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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 887 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 887

    Recognizing a Space Coast Symbol of Kindness and urging acts of 
                    kindness throughout our Nation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2020

Mr. Posey submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Recognizing a Space Coast Symbol of Kindness and urging acts of 
                    kindness throughout our Nation.

Whereas we are kind when we act in the best interests of another without 
        expecting anything in return;
Whereas our national character is to lift one another up by being kind;
Whereas the United States has been a beacon of kindness to the rest of the 
        world;
Whereas kindness for each other brings unity and makes our Nation stronger than 
        any one of us to meet our challenges;
Whereas we need the healing and compassion that kindness can bring us in these 
        times;
Whereas children are often the best teachers of kindness;
Whereas the students of the transitional kindergarten of Tropical Elementary 
        School, Brevard County, Florida, have created a special Symbol of 
        Kindness; and
Whereas these special children have won the hearts of people from many States in 
        appreciation and support for their Symbol of Kindness: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives expresses support for 
the recognition of the Symbol of Kindness created by the students of 
the transitional kindergarten of Tropical Elementary School, Brevard 
County, Florida.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.27


 


Escalade, Incorporated


Schedule of Executive Officer Compensation


 


Compensation for the executive officers
of Escalade, Incorporated consists of a base salary, bonuses and long-term incentives in the form of stock option grants or restricted
stock unit grants.


 


Base Salary


In general, base salaries are set at the
beginning of each year based upon changes in the employee’s level of responsibility, individual performance reviews conducted
by the Company’s Compensation Committee and changes in the cost of living.


 


Bonuses


The Company’s Compensation Committee
has established a profit incentive plan that provides for the payment of cash bonuses if certain performance targets are achieved.
Under the plan, the Compensation Committee establishes target performance levels early in each fiscal year, subject to potential
changes that the Committee may determine appropriate. Virtually all employees are eligible to participate in the profit incentive
plan. In conjunction with the completion of the Company’s annual audited financial statements, the bonus pool is finalized
based on actual results achieved. Allocation of the bonus pool to individual executive officers is determined at the Compensation
Committee’s discretion based upon a review of the overall Company’s performance relative to budget, the Company’s
strategic position, and individual executive officer’s performance relative to budget. There are no pre-defined methods for
allocating the bonus pool to any of the Company’s executive officers.


 


Long-Term Incentives


Under the terms of the Escalade, Incorporated
2007 Incentive Plan, executive officers of the Company are eligible to receive long term incentive compensation in various forms
including stock options and restricted stock units. The Company’s Compensation Committee has full discretion over the form,
amount and timing of these grants which historically have been annual grants. In its determination of annual grants, the Compensation
Committee considers performance of both the individual and the Company.


 


Additional Benefits


Executive officers are eligible to participate
in the Company’s 401(k) retirement plan and receive Company matching contributions in accordance with the plan terms. The
Company also pays group term life insurance benefits on behalf of executive officers.
February 19, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF LILLIAN HESTER, AN ALLEGED 

INCAPACITATED PERSON

NO. 14-15-00001-CV 

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order 

signed by the court below on September 30, 2014. Having considered the motion 

and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Martin Gonzales.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 127 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 127

 To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to seek to enter into an 
  agreement with the city of Vallejo, California, for the transfer of 
   Mare Island Naval Cemetery in Vallejo, California, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 15, 2019

Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Ms. Harris, Ms. Warren, Mr. Menendez, and 
  Mr. Markey) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to seek to enter into an 
  agreement with the city of Vallejo, California, for the transfer of 
   Mare Island Naval Cemetery in Vallejo, California, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF MARE ISLAND NAVAL CEMETERY TO SECRETARY OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR MAINTENANCE BY NATIONAL CEMETERY 
              ADMINISTRATION.

