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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3152 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 332
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3152

       To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 23 (legislative day, March 19), 2010

   Mr. DeMint (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Risch, Mrs. 
Hutchison, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Bond, Mr. LeMieux, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Inhofe, 
Mr. Roberts, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Ensign) introduced the following bill; 
                     which was read the first time

                             March 23, 2010

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the amendments 
made by that Act, are repealed.
                                                       Calendar No. 332

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3152

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

       To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 23, 2010

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **4 -**  **1 366** 

In re: PHIL JEMAR GRAHAM, a/k/a Touche , P etitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. ( 4 : 05

- c r - 0 1210

- TLW

- 1 )

Submitted : June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
.
Phil Jemar Graham , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Phil Jemar Graham petitions f or a writ of mandamus challenging his career offender sentence and seeking relief from this Court . We conclude that Graham is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Ker r v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)
. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal , In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007) , and t he relief sought by Graham is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decis ional process.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  Exhibit 32.1

                                  Form 10-QSB/A
                             Arete Industries, Inc.
                           Quarter ended June 30, 2005


                            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 Arete Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Charles Gamber, 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 result of operations of the
Company.




Dated:  November 21, 2005                By:  /s/ Charles Gamber
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Charles Gamber, Chief Executive Officer
                                         and Director
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 the Treasury Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 20
[TD 9448]
RIN 1545-BH96; RIN 1545-BI56
 AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
 ACTION: Correcting amendment.
 SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final regulations (TD 9448), that were published in the 
                        **Federal Register**
                         on Thursday, May 7, 2009 (74 FR 21438). This regulation relates to the use of actuarial tables in valuing annuities, interests for life or terms of years, and remainder or reversionary interests.
 DATES: This correction is effective on June 8, 2009 and is applicable beginning May 1, 2009.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mayer R. Samuels, (202) 622-3090 (not a toll-free number).


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Background The final regulation (TD 9448) that is the subject of this correction is under sections 170 and 2032 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, TD 9448 contains errors that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. List of Subjects 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements 26 CFR Part 20 Estate taxes
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
 Correction of Publication Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 20 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments: PART 1—INCOME TAXES
 **Paragraph 1**
                        . The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:
                        26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.**
                         For each section listed in the table below, remove the language in the 
                        ( print page 27080)
                        “Remove” column and add in its place the language in the “Add” column as set forth below: Section
Remove
Add§ 1.170A-12(e)(2) following the formula
Table 90CM in § 20.2031-7
Table 2000CM in § 20.2031-7T.
 PART 20—ESTATE TAX; ESTATES OF DECEDENTS DYING AFTER AUGUST 16, 1954
 **Par. 3.**
                         The authority citation for part 20 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:
                        26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 4**
                        . Section 20.2032-1 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(1) to read as follows: § 20.2032-1
  
 (f) * * * (1) [Reserved]. Further guidance, see § 20.2032-1T(f)(1).
 Treena V. Garrett, Federal Register Liaison,  Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel  (Procedure and Administration).


[FR Doc. E9-13241 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1075

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Tirrell M. Thompson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________ Submitted: May 19, 2023 Filed: May 24, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Tirrell Thompson appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal

1 The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of an appeal waiver is reviewed de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
February 5, 2014 

·Timothy J. Kincaid, Esq. 

Kincaid Law Office and 

Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP 

1910 Mentor Avenue 

Painesville, OH 44077 

Re: Review of financing documents for the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa 

Indians 

Dear Mr. Kincaid: 

This letter responds to your request on behalf of the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa 

Indians' (Tribe) request for the National Indian Gaming Commission's Office of General 

Counsel to review several agreements for the refinancing of existing debt related to the Tribe's 

gaming enterprise. The Tribe has asked for an opinion whether these agreements are 

management contracts requiring the NIGC Chair's approval under the Indian Gaming Regulatory 

Act (IGRA). The Tribe also has asked for an opinion whether the agreements violate IGRA's 

requirement that a tribe have the sole proprietary interest in its gaming operation. 

