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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 122 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 122

 Urging the Commandant of the Coast Guard to name an appropriate Coast 
    Guard vessel after Coast Guard Petty Officer Third Class Nathan 
                              Bruckenthal.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 5, 2006

 Mr. Schumer submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Urging the Commandant of the Coast Guard to name an appropriate Coast 
    Guard vessel after Coast Guard Petty Officer Third Class Nathan 
                              Bruckenthal.

Whereas Coast Guard Petty Officer Third Class Nathan Bruckenthal was a proud 
        member of the Coast Guard who willingly entered into harms way--

    (1) to protect the United States and his fellow service members from 
terrorists; and

    (2) to assist the people of Iraq in their pursuit of freedom and 
democracy;

Whereas, on April 25, 2004, Petty Officer Bruckenthal died of wounds that were 
        inflicted during an attack that began when suicide bombers in boats 
        attacked pumping stations in the Persian Gulf;
Whereas Petty Officer Bruckenthal was the first member of the Coast Guard to be 
        killed in action since the Vietnam War;
Whereas, by his actions, Petty Officer Bruckenthal exemplified honor, respect, 
        and devotion to duty; and
Whereas it is necessary to ensure that the legacy of that great citizen of the 
        United States, like the many individuals who have served the United 
        States and have fallen with him, is known and honored: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress urges the Commandant of the Coast Guard to name an 
appropriate Coast Guard vessel after Coast Guard Petty Officer Third 
Class Nathan Bruckenthal.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Desmond Arnold, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 884]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from three sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), all imposed September 25, 2008, on the ground that the sentences are excessive.

Ordered that the sentences are affirmed.

The sentences imposed were not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, P.J., Skelos, Roman, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
##### 



IDM PHARMA, INC.
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 Employment Agreement Agreement IDM Pharma Inc. Company Timothy P. Walbert Executive Parties Party
 Recitals
 A.
 B.
 Agreement
  1. Employment.
 1.1 Term. Term
 1.2 Title CEO ) Board
 1.3 Duties.
 1.4 Policies and Practices.
 1.




---



##### 



1.5 Location provided, however
 2. Loyal and Conscientious Performance; Noncompetition.
 2.1 Loyalty
 2.2 Covenant not to Compete Affiliate,
 2.3 Agreement not to Participate in Companys Competitors
 2.




---



##### 



3. Compensation of the Executive.
 3.1 Base Salary. Base Salary
 3.2 Discretionary Bonus. Bonus Performance Milestones
 3.3 Stock Options. Plan Shareholder Approval
Requirement Option
 3.4 Deferred Issuance Restricted Stock Award. Stock Award
 3.




---



##### 



3.5 Re-location Expenses.
 3.6 Legal Review.
 3.7 Changes to Compensation.
 3.8 Employment Taxes
 3.9 Benefits provided however,
 4. Termination.
 4.1 Termination By the Company
 4.1.1 Termination for Death or Disability Complete Disability
 4.




---



##### 



4.1.2 Termination by the Company For Cause
 4.1.3 Termination by the Company Without Cause
 4.2 Termination By The Executive
 4.2.1 Good Reason
 4.2.2 Without Good Reason
 4.3 Termination by Mutual Agreement of the Parties
 4.4 Compensation Upon Termination
 4.4.1 Death or Complete Disability Accrued
Amounts
 5.




---



##### 



Pro-rata Bonus
 4.4.2 With Cause or Without Good Reason.
 4.4.3 Without Cause or For Good Reason. Exhibit A
 (i) Severance Period
 (ii)
 4.4.4 Equity Award Acceleration.
 (i) Not in connection with a Change in Control.
 6.




---



##### 



(ii) In connection with a Change in Control. Change in Control
 (iii) Release and waiver.
 4.4.5 Conditions.
 4.5 Definitions
 4.5.1 Complete Disability Complete Disability Complete Disability
 4.5.2 Good Reason. Good Reason
 (i)
 7.




