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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4678 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4678

  To bar certain additional restrictions on travel and remittances to 
                                 Cuba.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2004

Mr. Davis of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
              to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To bar certain additional restrictions on travel and remittances to 
                                 Cuba.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVEL AND 
              REMITTANCES TO CUBA.

    (a) Per-Diem Allowances.--The regulations governing travel to Cuba, 
as in effect on June 15, 2004, may not be modified so as to reduce the 
maximum travel per diem rate for persons traveling to Cuba (provided 
for in section 515.560(c)(2) of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, 
as in effect on such date).
    (b) Family Visits to Cuba.--The regulations governing travel to 
Cuba, as in effect on June 15, 2004, may not be modified so as to 
impose additional restrictions on such travel for purposes of visiting 
a close relative who is a national of Cuba (provided for in section 
515.561 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on such 
date), including by--
            (1) requiring a specific license for such travel;
            (2) limiting the number of trips to fewer than one in any 
        12-month period;
            (3) prohibiting more frequent trips by specific license 
        (provided for in section 515.561(b) of title 31, Code of 
        Federal Regulations, as in effect on such date);
            (4) limiting the length of any trip to less than 30 days; 
        or
            (5) narrowing the definition of ``close relative''.
    (c) Remittances.--The regulations permitting persons subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States to make remittances to households 
located in Cuba, as in effect on June 15, 2004 (provided for in section 
515.570 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on such 
date), may not be modified so as to impose additional restrictions on 
such remittances, including by limiting the recipients of such 
remittances to close relatives only and by reducing the $3,000 limit 
for all household remittances (provided for in section 515.560(c)(4)(i) 
of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on such date).
    (d) Accompanied Baggage.--The regulations governing travel to Cuba, 
as in effect on June 15, 2004, may not be modified so as to limit the 
amount or weight of baggage that may accompany a traveler without 
specific authorization by the United States Government.
                                 <all>
```
Parraguirre



# ca, Douglas J. right to due process because the statutes are too ambiguous. We decline to exercise our discretion to consider the petition for two reasons. 

### See State ex rel. Dep't Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 662 P.2d 1338 (1983) (explaining that extraordinary writ petitions are addressed to this court's sound discretion), 

### modified on other grounds by State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002). First, this court generally does not exercise its discretion to entertain a claim concerning a pretrial challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support probable
cause, 

### see Kussman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 544, 546, 612 P.2d 679, 680 (1980), and Ice has not demonstrated that his challenge fits within the exception we have made for purely legal issues, 

### see Ostman v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 107 Nev. 563, 565, 816 P.2d 458, 459-60 (1991); 

### State v. Babayan, 106 Nev. 155, 174, 787 P.2d 805, 819-20 (1990). Second, should Ice be convicted, he has an adequate remedy at law by way of an appeal to challenge to the constitutionality of the robbery statutes as they apply to the facts of his case. 

### See NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Cherry 

# a kit 1 4

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 

### e J.

### cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge The Law Offices of Ivette Amelburu Maningo Palm Law Firm, Ltd. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 

### 3 (0) 1947A
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




On December 5, 2005, following recommendations made by the consultant to the Executive
Compensation Committee, the Board of Directors approved the 2006 compensation for non-employee
directors under the stockholder approved 2005 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Plan as follows:



	 	 	 	 	 
	All directors
	 	$	150,000	 
	Audit Committee Chair
	 	 	25,000	 
	Audit Committee Members
	 	 	10,000	 
	Chair of Other Committees
	 	 	15,000	 






Fifty percent of this compensation is paid in deferred stock units which are paid out in Company
stock after the director leaves the Board. Directors may also choose to receive all or part of the
remaining fifty percent in deferred stock units.



The Board also approved a transition from a calendar year compensation cycle to a Board service
year (May to April) to simplify administration beginning May 2007.
<PAGE>

                                                         Exhibit 23.4


                             Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the use of our report dated February 19, 1996, incorporated by 
reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Nash Finch Company and 
subsidiaries for the year ended December 30, 1995, with respect to the 
consolidated financial statements and schedule, as amended, included in this 
Form 10-K/A.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement 
No. 33-64313 and Registration Statement No. 33-54478 on Form S-8 of our 
report dated February 19, 1996 with respect to the consolidated financial 
statements and schedule included herein.



                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota

November 4, 1996
84% 

-

-

-

-

-

Manufacturing Day 

by the Numbers 

What Is Manufacturing Day? 

Manufacturing Day (MFG Day) is the day when manufacturers open up 

the minds of the next generation, inspiring more young people to 

come and join the manufacturing team. 

This year’s Manufacturing 5 Day is October 5, 2018. th

OCT

Event Growth 

Since 2012, the official number of registered Manufacturing Day events has grown over 1,000%.

2,902 

2,807 

2,599 

1,647 

834 

240 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

MFG DAY State-by-State 

Participation in 2017 

Manufacturers in all 50 United States and Puerto Rico have

consistently participated in MFG Day. 