In my review,. I considered the following submissions (collectively, "the Financing 

Documents") all unexecuted, but represented to be in substantially final form: 

• Draft Loan Agreement, dms.us.53112305.013; 

• Draft Springing Depository Agreement, dms.us.53197329.013; 

• Draft Alternative Dispute Resolution Letter, drns.us.53211223.04; 

• Draft Deposit Account Control Agreement (Restricted After Instruction), 

dms.us.53229985 .02; 

• Draft Deposit Account Control Agreement (Restricted Immediately), 

dms.us.53230018.02; and 

• Draft Security Agreement, dms.us.53207664.05 

The Financing Documents contain terms similar to other agreements the Office of 

General Counsel has already reviewed and analyzed. See www.nigc.gov/Reading_Room/ 

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax 202.632.7066 WWW.N1Gc.Gov 

RiGIONAL OfflCES Portl;ind , OR: Sacramento, CA: Phoenix. AZ: St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK 
Letter to Chairman Manuel 

August 30, 2013 

Page 2 of2 

Management_Review_Letters.aspx .. Applying the same analysis here, it is my opinion that the 

Financing Documents are not managermmt contracts and do not require the approval of the 

Chair. rt is also my opinion that they do not violate IGRA's sole proprietary interest 

requirement. 

I understand that the Financing Documents are in substantially final form with respect to 

terms affecting this opinion. If such terms change in any material way or are inconsistent with 

assumptions made herein, this opinion shall not apply. Further, this opinion is limited to the 

Financing Documents listed above. This opinion does not include or extend to any other 

agreements. 

I anticipate this letter will be posted to the NIGC's website. Prior to posting, NIGC will 

notify you and give you an opportunity to identify and request that information subject to the 

exemptions Wlder FOIA be redacted or withheld. A list of the FOIA exemptions may be found at 

5 u.s.c. § 552(b). 

If you have any questions, please contact NIGC Staff Attorney Sarah Walters at (202) 

632-7003. 

~ Eric Shepard 

Acting General Counsel 

cc: Kent Richey, Esq. 

Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 

(by email: kent.richey@faegre.com)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WAINSWORTH MARCELLUS HALL, a/k/a Unique, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-93-162, CA-98-215) Submitted: June 30, 1999 Decided: August 5, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wainsworth Marcellus Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Wainsworth Marcellus Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Hall is entitled to no relief under Richardson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 67 U.S.L.W. 3682 (June 1, 1999) (No. 97-8629). The district court instructed thejury at trial that it must unanimously agree on which acts constituted the continuing series of violations under 21 U.S.C.A. § 848 (West Supp. 1999). See United States v. Hall , 93 F.3d 126, 129 (4th Cir. 1996). Therefore, we deny Hall’s motions to stay the appeal. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Hall , Nos. CR-93-162; CA-98-215 (E.D. Va. Dec. 3, 1998). 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
exhibit10_2.htm


    Exhibit
      10.2

    


    EXTENSION
      OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

    


    


    


    Charles
      Divita, III (“Employee”) and
      FPIC Insurance Group, Inc. (“Employer”) are parties to an Amended and Restated
      Employment Agreement dated as of December 14, 2005 (the “Employment
      Agreement”).  The Employment Agreement provides for employment for a
      term beginning July 26, 2004 and ending December 31, 2006 by Employee and
      further provides that the term of Employee’s employment thereunder may be
      extended for additional one-year terms prior to the end of each calendar
      year.

    


    Pursuant
      to Section 1(a) of the
      Employment Agreement, Employer, acting through its President and Chief Executive
      Officer, hereby notifies Employee that the term of Employee’s employment under
      the Employment Agreement has been extended for one additional year, and,
      therefore, the term of Employee’s employment under the Employment Agreement
      shall continue through December 31, 2009.  Furthermore, Employer
      hereby notifies Employee that Employee’s annual salary provided for in Section
      2(a) of the Employment Agreement shall be $365,000 for 2008.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, this Extension of
      Employment Agreement has been executed this 10th day of December
      2007.

    


    


    


    
      	
              
                 

              

            	 	 	 
	Accepted:	 	
              
                FPIC
                  INSURANCE GROUP, INC.

