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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1355 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1355

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exclusion from 
            gross income for AmeriCorps educational awards.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2019

   Mr. Bennet (for himself, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Blunt, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
 Coons, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Portman, Mrs. Shaheen, and 
  Mr. Wicker) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exclusion from 
            gross income for AmeriCorps educational awards.

    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 ``Segal AmeriCorps Education Award Tax 
Relief Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF AMERICORPS EDUCATIONAL AWARDS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 117(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of 
subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(D) a national service educational award under 
                subtitle D of title I of the National and Community 
                Service Act of 1990.''.
    (b) Exclusion of Discharge of Student Loan Debt.--Subsection (f) of 
section 108 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
new paragraph:
            ``(6) Payments under national service educational award 
        programs.--In the case of an individual, gross income shall not 
        include any amount received under a national service 
        educational award under subtitle D of title I of the National 
        and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq.).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 08, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 08, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20A1803. JOHN RAYMOND ETIENNE v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion the hereby GRANTED, and jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
v. Crim. No. 11—457

ROY CASTRO ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey (Shana W. Chen, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

appearing), and defendant Roy Castro (Antonio J. Toto, Esq.,

appearing), for an order granting a continuance of the

proceedings in the above—captioned matter, and the defendant

being aware that he has the right to have the matter brought to

trial within 70 days of the date of his appearance before a

judicial officer of this court pursuant to Title 18 of the United

States Code, Section 3161(c) (1), and as the defendant has

consented to such a continuance, and for good and sufficient

cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should

be continued for the following reasons:

(1) Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and

both the United States and the defendant desire additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement, which would render trial of this

matter unnecessary; and

(2) As a result of the foregoing, pursuant to Title

18, United States Code, Section 3161(h) (7), the ends of justice
ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is, continued

from October 29, 2011 through November 30, 2011; and it is

further

October 29, 2011 through

in computing time under

ORDERED that the period from

November 30, 2011, shall be excludable

the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

HON. WILLIAM H. WALLS

United States District Judge

—2—
Shana W Chen

Assistant E.. Attoxrney

ior c?etndant Roy Castro
Filed 12/7/17 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2017 ND 280

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Eric Lance Sabot, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20170100

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Dann Edward Greenwood, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Ladd R. Erickson, Assistant State’s Attorney, Washburn, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; on brief.

Thomas J. Glass, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant; on brief.

State v. Sabot

No. 20170100

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Eric Sabot appeals from a criminal judgment, entered after a bench trial, finding him guilty of terrorizing.  Sabot argues the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of terrorizing.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3), concluding sufficient evidence supports Sabot’s conviction.

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jon J. Jensen

Jerod E. Tufte

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers
ex10_6.htm




Exhibit 10.6


APPENDIX A


Insperity, Inc. Directors Compensation Plan


(Amended and Restated as of August 15, 2012)







Directors' Compensation & Equity Awards


Effective February 19, 2013








	  	
Board

	
 


Compensation Committee

	
FRMA Committee

	
N&CG Committee


	  	  	  	  	  
	
Annual Retainer

	
$50,000

	
$3,000

	
$5,000

	
None


	  	  	  	  	  
	
Annual Committee Chair Fees

	
N/A

	
$12,000

	
$15,000

	
$15,000


	  	  	  	  	  
	
Meeting Fees

	
$2,000 in person,


$1,000 telephonically*


 

	
$1,500 in person,


$750 telephonically*


 


These fees are also paid to the Chairman for meetings attended with Management between regular meetings.


 


Only one meeting fee per day will be paid.

	
$1,500 in person,


$750 telephonically*


 


These fees are also paid to the Chairman for meetings attended with Management or Auditors between regular meetings.


 


Only one meeting fee per day will be paid.

	
$1,500 in person,


$750 telephonically*


 


These fees are only paid for meetings not held in conjunction with a meeting of the Board of Directors.


 


Only one meeting fee per day will be paid.