---



##### 



(ii)
 (iii)
 (iv)
 Provided however
 4.5.3 Cause Cause
 (i)
 (ii)
 (iii)
 (iv)
 (v)
 4.5.4 Change in Control. Change in Control
 8.




---



##### 



provided, however,
 4.6 Survival of Certain Sections.
 4.7 Parachute Payment. Payment parachute payment Code Excise Tax Reduced Amount parachute
payments provided, however,
 9.




---



##### 



4.8 Application of Internal Revenue Code Section 409A.
 4.9 Board membership.
 4.10 Indemnification Agreement. Exhibit B
 5. Confidential And Proprietary Information.
  6. Assignment and Binding Effect.
  10.




---



##### 



7. Notices.
   
  
  8. Choice of Law.
  9. Integration.
 ,
 11.




---



##### 



10. Amendment.
  11. Waiver.
  12. Severability.
  13. Interpretation; Construction.
  14. Representations and Warranties.
  15. Counterparts.
  12.




---



##### 



16. Arbitration.
 JAMS
 17. Trade Secrets Of Others.
  18. Advertising Waiver .
  13.




---



##### 



In Witness Whereof
 IDM Pharma, Inc.
 By:
    
    /s/ Sylvie GrégoireIts:
    
    Chairman of the BoardDated:
    
    May 24, 2007Executive:/s/ Timothy P. WalbertTimothy P. WalbertDated:
    
    May 24, 2007
 14.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP                                     Telephone 412-391-9710
One Mellon Bank Center                                      Telefax 412-391-8963
Pittsburgh, PA 15219                             Telex 710-664-2199 PMM & CO PGH


The Board of Directors
Laurel Capital Group, Inc.


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 
33-080798 on Form S-8 of Laurel Capital Group, Inc. of our report dated August
11, 1998, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition of
Laurel Capital Group, Inc. and subsidiary as of June 30, 1998 and 1997, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 1998, which
report appears in the June 30, 1998, annual report on Form 10-K of Laurel
Capital Group, Inc.


                                             /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
September 28, 1998
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2421

_____________________________

K.V.-O., Mother of B.C.,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILIES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Leandra G. Johnson, Judge.

September 14, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

David J. Joffe of Joffe Law, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, Department of Children and 

Families, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Appellate Counsel, Guardian ad Litem 

Program, Tallahassee, for Guardian ad Litem Program.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

TIMOTHY BURLEY, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, as Trustee for RESIDENTIAL ACCREDITLOANS, INC., Mortgage AssetBacked Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QS6, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. §

§ § No. 291, 2024 § § Court Below—Court of Chancery § of the State of Delaware § § C.A. No. 2017-0912 § § § § § § § § Submitted: July 29, 2024 Decided: August 6, 2024

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS , Justices.

ORDER After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to

the Court that: (1) On February 29, 2024, a Court of Chancery Magistrate issued a final report under Court of Chancery Rule 144 in this mortgage foreclosure action. In the final report, the Magistrate stated that exceptions to the report could be filed as provided in Court of Chancery Rule 144. The appellant, Timothy Burley filed2 exceptions on April 4, 2024. The appellee opposed the exceptions, and the exceptions are pending before a Vice Chancellor. (2) On July 25, 2024, Burley filed a notice of appeal from the Magistrate’s final report in this Court. The Clerk’s Office issued a notice directing Burley to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Magistrate’s report is not final under Court of Chancery Rule 144 and the exceptions remain pending. (3) Burley devotes the bulk of his response to the notice to show cause to arguing the merits of the appeal. Burley also argues that the appeal should not be dismissed because he stated in his exceptions briefing that he wanted to waive the right to seek further judicial review of the Magistrate’s report at the trial level while preserving his ability to appeal to this Court under Court of Chancery Rule 144(h). (4) In the absence of a stipulation by the parties to submit their dispute to a Magistrate for final decision under 10 Del. C. § 350 or an order by the Court of Chancery adopting the Magistrate’s final report under Court of Chancery Rule 144(c), this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a Magistrate’s order. 1 The parties did not stipulate to submit their dispute to a Magistrate for a final decision, and Burley cannot unilaterally do so now. 2 Nor has the Court of Chancery