    (a) Agreement.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall seek to 
enter into an agreement with the city of Vallejo, California, under 
which the city of Vallejo shall transfer to the Secretary all right, 
title, and interest in the Mare Island Naval Cemetery in Vallejo, 
California, at no cost to the Secretary.
    (b) Maintenance by NCA.--If the Mare Island Naval Cemetery is 
transferred to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pursuant to subsection 
(a), the National Cemetery Administration shall maintain the cemetery 
as a national shrine.
                                 <all>
```
905 A.2d 867

#### IN THE MATTER OF ALWIN M. HAYWOOD, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 13, 2006.

ORDER

ALWIN M. HAYWOOD of SOMERSET, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1990, and who thereafter was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by Order of this Court filed July 24, 2002, and who remains suspended at this time, having tendered his consent to disbarment as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ALWIN M. HAYWOOD is disbarred by consent, effective immediately; and it is further

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

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by ALWIN M. HAYWOOD pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6 that were restrained from disbursement by Order of this Court filed July 24, 2002, shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court, who is directed to deposit the funds into the Superior Court Trust Fund pending the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 122 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for penalties for the 

sale of any Purple Heart awarded to a member of the Armed Forces. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 15, 2019 

Mr. PERDUE (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. CAPITO, Ms. COLLINS, and Mr. 

UDALL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for penalties for the sale of any Purple Heart awarded to a 

member of the Armed Forces. 

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 ‘‘Private Corrado Piccoli 

5 Purple Heart Preservation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) The Purple Heart medal solemnly recog9 nizes the great and sometimes ultimate sacrifice of 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 122 IS

1 American servicemembers like Private Corrado 

2 Piccoli. 

3 (2) The Purple Heart medal holds a place of 

4 honor as the national symbol of this sacrifice and 

5 deserves special protections. 

6 SEC. 3. PENALTY FOR SALE OF PURPLE HEARTS AWARDED 

7 TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

8 Section 704 of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 

10 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘Whoever’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in subsection (e), 

12 whoever’’; and 

13 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(e) PURPLE HEART.— 

15 ‘‘(1) PENALTY.—Whoever willfully purchases, 

16 attempts to purchase, solicits for purchase, mails, 

17 ships, imports, exports, produces blank certificates 

18 of receipt for, manufactures, sells, attempts to sell, 

19 advertises for sale, trades, barters, or exchanges for 

20 anything of value any Purple Heart awarded to a 

21 member of the armed forces or former member of 

22 the armed forces by the Secretary of the military de23 partment concerned, except when authorized under 

24 regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 122 IS

1 under this title, imprisoned not more than 6 months, 

2 or both. 

3 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON REGULATIONS.—Regula4 tions described in paragraph (1) may not authorize 

5 the sale of any Purple Heart awarded to a member 

6 of the armed forces or former member of the armed 

7 forces by the Secretary of the military department 

8 concerned, unless the sale is conducted by the mem9 ber or former member to whom the Purple Heart 

10 was awarded. 

11 ‘‘(3) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term 

12 ‘willfully’ means the voluntary, intentional violation 

13 of a known legal duty.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Weston, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 519]

No opinion. Prudenti, P.J., Mastro, Lifson and Balkin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Market Data Consultants, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, President and Chairman 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Wilson Cheung



Wilson Cheung, President and Chairman

July 18, 2007
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

______________________________________

 )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) Crim. Action No. 08-629 (GEB)

v. )

 ) ORDER

ROBERT SACKS, )

 )

Defendant. )

______________________________________)

BROWN, Chief Judge

This matter having come before the Court upon the motion to have defense counsel

present during the Government’s mental examination of the defendant Robert Sacks

(“Defendant”); and the Court having considered the parties’ submissions and conducted a

telephone conference on December 10, 2009; and it appearing that Defendant requests that his

attorney or medical expert witnesses be present during this examination to “protect the Defendant

from improper questioning on matters pertinent only to criminal legal liability, protect

Defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or otherwise lend the Defendant

comfort and support” (Def.’s Br. at 1); and it further appearing that Defendant alternatively

requests that Defendant’s examination be audio or video recorded “in order to protect

Defendant’s Fifth Amendment right” (Id. at 3); and it further appearing that the Government

opposes these requests and supports its opposition with an affidavit of Diana S. Goldstein, Ph.D.,

ABPP/CN, the examining clinical neuropsychologist; and Dr. Goldstein having certified that the

results of the testing would likely be altered and the results changed in an unquantifiable way,

Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 170 Filed 12/16/09 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2629
should either Defendant’s attorney be present or should there be recording equipment present;

and the Court concluding that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2(c)(4) provides the

vehicle to address Defendant’s concerns regarding the inadmissibility of any incriminating

statements that may be made during the course of the evaluation; and the Court further noting

that it has discretion to determine the appropriate procedures for this examination; and the Court

noting that Defendant’s Fifth Amendment right would be waived should he introduce

psychological evidence to negate mens rea as it would “allow[] the prosecution to use the

interview to provide rebuttal to the psychiatric defense,” Gibbs v. Frank, 387 F.3d 268, 274 (3d

Cir. 2004); see also Savino v. Murray, 82 F.3d 593, 604 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v.