	  	  	  	  	  
	
Initial  Director Award

	
$75,000

	
N/A

	
N/A

	
N/A


	  	  	  	  	  
	
Annual Director Award

	
$90,000

	
N/A

	
N/A

	
N/A







  


* If a Director attends in person a meeting noticed as a telephonic meeting, the Director receives the in person fee.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 Annual Report of EGPI Firecreek, Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dennis R. Alexander, President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of

our knowledge and belief:



(1)   The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.





|                     |     |                                      
|-------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------
|Date: April 17, 2007 | By: | /s/ Dennis R. Alexander              
|                     |     | Dennis R. Alexander                  
|                     |     | President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-21-00247-CV 

 

IN THE INTEREST OF N.A.O., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 64th District Court 

 Hale County, Texas 

Trial Court No. A42858-1908, Honorable Danah L. Zirpoli, Presiding 

November 15, 2021 

ORDER 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

In its order of termination, the trial court terminated the parental rights of mother to 

N.A.O., a child; appointed father as possessory conservator of N.A.O.; and appointed the 

Department of Family and Protective Services as permanent managing conservator of 

N.A.O.1 Mother, the Department, and an intervening maternal grandmother, M.S., filed 

separate appeals from the order. M.S., however, failed to pay the requisite filing fee. 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8.(b) (protection of minor’s identity in parental-rights termination cases).
2

By letter of October 14, 2021, the court notified M.S. that the filing fee was overdue 

and that unless she was excused from paying court costs under Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 20.1, failure to pay the filing fee by October 25 would result in dismissal of the 

appeal. To date, M.S. has not paid the filing fee or sought leave to proceed without 

payment of court costs.

Because M.S. has failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules and a 

notice from the clerk requiring action within a specified time, we dismiss her appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b), 42.3(c). 

Mother’s and the Department’s appeals shall continue to disposition.

Per Curiam
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Penn Virginia GP Holdings, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert
B. Wallace, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of PVG GP, LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |                                                     
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: October 29, 2010 |  |  |  |                                                     
|                       |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | /s/ Robert B. Wallace                               
|                       |  |  |  | Robert B. Wallace                                   
|                       |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 District of New Jersey

Case 3:11-cr-00403-JAP Document 76 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 281
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

ANTHONY STOKES 

Plaintiff(s) 

JOHN STEPHENS a/k/a JOHN LEGEND, 

SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, 

COLUMBIA RECORDS, 

GETTING OUT OUR DREAMS INC. 

d/b/a G. O. O. D. Music. 

Defendant(s) 

Civil Action No. 

2:11-cv-03849 

(SDW) (MCA) 

REQUEST BY LOCAL COUNSEL FOR 

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY 

TO RECEIVE ELECTRONIC NOTIFICATION 

Request is hereby made by local counsel for pro hac vice counsel to receive electronic notification in the within 

matter, and it is represented that: 

1. An order of the Court granting a motion to appear pro hac vice in the within matter has been entered; and 

If admission was granted after March 22, 2005, the Admission Fee, in the amount of $150, pursuant to 

C. Ci . R. 101. 1( )(3), ~hash id to th Cie k ofth C t. 

Signature of Local Counsel 

DOLORES F. DIBELLA 

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY INFORMATION 

Name: 

Address: 

CHARLES B. ORTNER 

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 

ELEVEN TIMES SQUARE 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036 

e-Mail: 

CORTNER@PROSKAUER. COM 

(one email address only) 

Instructions for LOCAL COUNSEL for filin 

1. Select the Case Type (Civil) from the menu bar at the top of your screen. 

2. Click on Notices. 

3. Select the event, Notice of Pro Hac Vice to Receive NEF. 

4. Enter the case for which the Request is being filed. 

5. Select the PDF document to file, 

6. Proofiead the docket text. 

7. Submit the Request to ECF by clicking the NEXT button. 

DNJ-CMECF-002 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 18 Filed 11/02/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 103
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 16 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 248
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 16 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 249
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 16 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 250
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 16 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 251
EX-10.14.(a)



 Exhibit 10.14(a) 

Revised Schedule to Change in Control Agreement 
 Horace Mann Educators Corporation (“HMEC”) and Horace Mann Service Corporation (“HMSC”) entered into Change in Control Agreements with the following persons on the dates shown. These
agreements are substantially similar to the one included as Exhibit 10.14 to HMEC’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, except that the multiple of the annual base salary and average of annual cash bonus paid
to the employee in the last three years is equal to the duration listed below. 
  

