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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3650 

To amend chapter 21 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that fathers 

of certain permanently disabled or deceased veterans shall be included 

with mothers of such veterans as preference eligibles for treatment in 

the civil service. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 26, 2010 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. VOINOVICH, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. 

LANDRIEU, and Mr. LIEBERMAN) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 21 of title 5, United States Code, to 

provide that fathers of certain permanently disabled or 

deceased veterans shall be included with mothers of such 

veterans as preference eligibles for treatment in the civil 

service. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Jessica Ann Ellis Gold 

5 Star Fathers Act of 2010’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3650 IS

1 SEC. 2. PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE TREATMENT FOR FATHERS 

2 OF CERTAIN PERMANENTLY DISABLED OR 

3 DECEASED VETERANS. 

4 Section 2108(3) of title 5, United States Code, is 

5 amended by striking subparagraphs (F) and (G) and in6 serting the following: 

7 ‘‘(F) the parent of an individual who lost 

8 his or her life under honorable conditions while 

9 serving in the armed forces during a period 

10 named by paragraph (1)(A) of this section, if— 

11 ‘‘(i) the spouse of that parent is to12 tally and permanently disabled; or 

13 ‘‘(ii) that parent, when preference is 

14 claimed, is unmarried or, if married, le15 gally separated from his or her spouse; 

16 ‘‘(G) the parent of a service-connected per17 manently and totally disabled veteran, if— 

18 ‘‘(i) the spouse of that parent is to19 tally and permanently disabled; or 

20 ‘‘(ii) that parent, when preference is 

21 claimed, is unmarried or, if married, le22 gally separated from his or her spouse; 

23 and’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3650 IS

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 

3 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antwan Harrison, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 458]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated June 27, 2005 *(People v Harrison,*19 AD3d 705 [2005]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 24, 2000.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Florio, J.E, Krausman, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 19
- 00855
- CV

Sonji McDowell, Appellant

v. Joseph F. Valentine, Jr. and Terri Wallis, Appellee s

FROM THE PROBATE COU RT NO. 1 OF TRAVIS C OUNTY NO. C
- 1
- PB
- 18
- 001730 , THE HONORABLE GUY S. HERMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Sonj i McDowell has filed an unopposed motion to dismis s this appeal. We grant the m otion and d ismiss the appeal. S e e Tex. R. App. P. 42.1 (a)(1).

_________________________________________ _ Edward Smith , Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith
Dismis sed on Appellant ’ s Motion
Filed: February 4, 2020
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00442-CV

IN RE Jose “Joe” HINOJOSA

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 22, 2015

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF PROHIBITION DENIED

On July 17, 2015, relator Jose “Joe” Hinojosa filed a petition for writs of mandamus and 

prohibition and a motion requesting emergency relief with respect to his placement on a promotion 

eligibility list and the deadline for filling a vacant investigator position within the police 

department in Laredo, Texas. Relator seeks an order from this court directing the trial court to 

vacate its July 6, 2015 order granting the defendants’ motion for new trial and awarding final 

judgment in favor of the defendants as a matter of law based on the parties’ stipulated facts. The 

court has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief 

sought. See, e.g., In re Procesos Especializados en Metal, S.A. de C.V., No. 04-14-00543-CV, 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014-CVZ-000338 D3, styled Jose “Joe” Hinojosa v. Firefighters and 

Police Officers’ Civil Service Commission of the City of Laredo, Texas; Irma Mireles, Vidal Cantu Jr., Jesus Torres 

and Luis Dovalina, Individually, pending in the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable 

Rebecca Ramirez Palomo presiding.
04-15-00442-CV

- 2 -

2014 WL 4347724, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 3, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mandamus 

review of orders granting new trial is only available in “exceptional circumstances” where trial 

court sets aside jury verdict). Accordingly, the petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition and 

the motion for emergency relief are denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM
No. 14-15-00075-CR

CASEY HOLMES DYER X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 X

 X

VS. X FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

 X

 X

THE STATE OF TEXAS X 14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

MOTION FOR FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF

COMES NOW, CASEY HOLMES DYER, Appellant, and moves for an

extension of time in which to file the Appellant’s brief, until and including Thursday, 

July 16, 2015, and would further show as follows:

A. The deadline for filing the brief in this cause was July 6, 2015; 

B. A request is hereby made for an extension of time to file the Appellant’s 

Brief, until and including July 16, 2015;

C. The undersigned attorney, Bob Wicoff, has been unusually busy with other 

matters which have kept him from completing the brief by the current deadline, 

including, but not limited to, the following:

RUSSELL O’NEIL GREEN VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS; NO. 14-15-

00210-CR; Appellant’s Brief due July 13, 2015.

