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and the briefs and oral

arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we AFFIRM the judgment

of the Court of Appeals on the basis that appellant Oshtemo Township exercised control

over its streets pursuant to clause three of Const 1963, art 7, § 29 when it enacted Zoning

Ordinance No

. 525 and that § 230.004(b) of such Ordinance

— requiring that all new

utility “lines, wires, and/or related facilities and equipment” within the Township be

constructed underground “within the public road right

- of

- way and to a point within 250

feet either side of said public right

- of

- way”

— is unconstitutional because it is

unreasonable. See People v McGraw , 184 Mich 233, 238 (1915). Therefore, the

certificate that appellee Michigan Public Service Commission issued to appellee

Michigan Electric Transmission Company pursuant to the Electric Transmission Line

Ce rtification Act, MCL 460.564 et seq ., p revails over § 230.004(b) of Ordinance No.

525.

W ILDER , J. , took no part in the decision of this case.
Exhibit 10.16(b)


     Schedule of Warrants (new financings after October 31, 2005) Issued by
    NCT Group, Inc. to Carole Salkind and outstanding as of December 13, 2005


                    Expiration                                       Shares
    Grant Date         Date           Exercise Price                Granted
    ----------         ----           --------------                -------
     11/15/05        11/15/10       Greater of: (i) $0.0042;       15,000,000
                                    or (ii) the par value of
                                    NCT Group, Inc.
                                    common stock on the
                                    date of conversion
     12/07/05        12/07/10       Greater of: (i) $0.0045;       20,000,000
                                    or (ii) the par value of
                                    NCT Group, Inc.
                                    common stock on the
                                    date of conversion
11597.

#### Davidson *v.*The State.

Decided July 28, 1920.

Indictment for misdemeanor; from Harris superior court — Judge Howard. May 3, 1920.

The indictment charged Huse Davidson with having possession of intoxicating liquor. On the trial the sheriff (the sole witness) testified that on October 9, 1919, he found a 5-gallon jug, with about half a teacupful of whisky in it, behind a log, about 20 or 25 feet from the defendant’s house and in. his yard. The alleged newly discovered evidence was contained in an affidavit of John Billingslea, in which he said: “On the 8th day of October, 1919, deponent went with one Bobbie Lovelace, colored, to the residence of Huse Davidson. The said Bobbie Lovelace had with him a 5-gallon jug which he placed behind a log near the well at Huse Davidson’s house. The jug was empty or practically empty and contained no stopper.”

*J. R. Lunsford, J. B. Burnside,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. F. McLaughlin, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

The alleged, newly discovered evidence is neither cumulative nor impeaching in its character, and would probably cause a different verdict to be returned upon another trial. The court, therefore, erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
10566.

#### Orr *v.*The State.

Bloodwoetix, J.

1. The trial judge having given in charge to the jury the substance of section 114 of the Penal Code of 1910, and having charged, “Should you find that the defendant . . with a knife cut and stabbed Will Davis, if you do not believe that he intended to kill but intended to inflict an injury upon Will Davis less than death, you would not be warranted in finding the defendant guilty of assault with intent to murder, but would be warranted in finding him guilty of stabbing,” and the jury having been fully and clearly instructed under what circumstances they would be authorized to find the defend^ *143ant guilty of stabbing, it was not error requiring the grant of a new trial “that the judge failed to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter.”

Decided July 23, 1919.

Conviction of assault with intent to murder; from Randolph superior court—Judge Worrill. March 31, 1919.

*Charles W; Worrill,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. T. Castellón), solicitor-general, B. B. Arnold,*contra.

2. The charge to the jury that “absolute mathematical certainty is not attainable in legal investigations, but moral and reasonable certainty of guilt meets the requirements of the law” is a correct statement of the law *(Bone*v. *State,*102 *Ga.*390, 30 S. E. 845); and “a charge embracing an abstractly correct and pertinent principle of law is not rendered erroneous by a failure to charge some other legal principle applicable to the ease.” *Smith*v. *Brinson,*145 *Ga.*407 (2) (89 S. E. 363); *Willis*v. *Hudspeth,*145 *Ga.*438 (3) (89 S. E. 427); *Burney*v. *State,*22 *Ga. App.*624 (4) (97 S. E. 85), and cit.

3. “A complaint that the verdict is contrary to the charge of the court - is merely a variation of the general ground that the verdict is contrary to law, and presents no question for review. *McKelvin*v. *State,*17 *Ga. App.*413 (87 S. E. 150), and citations.” *Wakefield*v. *Lee,*18 *Ga. App.*648 (3) (90 S. E. 224); *Brannan*v. *McWilliams,*146 *Ga.*528 (4) (91 S. E. 772).

4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and no error of law was committed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.35



                               PROMISSORY NOTE

                                                 July 8, 1997
                                               ---------------
                                               Date

The undersigned Borrower (jointly and severally if more than one) properties
to pay to the order of ERB Acquisition Group, LLC

X     on or before September 30, 1997
--
                                                                               
--    upon demand the following designated principal and interest in the manner
      set forth below:                                                         

PRINCIPAL

X     (Single Advance) - the principal sun of $  Fifty Thousand $ 00/100
--    ($50,000.00)

--    (Multiple Advance - Non-Revolving) - the amount of principal initially
      advanced hereunder together with any additional advances hereafter,
      provided, however the aggregate total of all advances shall not
      exceed $
               -----------------

INTEREST on the principal of this Note shall be due and payable: September
      30, 1997, Interest at 15% per annum


INTEREST PAYMENTS - Interest on the principal shall be due and payable:

--                commencing              and continuing on the same day of
    -----------              ------------
each            thereafter.
     ----------

X     at maturity
--

COMBINED PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS - Combined principal and interest
      payments shall be due and payable: $50,000.00 + 15% per annum at maturity

SECURITY INTEREST - COLLATERAL
Unsecured - if non-payment on September 30, 1997, all terms including
collateral/interest/fees etc., as stated in the $300,000 ERB note will be
applicable to this loan equal to the same pro rata ($50,000 / 300,000 or 1/6).
So if the ERB Note calls for 10,000 this loan would earn 1,667 etc.

