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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 85 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 85

       For the relief of Ricke Kaname Fujino of Honolulu, Hawaii.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2005

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       For the relief of Ricke Kaname Fujino of Honolulu, Hawaii.

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

SECTION 1. COMPENSATION PAYMENT.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any previous order or 
dismissal of an order, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and 
directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, to Ricke Kaname Fujino, of Honolulu, Hawaii, in full 
satisfaction of all of his claims against the United States for the 
taking of property of Ricke Kaname Fujino under Vesting Order No. 2724 
issued under the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 
App. 1 et seq.) on December 3, 1943, a sum equal to the lesser of--
            (1) the fair market value of that property on the date of 
        the enactment of this Act; or
            (2) $8,000,000.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION.

    Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, it shall be unlawful 
to pay or deliver to any agent or attorney, and for any agent or 
attorney to receive, on account of services rendered in connection with 
the claims paid under section 1, any amount exceeding 10 percent of the 
amount so paid. Violation of the provisions of this section is a 
misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Genaro Campos, Appellant, v James Conway, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted November 30, 2009;

decided January 19, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that it does not lie from an order of an individual Justice of the Appellate Division *(see NY*Const, art VI, § 3 [b]; CPLR 5602).
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 51045 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ANDRES ORLANDO MAJANO-CHICA,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:16 -CR- 146 -1

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Andres Orlando Majano -Chica pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to 41 months of imprisonment. On appeal he claims his sentence is substantively unreasonable. According to Majano -Chica, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis and results in the double- counting of a criminal record. As well, Majano-Chica maintains that his sentence is greater than necessary to fulfill the statutory sentencing goals

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 18, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-51045 Document: 00513997597 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2017No. 16

- 51045

2 for his reentry offense and does not account for the fact that he reentered the country to escape d anger and rejoin his wife. We have rejected Majano

- Chica’s theories that § 2L1.2’s lack of empirical foundation necessarily renders its application unreasonable, see Mondragon

Santiago , 564 F.3d at 366

- 67 , that the Sentencing Guidelines “double count” prior convictions, s ee United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529

- 30 (5th Cir. 2009), and that the Guidelines overstate the seriousness of illegal reentry , see United States v. Juarez-Duarte , 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008)

. Majano -Chica’s argument that within

- guidelines sentences calculated under § 2L1.2 should not be presumed reasonable on appeal because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis is foreclosed, as he concedes

. See Duarte , 569 F.3d at
530

- 31; United States v. Mondrago n-Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 366

- 67 (5th Cir. 2009) . Majano-Chica can rebut the presumption of reasonableness only by showing that the sentence fails to account for a factor that should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the factors. See United States v. Tuma , 738 F.3d 681, 695 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court heard the parties’ positions, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and concluded that the sentence was appropriate. Majano

Chica has not shown that his sentence failed to account for his fear of returning to El Salvavdor and sympathetic motive for reentry or that the court made a clear error judgment in weighing the factors . Because M ajano -Chica has not rebutted the appellate presumption that his within

- guidelines sentence was reasonable or demonstrated that his sentence is the result of an abuse of discretion, see Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), the judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 16-51045 Document: 00513997597 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2017
EXHIBIT 10.46

AMENDMENT TO THE FREESCALE HOLDINGS

2006 MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN

This Amendment to the Freescale Holdings 2006 Management Incentive Plan (the Incentive Plan) is made as of February 4,
2009 (the Effective Date). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Incentive Plan.

WHEREAS, Section 10 of the Incentive Plan provides in relevant part that the Board of Directors of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd. (the Company) may amend the Incentive Plan at
any time;

WHEREAS, the Incentive Plan currently provides that a maximum of 15,610,400.44 shares of Common Stock may be delivered in
satisfaction of Awards granted under the Incentive Plan shall be; and

WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Incentive Plan to provide
that up to 60,478,971 shares of Common Stock may be delivered in satisfaction of Awards granted under the Incentive Plan.

NOW THEREFORE,
the Incentive Plan is hereby amended as follows:



| | 1. | The first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Incentive Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A maximum of 60,478,971 shares of Common Stock of the Company may be delivered in satisfaction of Awards under the Plan.



| | 2. | Except as provided herein, the Incentive Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, an authorized signatory of the Company has executed this Amendment, to be effective as of the
Effective Date.



FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR HOLDINGS I, LTD./s/ Michel CadieuxBy:

Michel CadieuxTitle:

Senior Vice President, Human Resources




2
#### Dennis Ortiz et al., Appellants, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 656]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered November 30, 2011, which granted defendant *653New York City Housing Authority’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

NYCHA established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence showing that it was not aware that a tenant had been harboring the pit bull that attacked infant plaintiff (see *Strunk v Zoltanski,*62 NY2d 572, 575 [1984]). Even if knowledge of the dog’s presence could be imputed, the evidence shows that NYCHA neither knew nor should have known of the dog’s vicious propensities (see *id.; Rivers v New York City Hous. Auth.,*264 AD2d 342 [1st Dept 1999]).