200-225 

175 199 

150 174 

125-149 

100 124 

75 99 

50 74 

25-49 

1-24 

Government Recognition 

In 2017, President Donald J. Trump invited a delegation of manufacturers, led by 

National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons, 

to join him at the White House as he signed an official Presidential proclamation 

declaring October 6, 2017 as National Manufacturing Day.

Number of Participants* 

Statistical analysis of key event reporting suggests Manufacturing Day 

engaged 595,341 participants, including 267,607 students. 

595,341 

PARTICIPANTS 

267,607 

STUDENTS 

Effects on Perception* 

Students who attended Manufacturing Day events were asked to participate 

in a survey administered by Deloitte. 

More aware of manufacturing 89% jobs in their communities 

More convinced that 

manufacturing provides 

careers that are interesting 

and rewarding 

64% More motivated to pursue 

careers in manufacturing 

71% More likely to tell friends, 

family, parents or colleagues 

about manufacturing after 

attending an event 

Why We MFG DAY 

Manufacturers need the next generation — more than 3.5 million job openings

are expected over the next decade with a growing skills shortage. 

When students and parents experience modern manufacturing firsthand, 

their attitudes and opinions about our industry shift for the better. MFG Day aims to:

Inspire the next generation by showing how they 1. can make a difference through manufacturing. 

Give guidance on how to take the first step 2. toward starting a career in modern manufacturing. 

Make it clear that manufacturers need 3. the next generation. 

Show students, parents and educators the 4. opportunity, creativity, possibility and 

accomplishment that comes with a 

career in manufacturing. 

Infographic © 2018 Manufacturing Day 

Visit us online: 

www.mfgday.com 

*Data reflects 2016 participation.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1484 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to establish a penalty for causing 

a defect in pipeline infrastructure, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2023 

Mr. BOST (for himself, Mr. CRAWFORD, and Mr. NEHLS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to establish a penalty 

for causing a defect in pipeline infrastructure, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pipeline Sabotage and 

5 Accident Prevention Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1484 IH

1 SEC. 2. PENALTY FOR CAUSING A DEFECT IN OR DIS2 RUPTING OPERATION OF PIPELINE INFRA3 STRUCTURE. 

4 Section 60123 of title 49, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(e) PENALTY FOR CAUSING A DEFECT IN OR DIS7 RUPTING OPERATION OF PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE.— 

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A person knowingly and 

9 willfully— 

10 ‘‘(A) causing, or threatening to cause, a 

11 defect in a pipe, pump, or valve intended to be 

12 used or used in any pipeline facility described 

13 in subsection (b) that would affect the integrity 

14 or safe operation of any such facility shall be 

15 fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more 

16 than 10 years, or both; or 

17 ‘‘(B) disrupting the operation of any such 

18 facility shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned 

19 for not more than 10 years, or both. 

20 ‘‘(2) RULE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.— 

21 Nothing in this subsection abridges the exercise of 

22 rights guaranteed under the First Amendment to 

23 the Constitution of the United States.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
11359.

#### Cain *v.*The State.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Indictment for manufacture of liquor; from Colquitt superior court — Judge Thomas. January 23, 1920.

After charging the jury that "the true question in criminal eases is, not whether it be possible that the conclusion at which the testimony points may be false, but whether there is sufficient testimony to satisfy the minds and consciences of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged,” the court added: "In cases of circumstantial evidence the law goes one step further, and holds that the evidence must not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence, and exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.” There was no further charge on circumstantial evidence. In the motion for a new trial it is alleged that the court erred in the foregoing charge on circumstantial evidence, on the grounds that it was insufficient, that the court failed to explain the meaning of the term “ circumstantial evidence,” and did not state that the guilt of the defendant rested solely on circumstantial evidence, failed to state all possible hypotheses arising from the circumstantial evidence in the case which were favorable to the defendant, failed to instruct the jury that if they believed any one of the hypotheses favorable to the defendant or had a reasonable doubt as to its truth he should be acquitted, and failed to instruct the jury how to apply the rule of circumstantial evidence to the circumstances shown by the evidence.

*John T. Coyle, Parker, Gibson & Roddenbery,*for plaintiff in error.

*Clifford E. Hay, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. The charge upon the law of circumstantial evidence, in the absence of a request for more particular instructions, was sufficiently full. ,

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 32.2
                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 Quarterly Report of Magnitude  Information Systems,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended June 30, 2004 (the "Form
10-QSB"),  I, Joerg H. Klaube, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,
as of the date hereof,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  that  to the  best of my
knowledge,  the Company's  Form 10-QSB fully complies with the  requirements  of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Security  Exchange  Act of 1934  and that the
information  contained  in the Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 12, 2004                               By: /s/ Joerg H. Klaube
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Joerg H. Klaube
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10(C)



 






EXHIBIT 10(C)




Form of 

The Progressive Corporation

Directors Restricted Stock Deferral Plan

Revocation Election



This Revocation Election is entered into pursuant to the provisions of The Progressive Corporation
Directors Restricted Stock Deferral Plan (“Plan”). All capitalized terms in this Revocation
Election shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.