PURPOSE OF LOAN  - Borrower hereby represents and warrants that the proceeds
of this loan will be used solely for the following purposes:   N/A

Individual and/or Proprietorship     Corporate, Partnership, or Other
Borrower(s)                          Borrower

                                     Consolidated Capital of North America, Inc.
--------------------------------     -------------------------------------------
                                     /s/ Thompson H. Rogers          
--------------------------------     -------------------------------------------
                                     Thompson H. Rogers 
--------------------------------     -------------------------------------------
                                     Title: Chairman 
--------------------------------     -------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                         5
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         1,646,000
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,315,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,927,000
<PP&E>                                         5,660,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                31,474,000 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         17,780,000
<BONDS>                                       12,281,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         122,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    13,107,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  31,474,000
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              23,262,000
<CGS>                                                  0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 21,206,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,728,000 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  328,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              328,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     328,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.02
        


</TABLE>
From: Anand Kumar Jha

To: cyberframework

Subject: Feedback on NIST CSF 2.0 - Core level feedback on the Functions and Category

Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 5:43:19 AM

Attachments: NIST CSFv2.pptx

Dear Team/CSF Group,

Greetings!!

Hope you all are doing well.

First, I would like to congratulate you all for this fantastic effort put together for this NIST CSF 2.0.

This was a long-awaited project and good to see that efforts came out fantastic.

While going through the entire journal, I found that Governance is one of the key aspects which is

missing across the functions.

Also, when I studied deeper in that draft, I found that Govern has been added as a separate function,

which is bit confusing for the larger group of security practitioners. LinkedIn community is flooded

with reactions around it as well on various posts.

Based on my experience with CSF, here are certain recommendations which I would like to share.

1. Let’s update the overall representation of CSF 2.0 (I have attached PPT with a diagram which

covers a lot many aspects in a single view)

2. Also, let’s try to introduce a function called “Strategize/Brainstorm” (You could bring in a

better acronym as well) instead of Govern and before Identify. Which should emphasize the

need of organization’s strategy and context setting towards Cybersecurity, Planning and

Prioritization of the sub-objectives/activities, Formulation of Policies, rules and procedures

around it, Budgeting based on the capabilities of organization, defining charters, roles and

responsibilities around the program, Program management planning and introduction of

continuous review and monitoring plan around this entire set of activities (Which is a part of

governance around Strategy).

I would love to discuss more on my thoughts around these recommendations, if there are any

queries around it.

Thanks & Regards,

Anand Kumar Jha

Global IAM Solutions Principal | PSS Life Cycle Marketing

OpenText Cybersecurity
Website: www.opentext.com

This email message is confidential, may be privileged, and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any other person is strictly

prohibited from disclosing or reproducing it. If the addressee cannot be reached or is unknown to you, please inform the sender by return

email and delete this email message and all copies immediately.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4637

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the payment of 

Combat-Related Special Compensation under that title to members of 

the Armed Forces retired for disability with less than 20 years of active 

military service who were awarded the Purple Heart. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 22, 2004

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

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the 

payment of Combat-Related Special Compensation under 

that title to members of the Armed Forces retired for 

disability with less than 20 years of active military service who were awarded the Purple Heart.

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 ‘‘Combat Military Medi5 cally Retired Veteran’s Fairness Act of 2004’’. 
2

•HR 4637 IH 

1 SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO 20-YEAR SERVICE REQUIREMENT 

2 FOR MEMBERS WHO RECEIVED PURPLE 

3 HEART. 

4 (a) ENTITLEMENT.—Section 1413a(c) of title 10, 

5 United States Code, is amended—

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘For purposes 

7 of’’; 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘(1) has’’ and inserting ‘‘(A) 

9 has’’; 

10 (3) by striking ‘‘(2) has’’ and inserting ‘‘(B) 

11 has’’; and 

12 (4) by adding at the end the following new 

13 paragraph: 

14 ‘‘(2) In addition to members described in paragraph 

15 (1), a member of the uniformed services retired under 

16 chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 years of service 

17 creditable under section 1405 of this title is an eligible 

18 combat-related uniformed services retiree for the purposes 

19 of subsection (a) if the member has a combat-related dis20 ability described in subsection (e)(1). In the case of such 

21 a member, the determination under subsection (b) of the 

22 amount of compensation to be paid such member under 

23 this section shall be made without regard to paragraph 

24 (3) of that subsection.’’. 

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

26 subsection (a) shall take effect with respect to payments 
3

•HR 4637 IH 

1 of compensation under section 1413a of title 10, United 

2 States Code, for months beginning on or after the date 

3 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in 1994 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan Registration Statement No. 33-79014 as amended by Post-Effective Amendment
No.3, 1997 Special Stock Option Plan Registration Statement No. 333-33439 as
amended by Post-Effective Amendment No.1, 1997 Incentive Stock Option Plan
Registration Statement No. 333-32455 as amended by Post-Effective Amendment
No.1, 1987 Special Stock Option Plan Registration Statement No. 333-29111, and
1987 Incentive Stock Option Plan Registration Statement No. 33-15017 as amended
by Post-Effective Amendment No.1, each on Form S-8, of our report dated May 4,
2001 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pierre Foods, Inc. for the
fiscal year ended March 3, 2001.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
May 4, 2001