Additionally, the undersigned serves on the Texas Forensic Science 

Commission Hair Microscopy Panel, as part of a team reviewing hundreds of cases 

involving possible errors in expert testimony. This assignment is consuming a large 

ACCEPTED

14-15-00075-CR

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/16/2015 3:03:54 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/16/2015 3:03:54 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
amount of the undersigned’s time.

D. One previous extension has been granted. No further extensions will be 

needed, as the Appellant’s Brief (Brief in Support of Motion to Withdraw) is being 

filed at the same time as this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

ALEXANDER BUNIN

Chief Public Defender

Harris County Texas 

/s/ Bob Wicoff__________

BOB WICOFF

1201 Franklin, Thirteenth Floor

Houston Texas 77002

(713) 274-6781

TBA No. 21422700

Bob.wicoff@pdo.hctx.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true copy of this motion has been served electronically on the Harris County 

District Attorney’s Office Appellate Division on July 16, 2015. 

/s/_Bob Wicoff_________

BOB WICOFF
Exhibit 11.  Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  Year Ended       Year Ended  
                                                 June 30, 1997    June 30, 1996 
                                                 -------------    -------------
<S>                                              <C>              <C>          
EQUIVALENT SHARES:                                                             
                                                                               
Average Shares Outstanding                          1,247,103        1,183,987 
                                                                               
Total Equivalent Shares                             1,247,103        1,183,987 
Total Primary Shares                                1,329,061        1,270,097 
Total Fully Diluted Shares                          1,569,979        1,512,593 
                                                                               
Net Income                                       $  1,507,103     $  1,193,420 
Less Preferred Stock Dividend                         139,999          139,999 
                                                 -------------    -------------
Net Income after Preferred Dividend              $  1,367,104     $  1,053,421 
                                                 =============    =============
                                                                               
Primary Earnings Per Share on Net Income         $        1.03    $        0.83
Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share on Net Income   $        0.96    $        0.79

</TABLE>
#### The Osceola. Coffin *et al. v.*The Osceola.

*(Circuit Court, E. D. New York.*

July 9, 1888.)

Collision—Overtaking Vessel—Want of Signals—Sheer by Leading Vessel.

Where the steam-boat O.. overtaking the S., collided with her, and, on suit brought, defended by alleging a sheer on the part oí the S., but the evidence . showed that she had approached dangerously near the S., without giving the signal required by the international rules, *held*that, if the S. made no sheer, the O. was in fault as the overtaking vessel; if tho S. did sheer, the O. was still in fault for her approach without signals. *Held, also,*that, in the absence of signals from the O., the sheer of the S. was not a fault.

In Admiralty. On appeal from district court. 30 Fed. Rep. 883.

*560
      *Edward H. Hobbs*and *R. D. Benedict,*for appellee.

*Carpenter & Mosher,*for appellant.

Blatchford,- Justice.

I concur with the district judge in his conclusions in this case, and in the grounds on which he disposed of it, both on the merits and on the exceptions to the commissioner’s report. In holding that this is not a case for allowing anything for depreciation of, or permanent injuries to, the Spray, I do not decide whether, if it were such a case, the allowance could be made although the libelant has not appealed. Let there be a decree for the libelants for $1,570.62, with interest from January 28, 1885, and for $832.50, with interest thereon from November 29, 1887, and for their costs in the district court, taxed at $149.75, and for their costs in this court, to be taxed.
# Dravet Syndrome

## What is Dravet syndrome? 

Dravet syndrome is an epilepsy syndrome that begins in infancy or early childhood and can include a spectrum of symptoms ranging from mild to severe. 

Children with Dravet syndrome initially show focal (confined to one area) or generalized (throughout the brain) convulsive seizures that start before 15 months of age (often before age one). These initial seizures are often prolonged and involve half of the body and may be followed by seizures that switch to the other side of the body. Other seizure types emerge after 12 months of age and can be quite varied. Status epilepticus—a state of continuous seizure requiring emergency medical care—may occur frequently, particularly in the first five years of life.

Children with the disorder typically have normal development in the first few years of life. As seizures increase, the pace of acquiring skills slows and children start to lag in development behind their peers. Other symptoms can begin throughout childhood with changes in eating, appetite, balance, and a crouched gait (walking).