          WHEREAS, the undersigned Participant has previously elected to defer receipt of his/her
Restricted Stock Award granted in April, 2005; and




          WHEREAS, such Participant now desires to revoke such election;




          NOW, THEREFORE, such Participant hereby elects to revoke his/her election to defer the
Restricted Stock Award granted to him/her in April, 2005.




          The undersigned Participant understands that this Revocation Election is subject to the
terms, conditions and limitations of the Plan, as in effect from time to time, in all
respects, and, once received by the Committee, may not be changed or revoked. The undersigned
Participant also understands that this Revocation Election will not become effective unless
received by the Committee on or before December 30, 2005.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Name of Participant:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Signature of Participant:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Date:
#### Edward Blanchard, relator v. Nathan Church, Quartermaster-General.

*Bounty-clam*— Laches *of complainant.*

Mandamus to compel respondent to receive relator’s claim» for the State bounty of $150 provided for by Act 27 of' 1865, and, under sec. 1 of Act 132 of 1871, to examine and allow the claim and forward to the Auditor-General a certificate showing the amount of bounty so due relator.

Submitted October 4.

Denied October 5.

*Q. T. Gridley*for relator.

The Court held that the great delay in making the-application was fatal.
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4713 

For the relief of Christine L. Barrott. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2004 

Mr. MILLER of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Christine L. Barrott. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The limitations set forth in sec5 tions 6511 and 6514(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

6 1986 (relating to limitations on credit or refund and cred7 its or refunds after period of limitation) shall not apply 

8 to a claim filed by Christine L. Barrott of Milton, Florida, 

9 for credit or refund of overpayments of the individual Fed10 eral income tax Christine L. Barrott paid for the taxable 

11 years 1990 through 1998. 
2 

•HR 4713 IH 

1 (b) DEADLINE.—Subsection (a) shall apply only if 

2 Christine L. Barrott submits a claim pursuant to such 

3 subsection within the 1-year period beginning on the date 

4 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SAMUEL L. NELSON, :

 :

Petitioner, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0812-KD-M

:

WARDEN OLIVER, :

 :

Respondent. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this

file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been

no objections filed, the Report and 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 this action be

and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to

prosecute and to obey the Court's Order.

DONE this February 26, 2010.

 s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00812-KD-M Document 4 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 1
11153.

#### Pierce *et al. v.*Smith.

Decided March 18, 1920.

Appeal; from Pulaski superior court — Judge Graham. September 11, 1919.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court. The heirs at law of M. T. Hodge, deceased, were his three sisters and the children of his two deceased brothers. One of the sisters — Mrs. Elizabeth Smith—was selected in writing by the children of the deceased brothers for appointment as administratrix of his estate, and she applied to the court of ordinary for appointment as such. The other two sisters filed a caveat to the application, and named D. R. Pierce as their choice for appointment as administrator. The judgment of the judge of the superior court, on appeal from the court of ordinary, was that Mrs. Smith was legally entitled to be appointed as adminis*102tratrix, and that the caveat be overruled and she be appointed as such. To this judgment the caveators excepted. It was contended on their part that only those distributees of an estate who are equally related in degree to the decedent are entitled to vote in a contest over the appointment of an administrator, under subsection 3 of section 3943 of the Civil Code (1910), which provides that “If there be several of the next of kin equally near in degree, the person selected in writing by a majority of those interested as distributees of the estate, and who are capable of expressing a choice, shall be appointed.”

*101Smith, J.

In a contest as to' the selection of an administrator, where the decedent left no children, but left several sisters and the children of two deceased brothers as his heirs at law, the children of a deceased brother would together have one vote in the selection of the administrator. See Civil Code (1910), §§ 3931, 3943, subsections 2 and 3; *Mattox*v. *Embry,*131 *Ga.*283, 287 (62 S. E. 202).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*

*102
      *H. F. Lawson,*for plaintiffs in error.

*H. E. Coates,*contra.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANELLE GULLEY, : 

o/b/o D.A., : 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0439-M 

: 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, : 

Commissioner of : 

Social Security, : 

: 

Defendant. : 

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be

entered in favor of Defendant Michael J. Astrue and against

Plaintiff Danelle Gulley on behalf of D.A.

DONE this 1st day of March, 2010.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00439-M Document 23 Filed 03/01/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         940,787
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 940,787
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,399
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     897,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   940,787
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,399
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (43,399)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (43,399)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (43,399)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.85)


</TABLE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Abram Jerry Aldaco, * From the 396th District

 Court of Tarrant County,

 Trial Court No. 1323018D

Vs. No. 11-13-00346-CR * March 27, 2014

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal 

is dismissed.