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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1219 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1219

To provide for the discharge of parent borrower liability if a student 
  on whose behalf a parent has received certain student loans becomes 
                               disabled.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 11, 2019

   Mr. Portman (for himself, Mr. Coons, and Mr. King) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the discharge of parent borrower liability if a student 
  on whose behalf a parent has received certain student loans becomes 
                               disabled.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as ``Domenic and Ed's Law''.

SEC. 2. REPAYMENT OF LOANS TO PARENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 437(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 1087(d)) is amended by inserting ``or becomes permanently 
and totally disabled (as determined in accordance with regulations of 
the Secretary), or if the student is unable to engage in any 
substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable 
physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death, 
has lasted for a continuous period of not less than 60 months, or can 
be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 60 
months,'' after ``dies,''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to any outstanding loan received by a parent before, on, or after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, and without regard to the onset 
date of the disability or impairment.
                                 <all>
```
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| March 31, 2010 |   | /s/ Evan Myrianthopoulos            |
|----------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|           |   | Evan Myrianthopoulos                |
|           |   | Chief Financial Officer             |
|           |   | (Principal Financial Officer)  |
Case 2:10-cv-06608-JLL-MAH Document 19 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 221
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6358

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vi rginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-340) Submitted: September 17, 2004 Decided: November 22, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* See Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 367-70 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that order denying relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in a habeas setting is “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding” subject to the certificate of appealability requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2000)). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., appeals a district court’s order construing his “Motion for Reversal of Unconstitutional Conviction on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Prosecutorial and Judicial Misconduct, and Brady Violations” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it as successive, noting that Fiorani has not obtained authorization from this court to file such a motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. * 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fiorani has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal. We- 3 - 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
POWI-EX10.36_2012.12.31_10K






Exhibit 10.36


Description of Directors Equity Compensation Program
 
     Initial and annual grants will be made to outside directors primarily under the Power Integrations 2007 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2007 Plan”) as follows (the “Directors Equity Compensation Program”): 
 1.     Each current participant and each individual who would be eligible to participate in the 1997 Outside Directors Stock Option Plan shall be a participant in the Directors Equity Compensation Program; 
 2.     On the first trading day of July in each year (the “Regular Grant Date”):
		
	•
	Each outside director will receive a grant of an equity award with an aggregate value of $100,000 (the “Award”).


		
	•
	At each outside director's election, such Award would consist entirely of RSUs or entirely of options.


		
	◦
	If applicable, the number of options issuable under such Award would be calculated as the dollar value of such Award allocated to options divided by the Black-Scholes value of one option share as of the grant date (and the exercise price of such option would equal the closing trading price of the Company's common stock on such grant date).


		
	◦
	If applicable, the number of RSUs issuable under such Award would be calculated as the dollar value of such Award allocated to RSUs divided by the closing trading price of the Company's common stock on such grant date.


		
	◦
	Each such Award would vest in full effective immediately prior to the commencement of the Company's first annual meeting of stockholders in the year following the year of the grant date, provided that the recipient is still providing services to the Company as a director as of such time, and, provided, further, that 100% of the shares subject to such Award would be deemed fully vested upon the occurrence of a Change of Control, as such term is defined in the Company's 2007 Plan.     


3.     A new eligible director would receive under the 2007 Plan (or, if determined by the Committee, under the 1997 Outside Directors Stock Option Plan) an Award, which Award shall consist entirely of RSUs or entirely of options, at such new eligible director's election, and shall be equal to the pro rated portion of the Company's annual Awards based on the time between the date the new director is appointed to the Board and the first trading day of Nasdaq in the month of July following such director's appointment. 











4.     The post-termination exercise period for stock options granted to outside directors beginning in 2013 shall be as follows:
	
				
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Reason for Termination
	 
	Exercisability Period
	 

	Disability
	 
	1 year
	 

	Death
	 
	1 year
	 

	Not elected despite nomination by the Board (e.g., loss of election as a part of a proxy fight)
	 
	1 year
	 

	Resignation due to Majority Vote Policy
	 
	1 year
	 

	Retirement or any other reason
	 
	3 months
	 




5.    The Directors Equity Compensation Program shall remain in effect at the discretion of the Board or the Compensation Committee.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 5D 2 2

- 1140 LT Case No. 2020

- 300595

- CFDB

_____________________________

B RIAN M. T URNBULL ,
Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA ,
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County

. Leah R. Case , Judge

.
Roberta G. Mandel, of the Mandel Law Group, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Stephen R. Putnam, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Septem be r 19, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

.

E ISNAUGLE , K ILBANE , and P RATT , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
EX-10.33



 Exhibit 10.33 
 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT 
  

			
	To:	 	[Name of Participant]
	From:	 	Bob Giardina
	Date:	 	December     , 2012
	Re:	 	2012 Bonus Payments

 Congratulations! The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has preliminarily approved the
bonuses under the Amended and Restated Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. 2006 Annual Performance Bonus Plan (the “Plan”) for 2012 and has approved the Company’s payment of a portion of the preliminary bonus amount in December
2012, subject to the conditions described in this letter agreement. The remaining portion (if any) of your earned bonus for 2012 will be paid after the Committee certifies the extent to which the performance goals have been attained in a manner
consistent with the Plan. If you sign below, you will be paid 50% of your 2012 target bonus as currently forecasted. 
 However,
if you are no longer employed by the Company for any reason on the date on which the remaining payments are made (or if no payment is due, the date of such certification by the Committee) , you will be required to repay to the Company the amount of
the bonus previously paid within 5 days of your departure. In addition, if it is ultimately determined by the Compensation Committee that the Company’s performance goals or your individual performance goals were not satisfied in a manner that
would have led to the payment of this preliminary bonus, you will be required to repay any excess amount paid within 5 days of being notified in writing. (Payments that are required to be repaid pursuant to this paragraph are referred to in this
letter agreement as “overpayments”) 
 By signing below, you acknowledge and agree that (i) you understand the
implications of receiving this payment in 2012, (ii) the Company may deduct, but only to the extent and in a manner permitted by applicable law, any overpayment from future wages owed to you and (iii) in the event that the Company incurs
legal fees and costs in order to recoup any overpayments, you will be required to reimburse the Company for such amounts. 

Please return this letter, signed, to Nitin Ajmera (nitin.ajmera@town-sports.com) no later than noon on Wednesday,
December 26, 2012. 
 We thank you for your contributions in 2012 and look forward to another productive and successful
year! Happy Holidays. 
  

	
	Acknowledged and Agreed
	
	  

	[Name of Participant]
1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SXC Health Solutions Corp.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a15(e) and 15d15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a15(f) and 15d15(f)) for the
registrant and we 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)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    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: November 6, 2008By:
    
    /s/ Jeffrey Park

JEFFREY PARKChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1062 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1062

    To provide authorization for nonpecuniary damages in an action 
   resulting from a cruise ship accident occurring on the high seas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 8, 2019

 Mrs. Fischer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide authorization for nonpecuniary damages in an action 
   resulting from a cruise ship accident occurring on the high seas.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hammers' Law''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS IN CERTAIN CASES.

    (a) In General.--Section 30307 of title 46, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in the section heading, by striking ``Commercial 
        aviation accidents'' and inserting ``Limitations in certain 
        cases'';
            (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
    ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
            ``(1) Cruise ship.--The term `cruise ship' means a 
        passenger vessel, other than a vessel of the United States 
        operated by the Federal Government or a vessel owned and 
        operated by a State, that--
                    ``(A) is authorized to carry at least 250 
                passengers;
                    ``(B) has onboard sleeping facilities for each 
                passenger;
                    ``(C) is on a voyage that embarks or disembarks 
                passengers in the United States; and
                    ``(D) is not engaged on a coastwise voyage.
            ``(2) Nonpecuniary damages.--The term `nonpecuniary 
        damages' means damages for loss of care, comfort, and 
        companionship.'';
            (3) in subsection (b), by inserting ``or cruise ship'' 
        after ``commercial aviation''; and
            (4) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or cruise ship'' 
        after ``commercial aviation''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 303 of 
title 46, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating 
to section 30307 and inserting the following:

``30307. Limitations in certain cases.''.
                                 <all>
```
(2012); 