Johnson, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1085-87 (N.D. Iowa 2005); and the Court further concluding that

because Defendant’s attorney will have the opportunity to preview the report generated by the

Government’s expert, Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right will be protected; and the Court

noting that notice has been given to Defendant and his attorney of the time and date(s) of

examination, and they have also been made aware of the scope of the examination; and for the

reasons stated on the record on December 10, 2009;

IT IS THIS 15 day of December, 2009; hereby th

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

 s/ Garrett E. Brown, Jr. 

GARRETT E. BROWN, JR., U.S.D.J.

Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 170 Filed 12/16/09 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2630
#### Susan Napoli, Respondent, v James Crovello, Defendant, and Ellen Kanner, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 176]

“The Supreme Court is vested with broad discretion in supervising disclosure, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion” *(Nieves v City of New York,*35 AD3d 557, 558 [2006]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the defendant Ellen Kanner (hereinafter Dr. Kanner) pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to provide an authorization pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 USC § 1320d *et seq.)*for the release of the plaintiffs psychiatric treatment records and in granting the plaintiffs motion for a protective order. Dr. Kanner failed to establish that the records she sought to discover were material and necessary to the defense of this action *(see*CPLR 3101 [a]; *McLane v Damiano,*307 AD2d 338 [2003]). Moreover, although the decedent’s medical records are clearly discoverable here *(see Scalone v Phelps Mem. Hosp. Ctr.,*184 AD2d 65, 71 [1992]), the plaintiffs psychiatric treatment records are privileged *(see*CPLR 4504 [a]). The mere fact that the plaintiff commenced this action did not result in an automatic waiver of the physician-patient privilege *(see Scalone v Phelps Mem. Hosp. Ctr.,*184 AD2d at 71) and there is no evidence that *700the plaintiff affirmatively placed her psychiatric condition in issue so as to effect a waiver of the privilege and permit disclosure *(see*CPLR 3121 [a]; *Dillenbeck v Hess,*73 NY2d 278, 287 [1989]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs psychiatric treatment records are not subject to disclosure *(see Scipio v Upsell,*1 AD3d 500 [2003]; *Goldberg v Fenig,*300 AD2d 439, 440 [2002]; *Cottrell v Weinstein,*270 AD2d 449, 449-450 [2000]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Belen, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 15**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 0001145549-04-001326) of GigaMedia Limited of our report dated May 26, 2005, except as to the change in presentation basis for the discontinued operation as described in Note 1, which is as ofDecember 9, 2005 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 20-F. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading of “Principal Accountant Fees and Services” and “Controls and Procedures” insuch Registration Statement. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers 

Taipei, Taiwan 

June 28, 2006
1The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-4149

___________

Stanley Paul Smith, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

*

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Social Security, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: October 6, 2000

 Filed: October 16, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Stanley Smith appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the Commissioner’s

denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. For reversal,

Smith argues that the district court erred in denying his motions for default judgment,

and for reconsideration of the court’s order granting the Commissioner additional time

to respond to Smith’s complaint; that he was denied due process, equal protection, and
-2-

access to the courts; that the section of the Social Security Act denying benefits to

inmates is unconstitutional, and he was denied his right to a jury trial in this matter; and

that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in discrediting his subjective complaints

of pain, in formulating the hypothetical to the vocational expert, and in failing to

consider his impairments in combination.

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motions

for default judgment and reconsideration, see Harris v. St. Louis Police Dep’t, 164 F.3d

1085, 1086 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); and we reject his constitutional arguments as

meritless, see Tallman v. Reagan, 846 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam);

Earley v. Department of Health & Human Servs., 776 F.2d 782, 785 (8th Cir. 1985)

(per curiam); Jenkins v. Heckler, 766 F.2d 383, 385 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) cert. denied,

474 U.S. 945 (1985); and Ginter v. Secretary of Dep’t of Health, Educ., & Welfare,

621 F.2d 313, 313-14 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam).

As to the ALJ’s alleged errors, after careful review of the record, see Jenkins v.

Apfel, 196 F.3d 922, 924 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review), we conclude that the

ALJ made every reasonable effort to obtain evidence and to develop the record, as

required, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(d)(1), 416.912(d)(1) (2000); Phelan v. Bowen,

846 F.2d 478, 481 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); that the ALJ did not err in discrediting

Smith’s subjective complaints, see Haggard v. Apfel, 175 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir.

1999); that the ALJ’s hypothetical adequately stated Smith’s impairments as found by

the ALJ, see Riggins v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 689, 694 (8th Cir. 1999); and that the ALJ

appropriately considered Smith’s impairments in combination, see Browning v.

Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Coronado Corp. (the "Company") onForm 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,Alejandro Quesada, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Sect. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sect. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

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

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the14 day of November, 2006.

/s/ Alejandro Quesada

_______ 

Chief Executive Officer

 

----

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Coronado Corp. (the "Company") onForm 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, ShawnPhillips, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Sect. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sect. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the14 day of November, 2006.

/s/ Shawn Phillips

_______ 

Chief Financial Officer