              

            
	
               

               

               

            	 	 	 
	/s/
              Charles Divita, III	 	
              
                By:

              

            	
              
                /s/ John
                  R. Byers

              

            
	
              Charles
                Divita, III

               

            	
              John
                R. Byers

              
                President
                  and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE> 1
                                                                Exhibit 10.33


                             ANGELICA CORPORATION
                       FORM 10-K FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED
                               JANUARY 31, 1998

                                   SCHEDULE


This schedule is included pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601(a) of
Regulation S-K for the purpose of setting forth the material details of a
grant of restricted stock to Don W. Hubble on January 2, 1998:

Don W. Hubble received, upon accepting the position as Chief Executive Officer
of Angelica Corporation on January 1, 1998, a grant of 25,000 shares of
restricted Common Stock. The shares vest over a period of three years and
are forfeitable if Mr. Hubble leaves for reasons other than death or disability
prior to the expiration of the vesting period.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 2397** 

RICHARD BANNERMAN; TRICIA BANNERMAN; JESSE BRYAN; PAMELA BRYAN; SHAWN FOSTER; MELISSA FOSTER; WILLIAM GARDNER; SHELLIE GARDNER , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. MOUNTAI N STATE PAWN, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Famous Pawnbrokers/Jewelry & Loan, a West Virginia corporation , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg

. John Preston Bailey , C hief District Judge. ( 3:10

- cv - 00046

- JPB )

Submitted : June 10, 2011 Decided: June 27, 2011

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Paul G. Taylor, LAW OFFICE S OF PAUL G. TAYLOR, PLLC, Marti nsburg, West Virginia, for Appellants. Michael D. Lorensen, Jared M. Adams, BOWLES, RICE , MCDAVID, GRAFF & LOVE PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Appellants Ric hard and Tricia Bannerman, Jesse and Pamela Bryan, Shawn and Melissa Foster, and William and Shellie Gardner, husbands and wives, sued Mountain State Pawn, Inc., d/b/a Famous Pawnbrokers/Jewelry & Loan (“Mountain State”), for injuries the men sustained dur ing a shooting that occurred at the Quality Inn and Conference Center in Jefferson County, West Virginia. The shooter, a convicted felon, had purchased the pistol at issue from Mountain State , and Appellants alleged that the illegal sale of a firearm to a convicted felon proximately caused their injuries. As noted by the district court, Appellants’ action was barred by the statute of limitations. Moreover, neither the Gun Control Act, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1) ( 2006 ), nor the Protection of Lawful Co mmerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”), 15 U.S.C.
§§ 7901 (2006) et. seq. , provided Appellants with a civil cause of action. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons as stated by the district court in its th o rough opinion on the matter. Bannerman v. Mountain State P awn, Inc. , No. 3:10

- cv - 00046

- JPB (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 5, 2010)

. W e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contenti ons are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Elwood Shepard, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Heavenly Hot Dogs, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  May 4, 2009  /s/ Elwood Shepard Elwood Shepard President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Heavenly Hot Dogs, Inc. and will be retained by Heavenly Hot Dogs, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board ofDirectors 

ARAMARK Corporation: 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-143232 and 333-143233) on Form S-8 of ARAMARK Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated December 15, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheetsof ARAMARK Corporation and subsidiaries as of October 2, 2009 and October 3, 2008 (Successor Periods), and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and shareholders’ equity for the fiscal years endedOctober 2, 2009 and October 3, 2008 (Successor Periods), the period from January 27, 2007 through September 28, 2007 (Successor Period), and the period from September 30, 2006 through January 26, 2007 (PredecessorPeriod) and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the October 2, 2009, annual report on Form 10-K of ARAMARK Corporation. 

Our audit report on the consolidated financial statements notes that the Company was acquired through a merger transaction with RMK Acquisition Corporation in a business combination accounted for as apurchase during 2007. As a result of the acquisition, the consolidated financial information for periods after the acquisition is presented on a different cost basis than that for the periods before the acquisition and, therefore, is not comparable.Also, our report refers to accounting method changes for defined benefit plans and uncertainty in income taxes. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

December 15, 2009