### see May v. Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 672, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257

(2005). The record on appeal shows that appellant agreed on the record to settle her case for a specific amount, agreed to all the essential terms of the settlement, and indicated several times that she agreed to the settlement and understood that the settlement was permanent and binding. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'

Saitta

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge Janelle Dietrich Van Walraven & Harris Washoe District Court Clerk

'In light of this order, we need not address appellant's argument that this court should also reverse the district court's order granting her former counsel's attorney fees lien if this court were to reverse the district court's order enforcing the settlement.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 24, 2009.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis**                     (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:                 

*1. Norlo Inc., Prior Lake, Minnesota,*                     to engage, de novo, in lending activities, pursuant to section 225.28 (b)(1) of Regulation Y.                 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 06, 2009.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E9-16255 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Urovsky Vilfort, Also Known as Wally Bonneau, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 62]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael A. Corriere, J.), rendered August 11, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

*369Defendant claims his counsel provided ineffective assistance when, after two prospective jurors said that defendant’s failure to testify might impact their decision, counsel declined the court’s suggestion that he question them further, and permitted them to be seated without exercising any type of challenge. This claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters of strategy outside the record *(see People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 998 [1982]). The record does not reveal on what basis counsel might have concluded that these were desirable jurors for the defense, and that further inquiry was unnecessary. In particular, counsel may have been influenced by these jurors’ demeanor, which is not reflected in the record. On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). Viewing the voir dire as a whole, the ambiguous comments by the two jurors did not cast serious doubt on their ability to be fair *(see People v Burts,*237 AD2d 155 [1997], *lv denied*90 NY2d 856 [1997]). Furthermore, in the colloquy between counsel and the court concerning these jurors, counsel stated that his client intended to testify (a prediction that proved accurate), and that counsel believed this rendered moot any concern about the jurors’ comments. On this record, we find counsel’s conclusion to be reasonable. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.