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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3836 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3836

    To reauthorize the United States Advisory Commission on Public 
                               Diplomacy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 3, 2006

  Mr. Martinez (for himself and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To reauthorize the United States Advisory Commission on Public 
                               Diplomacy.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``United States Advisory Commission on 
Public Diplomacy Reauthorization Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF UNITED STATES ADVISORY COMMISSION ON PUBLIC 
              DIPLOMACY.

    Section 1334 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 
1998 (22 U.S.C. 6553), as amended by section 410 of the Department of 
State and Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-108; 
119 Stat. 2327), is amended by striking ``October 1, 2006'' and 
inserting ``October 1, 2009''.
                                 <all>
```
OURS TO HOLD AND CARESS AND CHERISH 

Hanif Abdurraqib 

A heavy grey cloud unlocks its doors & the moonlight stomps off behind it, a petulant child leaving 

behind smudges of darkness in its wake & that leaves us with nothing to speak about except the 

brutalities of feeling. I don’t think I want to make it to the end of the world this time. This one ain’t 

my type of apocalypse. I want a meteor, a sky black with sudden arrows. I want to know exactly how 

much time is left, to see the numbers on the clock descending. I might be in love, after all. I might 

slide a love letter across a table & take one last delight in watching a lover read whatever I’ve 

scrawled across paper while some fire consumes us or a rising ocean holds us patiently in a waiting 

palm before it makes a fist. To believe in the reality of a single soulmate is to believe that every 

lonely life exists because someone didn’t travel towards someone else. A child dies somewhere and 

then, decades later, someone lives a series of unsatisfied days. Watches the game shows alone & goes 

to bed early, each day its own small apocalyptic orchestra of near-silence. The woman who lived in 

my house years before me is dead, but not gone. The arrogance of the living suggests that the dead 

rattle windows, that they nudge an old glass off the edge of a counter because they want us to be 

afraid. As if the dead have any use for our fear. The woman who died in the house that is now our 

house was alone in the attic for a month before she was found. Her mother found her, surrounded 

by mirrors. There are mirrors everywhere in the house that is now ours. On the landing between 

floors. In the hallways. In some of them, I am divided into several, smaller selves, each of them 

wrecked by their own individual longing. From the attic, I hear moans while the sun is out, lashing 

the highest windows with its heat. But at night, it is always laughter that echoes down through the 

vents, trembles the walls, runs its hands along my back until I fall asleep & it is like being held, in 

this way, by a lover from a world that has already ended. A different lover for every reflection in the 

room. And yet, when I wake, someone I loved once is still alive, somewhere else.
Exhibit
10.1


Description
of the Penn National Gaming, Inc. Annual Incentive Plan


The Annual Incentive Plan provides for cash bonuses payable upon the
attainment of pre-established performance goals.  The Annual Incentive Plan will enable Penn
National Gaming, Inc. (the “Company”) to claim tax deductions for all bonuses
payable under the Annual Incentive Plan, including bonuses for the 2007
calendar year and bonuses for calendar years through 2011.  Without such Annual Incentive Plan, Section
162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, would deny the Company
a deduction for bonuses under the Annual Incentive Plan paid to the Chief
Executive Officer and the four other most highly compensated executive
officers, to the extent each officer’s compensation that is subject to Section
162(m) exceeds $1 million.  The
unavailability of this deduction would cause the Company to pay higher Federal
income taxes.


Administration.  The Annual Incentive Plan is administered by
the Compensation Committee.  The
Compensation Committee will, among other things, designate participants from
among the eligible employees, establish performance goals within the parameters
described below and administer the Annual Incentive Plan as it deems necessary
or advisable.  The Compensation Committee
has the right to terminate or amend the Annual Incentive Plan, without
stockholder approval, at any time and for any reason.  The Company also may adopt other bonus or
incentive plans.


Eligible Employees.  Employees eligible to participate in the
Annual Incentive Plan include the Chief Executive Officer, the other executive
officers of the Company and other key officers of the Company, which currently
consists of approximately nine individuals.