Most cases of Dravet syndrome are caused by mutation in the SCN1A gene, which is required for the proper function of brain cells. Dravet syndrome is a lifelong condition.

Seizures in Dravet syndrome are difficult to control but can be reduced by anticonvulsant drugs. Some anticonvulsant medications (such as oxcarbazepine, carbamazepine, phenytoin, and lamotrigine) should not be used on a daily basis as they may make seizures worse. A ketogenic diet, high in fats and low in carbohydrates, also may be helpful.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drugs fenfluramine and cannabidiol to treat seizures with Dravet syndrome in people ages 2 and older. 

file-medical

## How can I or my loved one help improve care for people with Dravet syndrome?

Consider participating in a clinical trial so clinicians and scientists can learn more about Dravet syndrome and related disorders. Clinical research uses human volunteers to help researchers learn more about a disorder and perhaps find better ways to safely detect, treat, or prevent disease. 

All types of volunteers are needed—those who are healthy or may have an illness or disease—of all different ages, sexes, races, and ethnicities to ensure that study results apply to as many people as possible, and that treatments will be safe and effective for everyone who will use them. 

For information about participating in clinical research visit NIH Clinical Research Trials and You. Learn about clinical trials currently looking for people with Dravet syndrome at Clinicaltrials.gov.
> Where can I find more information about Dravet syndrome?
Information is available from the following resources and organizations:

Child Neurology FoundationPhone: 612-928-6325

Dravet Syndrome FoundationPhone: 203-392-1950

Epilepsy FoundationPhone: 301-459-3700 or 800-332-1000; 866-748-8008 Spanish

MedlinePlus

National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD)Phone: 203-744-0100 or 800-999-6673; 844-259-7178 Spanish

## Learn about related topics 

              - Epilepsy and Seizures

book-open
<Page>

                                                               EXHIBIT 10.43(b)

          PriceSmart, Inc.                                     [Memorandum]
          4649 Morena Blvd.
          San Diego, CA  92117
          Tel 858 581-7485
          Fax 858 581-4707

PriceSmart [Logo]




          To:     John Hildebrandt

          From:   Bob Gans /s/ BG

          Re:     SALARY INCREASE

          Date:   October 16, 2001




          With reference to your Employment Agreement, this Memorandum will
          confirm that effective September 1, 2001, your annual base salary
          increased by $20,000, to $177,000.
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

EXHIBIT 10.41  


 
 

GARDENBURGER, INC
  FY 2002 EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE
  PROGRAM    
  


    The purpose of this program is to reward employees when the Company has achieved its financial goals, as well as enhance Gardenburger's overall compensation
program. 


    The
focus of the Company today is to achieve specific operating income levels which are critical to reward stockholders, investors, customers and employees for their commitment to
these goals. The incentive program is specifically designed to reward employees when a pre-determined goal level is met, and to further offer the opportunity to increase the payout
received when this level is exceeded. 


Goals:  


    The key business goals are established at the beginning of the fiscal year, and approved by the Board of Directors. 


    In
order for any payout, certain goal levels must be obtained. Incentive bonus is based 100% upon the Company meeting the EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization) of $9,079,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002. EBITDA is basically the Company's income with a few non-cash expenses added back. 



How the Program works:  


    The Company must first earn $9,079,000 EBITDA. After that, each dollar the Company earns will go to pay bonuses, until the bonus pool is fully funded. 


    The
Executive program payout is as follows: 



	 	 	Bonus percentage
	

President/CEO	
 	

45% of annual pay
	COO	 	45% of annual pay
	SR VP—FS and Int'l	 	40% of annual pay—meeting market profit & revenues
	VP Finance	 	40% of annual pay





    Depending
upon the level of EBITDA above $9,079,000, an executive will earn a portion of their bonus. The levels are in 10% increments. This means they will earn 10% of their
potential bonus of their annual salary. This level will be paid to all qualified employees if the Company makes $9,183,500 EBITDA before bonus accruals (see chart for bonus levels). 


    In
order to receive 100% of bonus payout, Gardenburger must achieve $10,124.00 EBITDA, 



	BONUS LEVELS
	 	EBITDA GOAL

	10%	 	$9,183,500
	20%	 	$9,288,000
	30%	 	$9,313,500
	40%	 	$9,497,000
	50%	 	$9,601,500
	60%	 	$9,706,000
	70%	 	$9,810,500
	80%	 	$9,915,000
	90%	 	$10,019,500
	100%	 	$10,124,000








    Gardenburger's
overall goal is to be profitable and all employees can contribute to the success of reaching our goal. 