1 E.g. , Theerachanon v. FIA Cards Servs. , 2024 WL 2073629, at *1 (Del. May 8, 2024). 2 See Talley v. Horn , 2024 WL 2239163, at *1 n.2 (Del. May 16, 2024) (“The Talleys’ attempt to stipulate to final adjudication by the Magistrate in their response to the notice to show cause is3 entered an order adopting the Magistrate’s final report. To the contrary, Burley’s exceptions remain pending before a Vice Chancellor. Accordingly, this appeal must

be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice

unavailing because an after-the-fact, one-sided ‘stipulation’ by self-represented parties, without approval of the Court of Chancery, does not comply with Court of Chancery Rule 144(h) or 10 Del. C. § 350.”).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2616 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2616

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on cis-3-Hexen-1-ol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on cis-3-Hexen-1-ol.

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

SECTION 1. CIS-3-HEXEN-1-OL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.99 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to cis-3-Hexen-1-ol) is amended 
by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Parviz Noghrey, Appellant, v Town of Brookhaven et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 26, 2010;

decided September 2, 2010

Motion by the National Association of Home Builders for leave to appear amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the affirmation is accepted as filed, and for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein dismissed as academic.
#### Mahin Dokht Karoon, Plaintiff, v Majid Karoon, Defendant. Cox Padmore Skolnik & Shakarchy, LLR Nonparty Respondent; Kayvan Karoon et al., Nonparty Appellants.

Submitted August 2, 2010;

decided October 21, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
    <title>Current Funding Opportunities - NIDDK</title>
    
<meta name="VIcurrentDateTime" content="638490745830765139" />
<meta name="VirtualFolder" content="/" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/layouts/system/VisitorIdentification.js"></script>

</head>
<body>
    <div></div>
</body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.3

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Sandra B. Cochran, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Books-A-Million, Inc.;

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 periods presented in 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 annual report.

4. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 year 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 officers 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 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 controls 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: April 28, 2005

                                          /s/ Sandra B. Cochran
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Sandra B. Cochran
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2285

ANDREA G. BRIGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ELEVATOR CONTROL CORPORATION, a/k/a Elcon Enterprises, Incorporated; GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary of the Navy, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA05-1185-CCB) Submitted: May 18, 2006 De cided: May 25, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrea G. Briggs, Appellant Pro Se. James A. Frederick, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Daniel Leonard Shea, BRAULT, GRAHAM, SCOTT & BRAULT, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Andrea G. Briggs appeals from the district court’s order denying relief in her civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Briggs v. Elcon Enters. , No. CA-05-1185-CCB (D. Md. Oct. 19, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6603

ERIC MCDONALD EVANS, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

GEORGE M. HINKLE, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate 

Judge. (3:08-cv-00307-MHL) 

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 2, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit 

Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Eric McDonald Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances 

Whalen, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Eric McDonald Evans seeks to appeal the magistrate 

judge’s order∗ dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. 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 Evans 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

 ∗

 The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         879,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,793,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,980,000
<PP&E>                                         728,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,708,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,450,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    300,000
<COMMON>                                       986,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (28,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,708,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,902,000
<CGS>                                          249,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,634,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (10,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 et al., Respondents, and Village of Johnson City, Appellant. (And Another Proceeding.)

Submitted February 28, 2011;

decided March 24, 2011

Motion by Professional Fire Fighters Association, I.A.F.F., AFL-CIO for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                EXHIBIT 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1992 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, and the
Amended and Restated Directors Stock Option Plan of Redhook Ale Brewery,
Incorporated of our report dated February 4, 1997, with respect to the financial
statements of Redhook Ale Brewery, Incorporated included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.


                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 13, 1997
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Paulet, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 663]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered on or about May 10, 2010, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Acosta, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.