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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4449

To provide assistance to combat HIV/AIDS in the Republic of India, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2004

Ms. LEE (for herself, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. LEACH, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. CROWLEY, 

Mr. MCDERMOTT, and Mr. BROWN of Ohio) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on International Relations 

A BILL

To provide assistance to combat HIV/AIDS in the Republic 

of India, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress makes the following findings: 

5 (1) The Government of the Republic of India 

6 has estimated that 4,580,000 people in India are in7 fected with the human immunodeficiency virus 

8 (‘‘HIV’’) and cases of individuals with the acquired 

9 immune deficiency syndrome (‘‘AIDS’’) have been 
2

•HR 4449 IH 

1 reported in almost all the states and union terri2 tories of India. 

3 (2) The effort to combat the HIV/AIDS pan4 demic in India has reached a critical point, as HIV/

5 AIDS is spreading rapidly from urban to rural areas 

6 and from high-risk groups to the general population. 

7 (3) Political leaders, public health officials, non8 governmental organizations, and medical and sci9 entific communities in India have taken important 

10 steps to combat HIV/AIDS in that country, but as11 sistance from the United States is urgently needed 

12 to enhance such efforts. 

13 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

14 It is the sense of Congress that—

15 (1) the addition of India to the list of countries 

16 for which the Coordinator of United States Govern17 ment Activities to Combat HIV/AIDS Globally is re18 sponsible under section 1(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII) of the 

19 State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 

20 U.S.C. 2651a(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII)) for the approval of 

21 all activities of the United States (including funding) 

22 relating to combatting HIV/AIDS should not de23 crease the amount of funding made available for as24 sistance to any other country under such section for 

25 such purpose; 
3

•HR 4449 IH 

1 (2) the United States should continue to in2 crease the number of countries eligible to receive as3 sistance from the United States to combat HIV/

4 AIDS; and 

5 (3) the United States should increase the total 

6 amount of assistance available to combat HIV/

7 AIDS. 

8 SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE TO COMBAT HIV/AIDS IN INDIA. 

9 Section 1(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII) of the State Department 

10 Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 

11 2651a(f)(2)(B)(ii)(VII)) is amended by inserting after 

12 ‘‘Haiti,’’ the following: ‘‘India,’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 4.22


 


Deed of settlement and release – Mr Peter A McKinnon


 


The
deed of settlement and release of Mr Peter A McKinnon 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
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7913** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
MICHAEL CRANDALE WILLIAMS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Elizabeth City

. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 2:95

- cr - 000 0 9

- H

- 1 )

Submitted : March 6, 2014 Decided: March 26, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Michael Crandale Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Michae l Crandale Williams appeals the district court ’s order granting his motion for a sentence reduction under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and reducing his sentence to the low end of his amended Guidelines range. * We have reviewed the
record and find no reve rsible error. Accordingly, we a ffirm the
district court ’s order. See United States v. Williams , No.
2:95

- cr - 00009

- H

- 1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materia ls before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* Williams contends he is entitled to a further reduction.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7409

CARL D. GORDON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR FRED SCHILLING, Health Services Director of 

Virginia Department of Corrections; MARK AMONETTE, Chief 

Physician of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior

District Judge. (7:15-cv-00095-NKM-RSB)

Submitted: February 3, 2017 Decided: March 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl D. Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Hull Davidson,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carl D. Gordon seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. This 

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The 

order Gordon seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### IDM PARTICIPATING INCOME COMPANY—II, a California Limited Partnership, et. al., Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. IDM PARTICIPATING INCOME CORPORATION, a California corporation, et. al., Defendants—Appellants.

No. 01-55279.

D.C. No. CV-00-12368-DT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.1

Decided May 21, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

*516Our inquiry is limited to whether the district court has abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. *Does 1-5 v. Chandler,*83 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir.1996).

The record before us shows that the district court did not rely upon an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion by issuing the preliminary injunction. *Id.; see also Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, Inc.,*686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir.1982) (stating legal standards governing issuance of preliminary injunction). Moreover, the court’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous. *Chandler,*83 F.3d at 1152.

Accordingly, the district court’s order is

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the t courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Phillip Singerman

Associate Director for Innovation & Industry Services

Phillip Singerman is the Associate Director for Innovation and 

Industry Services at the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). In this capacity he is responsible for the NIST 

suite of external partnership programs, including the Hollings 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the Baldrige Performance 

Excellence Program, the Office of Advanced Manufacturing, NIST 

technology transfer, economic analysis, and small business 

innovation research awards.

Mr. Singerman serves as the U. S. Co-Chair of the Israel–U.S. 