Terms:  


    Employees must be actively employed at the end of the fiscal year in order to receive any payout. Payments will be made no later than 60 days after the
end of the fiscal year. 









QuickLinks


GARDENBURGER, INC FY 2002 EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PROGRAM
#### Joanne Candela, Appellant, v George Kiel, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 216]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated March 15, 2002, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Henderson, Ref.), dated February 2, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied her motion, inter alia, to vacate a provision of the parties’ stipulation of settlement dated November 2, 2001, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff moved, inter alia, to vacate a provision of the parties’ stipulation of settlement in which she agreed to sign over title to a Dodge Stealth, already in the physical possession of the defendant, in exchange for the defendant’s payment of *834the sum of $2,000. The stipulation, made in open court, was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce.

The Referee properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to vacate this provision of the stipulation, since a postjudgment motion is not the proper method to challenge a separation agreement incorporated but not merged into a divorce judgment *(see Spataro v Spataro,*268 AD2d 467, 468 [2000]; *Matter of Scalabrini v Scalabrini,*242 AD2d 725, 726 [1997]; *cf. Luisi v Luisi,*6 AD3d 398, 400 [2004]). Nor did the plaintiff seek enforcement of the stipulation provision at issue *(see Luisi v Luisi, supra).*

The plaintiffs remaining contentions either are without merit or are not properly before this Court. Miller, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.
@article{107161,
  author = {Paul Williams and Tasshi Dennis and Ian Coddington and William Swann and Nathan Newbury},
  title = {Vector characterization of high-speed components using linear optical sampling with milliradian resolution},
  year = {2008},
  number = {20},
  month = {2008-12-01},
  publisher = {IEEE Photonics Technology Letters},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=33127},
  language = {en},
}
*This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

 

** 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30193

Conference Calendar

 

GARY P. SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARIE VARNADO; Dr. QUYEN TRAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-2544

- - - - - - - - - -

February 9,1999

Before BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:**

Gary P. Smith, Louisiana prisoner #88648, appeals the

district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action for failure to exhaust his prison administrative

remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Prison Litigation

Reform Act amended § 1997e(a) to provide that no § 1983 action

may be filed by a prisoner until available administrative

remedies have been exhausted. § 1997e(a). Because Smith filed

suit prior to exhausting available remedies, we affirm the 
No. 97-30193 

-2-

dismissal. See Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 294 (5th Cir.

1998). 

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 705 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 705

            Recognizing the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 14, 2019

Ms. Slotkin (for herself, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Banks, Mr. Brown of Maryland, 
 Mr. Cisneros, Mr. Costa, Mr. Crow, Ms. Escobar, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Hurd 
 of Texas, Mr. Kim, Mr. Langevin, Mrs. Luria, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Rose of 
  New York, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Smith of Washington, Ms. Spanberger, Ms. 
Torres Small of New Mexico, Mr. Trone, and Ms. Sherrill) submitted the 
 following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
            Recognizing the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.

Whereas it has been 5 years since the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS formed and 
        affirmed our shared goal to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS;
Whereas 76 member nations of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS and 5 
        international institutions have contributed to efforts to defeat the 
        Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS);
Whereas the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS has provided military support to 
        local partners on the front lines of the fight in Iraq and Syria; has 
        led efforts to stop the flow of foreign fighters to the battlefield, 
        combatted the financing of terrorist activities, responded to the 
        ongoing humanitarian crises in the region, and countered the ISIS 
        narrative online and in their nations; and
Whereas, as a result of our success in forming the Global Coalition to Defeat 
        ISIS, the military campaign of the Coalition has been more effective, 
        and the burden of confronting the scourge of ISIS has been shared by 
        partner nations that recognize the common nature of the threat: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the commitment of partner nations and 
        institutions that have participated in the Global Coalition to 
        Defeat ISIS;
            (2) recognizes the many critical contributions that Global 
        Coalition partners have made in support of our shared mission 
        to defeat ISIS;
            (3) reaffirms the enduring commitment of the United States 
        to the lasting defeat of ISIS;
            (4) recognizes that robust alliances and partnerships 
        require many years to develop and, if neglected, may not be 
        easily rebuilt in moments of crisis; and
            (5) affirms that robust alliances and partnerships will 
        remain critical to defeating emerging and future threats.
                                 <all>
```
FILED IN1st COURT OF APPEALS      HOUSTON, TEXAS7/17/2015 3:08:53 PMCHRISTOPHER A. PRINE              Clerk