Performance Goals.  The Annual Incentive Plan is an incentive
compensation plan designed to promote teamwork towards achieving
pre-established corporate performance goals each year.  The Compensation Committee approved a
performance measure of free cash flow compared to the results of a peer group
of the Company’s competitors and a performance measure of earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (“EBIDTA”) compared to plan as
the business criteria upon which performance goals are based.


Plan Benefits. 
Participants in the Annual Incentive Plan may receive a bonus with a
threshold, target and maximum payout. 
The annual bonus will be paid depending on whether the performance
criteria established for the year are achieved. 
No bonuses will be paid if performance criteria established for the year
do not meet the threshold.  If the
Company’s performance with respect to any or all of the performance criteria
meets or exceeds the threshold, then a varying amount of cash, up to the
maximum, may be achieved.  A maximum of
$6,000,000 may be paid each year to each executive who participates in the
Annual Incentive 













Plan.  The Committee may
determine to pay the bonus in shares of the Company’s common stock, instead of
cash, under the Company’s equity-based incentive compensation plans.  The Compensation Committee may reduce, but
may not increase, any bonus.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 88 (Friday, May 8, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10939]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745


Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention in Certain Residential 
Structures



CFR Correction

    In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 700 to 789, 
revised as of July 1, 2008, on page 609, in Sec.  745.225, remove the 
phrase ``lead-based paint activities'' and add in its place the phrase 
``renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities'' 
in paragraphs (c)(13)(i) (two occurrences); (c)(13)(ii) introductory 
text, (A), and (B); (c)(13)(iii); (c)(13)(vi); and (c)(13)(viii).
[FR Doc. E9-10939 Filed 5-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
666 A.2d 160

#### IN THE MATTER OF DONALD MYERS, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

October 31, 1995.

ORDER

DONALD MYERS of ELIZABETH, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1955, having tendered his consent to disbarment as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that DONALD MYERS is disbarred by consent, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that he be permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by DONALD MYERS, pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6, shall be restrained from disbursement except upon application to this Court, for good cause shown, and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund, pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys.
#### Mark PUNA; Gacalina Puna, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-74354.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*69Submitted Sept. 15, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 5, 2006.

Walter J. Gleason, Jr., Esq., Law Offices of Walter J. Gleason, Jr., Boston, MA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Circuit Judge, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Because the parties are familiar with the facts and the procedural history underlying this appeal, we mention them only insofar as necessary to explain our decision.

Petitioners Mark and Gacalina Puna petition for review of the summary af-firmance by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of the order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture claims. They claim Mr. Puna’s lack of competency to testify and to represent his wife and himself violated due process and the IJ erred by relying on the State Department Report on Albania. These contentions, however, were not raised to the BIA.

We “may review a final order of removal *only if*... the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(d)(1) (emphasis added). We have construed § 1252(d)(1) as a jurisdictional bar where an alien fails to raise a claim in his or her appeal to the BIA. *Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2003). In *Barron,*we explained petitioners need not exhaust *70constitutional claims that are beyond the competence of the BIA. *Id.*“Among such challenges may be due process claims, but only if they involve more than ‘mere procedural error’ that an administrative tribunal could remedy.” *Id.*(citation omitted).

Here, the Punas’ claims are “mere procedural error[s]” that the BIA could have remedied by ordering a new asylum hearing with counsel present and further inquiry regarding Mr. Puna’s competency to testify. Accordingly, we do not possess jurisdiction to review the Punas’ claims because they are barred by the Punas’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Infinite Turner, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 289]

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), imposed December 14, 2011, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal (see *People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 265 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Thus, review of his excessive sentence claim is not precluded. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, EJ., Dillon, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6996

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. EDWIN FLORES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00292-JCC-5; 1:07-cv-01054-JCC)

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 2, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin Flores, Appellant Pro Se. Jenny C. Ellickson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Edwin Flores seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Flores has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Ismael Igartua, Petitioner, v Isreal Rivera, as Superintendent of Coxsackie Correctional Respondent Facility, et al., Respondents.