Binational Industrial Research and Development (BIRD) 

Foundation and on the U.S. – India Science & Technology Endowment Board (STEB) and the 

Stakeholders Council of the Advanced Functional Fabrics of America (AFFOA).

Mr. Singerman was appointed to his position in January 2011. Immediately prior to joining NIST, he was 

a Senior Vice President at B&D Consulting, a DC-based firm providing strategic advice and technical 

assistance on federal economic development programs to non-profit organizations, local governments, 

and universities. Previously he was a managing director of a$120 million seed stage venture fund that 

invested in biotechnology.

Mr. Singerman has more than 35 years of experience in tech based economic development; he was the 

first chief executive of two of the best known and longest lasting private-public partnerships; the Ben 

Franklin Technology Center of Southeastern Pennsylvania and the Maryland Technology Development 

Corporation. During the Clinton Administration, he served as U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Economic Development, a Presidential appointment requiring Senate confirmation.

Mr. Singerman has participated on scores of local, state, and national advisory boards and associations, 

including the State Science and Technology Institute(SSTI), the Technology Council of Maryland (TCM), 

the International Economic Development Council (IEDC), NGA's Advisory Committee on Entrepreneurial 

Policy, and NSF's Small Business Advisory Committee. He was the 2011 recipient of IEDC's Federal 

Leadership in Economic Development Award.

Mr. Singerman received his B.A. from Oberlin College and holds a Ph.D. from Yale University. He has 

taught at Yale College, Barnard College (Columbia University), and the Fels Institute of Government 

(University of Pennsylvania). After graduating from college, he served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in 

Colombia, South America, working in rural community development.

Created October 26, 2017
#### John R. Nutter v. James Miller.

Money Received — Implied! Assumpsit.

Where one collects money without right, the law implies a promise to repay it.

Interest — Time of Allowance.

A demand for money unlawfully collected not being necessary, . interest should be allowed from the time the money was collected.

APPEAL FROM SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT.

December 16, 1873.

*Polk, for appellant.*

*Prewett, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

This action is for the recovery of a specific and certain sum of money, with interest alleged to have been collected by appellant without right, on claims or accounts belonging to the appellee.

Having thus collected the money, the law implies the promise to pay. No proof was necessary, as the amount collected was specifically stated, and the law implies the promise. No> demand was necessary, and therefore interest should have been allowed from the time the money was collected.

Judgment affirmed.
Recruitment and Engagement 

Activities

Susanne Porch

Director, Office of Human Resources Management

February 3, 2016
Recruitment via Social Media

 Use of social media for recruitment is relatively new to NIST

 Careers@NIST on Facebook 

 NIST’s Youtube channel videos

 Visible online presence is key for our future

 Mission guides who we hire

 Technical and Administrative

“The Scope That NIST Built”

Federal Hiring at NIST: Pilot with CTL

 Specific requirements have to be met

 Outcome: Hiring takes longer than we would like

 Challenge: Competition requires speedy and valid job offers

 Service Now pilot – March, 2016

 Goals: 

 Better service - Increased transparency for managers 

 Better data - Immediate and actionable metrics

 Speed - Faster hiring
Engagement: Leadership Development 

Programs

 Environment Matters 

 Supervisors and leaders have enormous influence

 Leadership Development Programs 

 Programs for first line supervisors, project managers and aspiring leaders

 Graduates possess common language and skills tool kit 

 NIST significantly increased program investment in FY15
Modifying our NIST Personnel System?

 We have a unique personnel system 

 System was and is intended to be modified as needed

 NIST Director committed to a broad review 

 Primary focus areas of upcoming review: 

 Staffing and Recruitment

 Compensation

 Performance Management
Thank you

Questions or Comments?
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

Midland Merger Co., a Texas corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            5
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,573,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,897,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,856,000
<PP&E>                                      68,019,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,604,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,944,000
<BONDS>                                     76,259,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       113,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,673,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                93,604,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,894,000
<CGS>                                          587,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,544,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,039,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,539,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (69,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,470,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,470,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 ) 

VS. ) CR. NO. 08-00160-CG 

 ) 

KELLEY W. TUCKER, M.D., ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

 ORDER 

This matter is before the court on the United States= Motion for Reduction of Sentence 

pursuant to Rule 35(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Doc.31). The United States asks 

the court to reduce the defendant=s 21-month sentence by 10 months because he provided 

substantial assistance in the investigation and prosecution of other defendants since the date of 

his sentencing. Upon due consideration of the grounds presented, the court finds that the United 

States= motion is well taken and hereby GRANTS the motion. Based upon the information 

presented, the court finds that a reduction of the sentence by 10 months is appropriate. 