The affidavit of another tenant, Edwin Ortiz, submitted by plaintiffs, failed to raise triable issues of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Even if Ortiz’s averment that the development knew that Rivera owned the dog is sufficient to establish notice of the dog’s presence, Ortiz’s averment that he was aware of the dog’s reputation for being aggressive, and that he knew of two prior attacks by the dog before the subject incident sets forth only third parties’ knowledge and observations, which is insufficient to impute knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities to NYCHA *(see LePore v DiCarlo,*272 AD2d 878, 879 [4th Dept 2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 761 [2000]; *Wilson v Bruce,*198 AD2d 664 [3d Dept 1993], *lv denied*83 NY2d 752 [1994]; *Plue v Lent,*146 AD2d 968 [3d Dept 1989]). Also, vicious propensities may not be inferred solely from the fact that the dog was of the pit bull breed (see *Joe v Orbit Indus.,*269 AD2d 121, 122 [1st Dept 2000]; *Carter v Metro N. Assoc.,*255 AD2d 251 [1st Dept 1998]; *compare Plue,*146 AD2d 968).

Concur—Andrias, J.R, Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Gische, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          40,293                  40,293
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,253                  74,253
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,225                   1,225
<INVENTORY>                                     30,075                  30,075
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               150,108                 150,108
<PP&E>                                         749,268                 749,268
<DEPRECIATION>                                 457,148                 457,148
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 504,188                 504,188
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,500                  64,500
<BONDS>                                        278,700                 278,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     158,029                 158,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   504,188                 504,188
<SALES>                                        119,022                 418,846
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               119,022                 418,846
<CGS>                                          116,693                 409,934
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  116,693                 409,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,253                  17,588
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,981                  16,373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,905)                (25,049)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,905)                (25,049)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,905)                (25,049)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.24)                   (.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.24)                   (.67)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of Reconditioned Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dirk D.
Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:
          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Reconditioned Systems, Inc. and will be retained by
Reconditioned Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

/s/ Dirk D. Anderson

Dirk D. Anderson
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
June 25, 2003
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Modoc County Resource Advisory Committee, Alturas, CA, 96101, USDA Forest Service.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committees Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 110-343) the Modoc National Forest's Modoc County Resource Advisory Committee will meet June 1, 2009, August 3, 2009, and September 14, 2009, in Alturas, California 96101, for a business meeting. The meetings are open to the public.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The business meetings on June 1, August 3, and September 14, 2009, will begin at 6 p.m., at the Modoc National Forest Office, Conference Room, 800 West 12th St., Alturas, California 96101. Agenda topics include (1) presentations on active RAC projects, (2) financial updates, and (3) reviewing and voting on project proposals that meet the intent of Public Law 110-343. Time will also be set aside for public comments at the beginning of the meeting.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stan Sylva, Forest Supervisor and Designated Federal Officer, at (530) 233-8700; or Rural Development and Partnership Specialist Dina McElwain at (530) 233-8723.

Jim C. Gumm,

Public Affairs Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-11900 Filed 5-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE M
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                 ALLMERICA PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANIES, INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
 
                FOR THE PERIODS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND 1995
                                  (UNAUDITED)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              QUARTER ENDED TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
                                              DECEMBER 31,     DECEMBER 31,
                                              ------------- -------------------
                                               1996   1995    1996      1995
                                              ------ ------ --------- ---------
<S>                                           <C>    <C>    <C>       <C>
Primary:
  Average shares outstanding.................   59.6   61.1      59.9      61.4
  Net effect of dilutive stock options based
   on the treasury stock method using average
   market price..............................    0.1    --        --        --
                                              ------ ------ --------- ---------
    TOTALS...................................   59.7   61.1      59.9      61.4
                                              ====== ====== ========= =========
Net income................................... $ 27.4 $ 27.9 $   146.4 $   140.1
Per share amount............................. $ 0.46 $ 0.46 $    2.44 $    2.28
Fully diluted:
  Average shares outstanding.................   59.6   61.1      59.9      61.4
  Net effect of dilutive stock options based
   on the treasury stock method using average
   market price..............................    0.1    --        --        --
                                              ------ ------ --------- ---------
    TOTALS...................................   59.7   61.1      59.9      61.4
                                              ====== ====== ========= =========
Net income................................... $ 27.4 $ 27.9 $   146.4 $   140.1
Per share amount............................. $ 0.46 $ 0.46 $    2.44 $    2.28
</TABLE>
The District Court of the 18th Judicial District. County of Gallatin.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DENNIS CHRISTIANSEN, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-09-112-AX DECISION

On May 10,2010 the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count II: Twenty (20) years in the Montana State Prison, with ten (10) years suspended, for the offense of Incest, a Felony; Count III: Thirty-five (35) years in the Montana State Prison, with twenty (20) years suspended, for the offense of Sexual Assault, a Felony. Counts II and III shall run consecutively with each other. The Defendant shall attend and successfully complete a sexual offender treatment program approved by the Montana Sexual Offender Treatment Association. The Defendant shall successfully complete Phases I and II of the Sex Offender Treatment Program prior to being eligible for parole.

On November 4, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was not present. Eric Olson, counsel for defendant, was present. The state was represented by Marty Lambert.

Before hearing the application, Mr. Olson requested that the hearing be continued until the next set of hearings in order to have additional time to prepare the case with the defendant. Mr. Lambert did not oppose the continuance.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the defendant’s application for review of sentence shall be continued to the next set of hearings in February 2011.

Done in open Court this 4th day of November, 2010.

DATED this 18th day of November, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Statement Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002****By****Principal Executive Officer****Regarding Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings**

 

I, Kshitij Mohan, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed the10-Q of International Remote Imaging Systems, Inc. for the second quarter ended June 30, 2003;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  August 11, 2003

/s/ Kshitij Mohan           Kshitij Mohan				President and Chief Executive Officer