[870 NYS2d 810]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Greene County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Coxsackie Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

At the conclusion of a tier II prison disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of creating a disturbance, harassment and refusing a direct order. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, authored by the correction officer involved in the incident, is sufficient by itself to provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Adams v Goord,*45 AD3d 940, 940-941 [2007]). Although petitioner offered exculpatory evidence, this created a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Graham v Goord,*43 AD3d 526, 526 [2007]). Petitioner’s remaining assertions, including his claims that he was denied the right to present witness testimony and that the hearing transcript is inadequate for appellate review, have been examined and, to the extent preserved, are unavailing.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6197

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. SINCLAIR ELLIS, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cr - 00515

- GLR

- 1 ; 1:19

- cv - 2644

- GLR )

Submitted : July 21, 2020 Decided: July 24, 2020

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Sinclair Ellis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant U nited States Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublish ed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sinclair Ellis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 (201 8 ) motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ) (201 8 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (201 8 ). When the district court denies r elief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the distri ct court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ellis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ellis’ motion for a certificate of appealabili ty and dismiss the appeal. 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
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

** **

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

** **

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of BancTec, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), onForm 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2002 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Craig D. Crisman, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

 

/ s /    Craig D. Crisman

 

Craig D. Crisman

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

September 20, 2002

 

 

----
Exhibit 10.10
Samuel Jeffries, President/CEO
Organic Sales & Marketing, Inc.


Dear Sir:

The brand Bradfield Organics, which is part of the Land O'Lakes Purina Feed
Organization, has for the last year been in serious discussion with Organic
Sales and Marketing. The discussions have ranged from marketing support of
Bradfield Organics, the history and sales of Dragon Fly Organics, and the role
each could play in various channels of distribution.

The Bradfield Organics group brings product technology, manufacturing, marketing
advice and logistics support to the Dragon Fly Brands. Dragon Fly brings a sales
approach, marketing support, channel flexibility and the Garden Guys network to
the potential market of organic fertilizers to the mass and grocery channels.
The combination of each company's strengths could make for a unique way to
approach these channels.

Currently discussions are under way to determine a first offering of products
for these channels and potential first customer options. Hopefully a plan will
be developed soon to achieve these first two goals.

Sincerely,

William C. Sadler, Ph.D.
VP of Marketing and Business Development for the Feed Solutions group of LOLPF.
Beauty, Fire & Memory: Lost Art of the Kaiser Friedrich Museum

Bibliography:

Oakeshott, Ewart. European Weapons and Armour: From the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution.

Woodbridge, UK, 2012.

Preyer, David C. The Art of the Berlin Galleries. Boston, 1912.

Ruda, Jeffrey. Fra Filippo Lippi: Life and Work with a Complete Catalogue. New York, 1993.

Slive, Seymour. Jacob Van Ruisdael: A Complete Catalogue of His Paintings, Drawings, and Etchings. New

Haven, CT, 2001.

Thorne, R. G. “Drummond, William (?1770-1828), of Logie Almond, Perth.” In The History of Parliament:

British Political, Social & Local History, http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1790-

1820/member/drummond-william-1770-1828.

Trebbin, Heinrich. David Teniers und Sankt Antonius. Frankfurt, 1994.

Wethey, Harold E. Alonso Cano: Painter, Sculptor, Architect. Princeton, NJ, 1955.

Wethey, Harold E. The Paintings of Titian: The Portraits. New York, 1971.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe LOPEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 05-40897, 05-41087

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 24, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant *601Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Felipe Lopez-Rodriguez (Lopez) appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. Lopez contends that his prior Texas conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance is a misdemeanor under federal law and should not have been treated as an “aggravated felony” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). Lopez’s argument is unavailing in light of this court’s precedent. *See United States v. Rivera,*265 F.3d 310, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2001); *United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez,*130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.1997).

Lopez argues that this circuit’s precedent is inconsistent with *Jerome v. United States,*318 U.S. 101, 63 S.Ct. 483, 87 L.Ed. 640 (1943). Having preceded *Hinojosa-Lopez, Jerome*is not “an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.” *See United States v. Short,*181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir.1999). This contention provides no ground for relief.

Lopez argues, in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that his three-year term of supervised release exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury.

Lopez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Lopez contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Lopez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.