Therefore, it is ORDERED that defendant KELLEY W. TUCKER, M.D.=s sentence 

hereby is amended, and his term of imprisonment is reduced from 21 months to 11 months. All 

other terms and conditions of the sentence and judgment remain the same. 

DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of July, 2010. 

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cr-00160-CG Document 32 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         500,592
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  585,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (30,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,870,117
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,190,731
<PP&E>                                       8,939,488
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,191,486)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,916,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,477,094
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,781,255
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,916,207
<SALES>                                      1,427,229
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,427,229
<CGS>                                          694,471
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  694,471
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               639,533
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             123,899
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,978)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,978)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,978)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.004)
        

</TABLE>
#### Commodore Waddell *v.*Commonwealth.

Criminal Law — Reversal—Overruling Demurrer.

Under § 349, Criminal Code, tbe Court of Appeals bas no power to reverse a judgment for a misdemeanor because of error in overruling a demurrer to tbe indictment.

Arrest — Statutory and Common Law Remedies.

Art. 18, cb. 28, Revised Statutes, relating to arrest and trial of persons guilty of riot, rout, fraud, etc., is merely cumulative of tbe common law remedy and does not abrogate tbe common law on tbe subject.

APPEAL PROM BUTLER CIRCUIT COURT.

June 5, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

This court has no power to reverse a judgment in a case for a rñisdemeanor because of an error in the court below for overruling a demurrer to an indictment, nor for refusing a new trial. Sec. 349, Crim. Code.

The facts stated in the indictment seem’ to constitute an assault, and therefore a public offense within the jurisdiction of the court; and hence there were no grounds to- arrest the judgment. Sec. 271, Crim. Code.

Art. 18, Chap. 28, Revised Stat, authorizes a judge of a circuit or county court, police judge, justice of the peace, sheriff, marshal, or constable to arrest persons guilty of riot, rout, unlawful assembly, affray, or breach of the peace, and to cause them tO' be tried as therein prescribed; and upon hearing of the evidence by the jury, if they believe the defendant, or any one or more of them, guilty, *714they may assess the fine against them severally, in any sum' not exceeding $30.00, or imprisonment not exceeding fifteen days, or both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the jury. But the sixth and last section expressly provides, that nothing in said article shall be construed to repeal the common law in relation to riots, routs, unlawful assemblies, or breaches of the peace, which offenses may be punished as and by the common law as heretofore.

*Scott, Guffy, for appellant.*

*Attorney-General, for appellee*

Obviously, that enactment is only cumulative, providing additional modes of proceeding for the punishment of the offenses enumerated to those provided by, but in no wise abrogating, the common law on the subject. Whether or not the instructions asked for by the appellant were improperly refused, we can not inquire into, because there is no bill of exceptions incorporating them and making them a part of the record certified by the judge who' presided at the trial.

The judgment must therefore- be affirmed.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4715 

To clarify the obligations of the Federal Communications Commission to 

issue licenses using competitive bidding procedures. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2004 

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

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To clarify the obligations of the Federal Communications 

Commission to issue licenses using competitive bidding 

procedures. 

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 ‘‘Spectrum Account5 ability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF SPECTRUM AUCTION REQUIRE7 MENTS. 

8 (a) AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (6) of section 309(j) 

9 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(6)) 

10 is amended— 
2 

•HR 4715 IH 

1 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through 

2 (H) as clauses (i) through (viii), respectively; 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘Nothing in this subsection’’ 

4 and inserting the following: 

5 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this sub6 section’’; and 

7 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub8 paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(B) LIMITATION.—Neither subparagraph 

10 (A) of this paragraph nor any other provision 

11 of this Act (other than paragraph (2) of this 

12 subsection) shall be construed to permit the 

13 Commission to avoid the requirement of para14 graph (1) of this subsection to use competitive 

15 bidding in granting a license, or to avoid the 

16 obligation to accept properly executed mutually 

17 exclusive applications for such a license, if the 

18 grant of such license, including any grant by 

19 means of a modification pursuant to section 

20 316, results in the licensee— 

21 ‘‘(i) being authorized to use— 

22 ‘‘(I) a materially greater quantity 

23 of electromagnetic spectrum than the 

24 licensee was authorized to use prior to 

25 the grant or modification; or 
3 

•HR 4715 IH 

1 ‘‘(II) a band of the electro2 magnetic spectrum that materially ex3 ceeds in value any band of spectrum 

4 that was previously used by the li5 censee; or 

6 ‘‘(ii) effectively exchanging a license 

7 previously held by the licensee for a license 

8 that— 

9 ‘‘(I) materially alters the rights 

10 or obligations under the previously 

11 held license; or 

12 ‘‘(II) permits the licensee to pro13 vide services that the previously held 

14 license did not permit.’’. 

Æ