							
	 	  	 	  	Original	  	Replacement
	            Employee	  	 Duration
	  	 Agreement Date
	  	 Agreement Date

				
	 Stephen P. Cardinal
	  	2 years	  	December 2008	  	December 2011
	 Richard R. Schulenburg
	  	2 years	  	December 2007	  	December 2011
	 Thomas C. Wilkinson
	  	2 years	  	September 2008	  	December 2011
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 23, 2015 106221 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL T. HUDSON,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: May 28, 2015

Before: Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose and Lynch, JJ.

__________

Cappy Weiner, Kingston, for appellant.

James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Michael J.

Andreani of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan

County (LaBuda, J.), rendered September 6, 2013, convicting

defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the

second degree.

In full satisfaction of a five-count indictment, defendant

pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and waived his

right to appeal. Defendant thereafter was sentenced, as an

admitted second felony offender, to the agreed-upon prison term

of 11 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. 

Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Initially, the record reflects that County

Court adequately explained the separate and distinct nature of
-2- 106221 

the waiver of the right to appeal and that defendant thereafter

executed a detailed written waiver to that effect. Accordingly,

we are satisfied that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal

his conviction and sentence was knowing, intelligent and

voluntary (see People v Sibounhome, 125 AD3d 1059, 1059 [2015];

People v Oginski, 123 AD3d 1303, 1303 [2014]).

As to the remaining arguments, to the extent that

defendant's brief may be read as challenging the voluntariness of

his plea, we note that although this issue survives defendant's

waiver of the right to appeal, it is unpreserved for our review

absent evidence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see

People v Kormos, 126 AD3d 1039, 1040 [2015]; People v Merrill,

123 AD3d 1339, 1339-1340 [2014]), as is defendant's claim of

coercion (see People v Ross, 117 AD3d 1342, 1342-1343 [2014];

People v Colon, 106 AD3d 1367, 1368 [2013]). Further, although

defendant initially denied knowing that his accomplices intended

to burglarize the residence in question, County Court twice

adjourned the matter, following which defendant unequivocally

admitted his guilt (see e.g. People v Rodriguez, 59 AD3d 173, 173

[2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 858 [2009]; People v Hillendale, 244

AD2d 911, 912 [1997]). As such, the narrow exception to the

preservation requirement was not triggered (see People v Kormos,

126 AD3d at 1040). Finally, we are not persuaded that defendant

was denied the right to counsel at a critical stage of the

underlying criminal action (see People v Kaetzel, 117 AD3d 1187,

1189 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 962 [2014]).

Garry, J.P., Rose and Lynch, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Case 2:11-cv-03265-ES-CLW Document 40 Filed 02/22/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 524
Case 2:11-cv-03265-ES-CLW Document 40 Filed 02/22/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 525
Case 2:11-cr-00214-FSH Document 26 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 55
Case 2:11-cr-00214-FSH Document 26 Filed 04/04/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 56
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

:

:

ASTRAZENECA AB, et al. :

:

:

Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No. 11-760 (JAP)

:

v. :

: ORDER

HANMI USA, INC., et al. :

:

:

: 

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

Presently before the Court in this action is a motion by plaintiffs AstraZeneca AB, 

Aktiebolaget Hässle, AstraZeneca LP, KBI Inc. and KBI-E Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiff”) for an 

injunction pending Astra’s appeal of this Court’s December 12, 2012 claim construction ruling to 

the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Astra seeks to enjoin 

defendants Hanmi, Inc., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd. and 

Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd. from marketing and selling their esomeprazole strontium product 

pending a ruling on the appeal by the Circuit Court. The Court decides the motion without oral 

argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons in the accompanying 

Opinion

IT IS on this 13th day of September 2013

ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

/s/ Joel A. Pisano

JOEL A. PISANO, U.S.D.J.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 374 Filed 09/13/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 16143
Exhibit 10.1



Amendments to Employee Stock Purchase Plan

(Effective September 1, 2003)



Sections 2.03 and 3.01 of the ADE Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan have been amended to read in their entirety as follows:



| | 2.03 |  | Employee. Employee means any person who is customarily employed by the Company on a full-time regular or part-time regular basis by the Company and is regularly
scheduled to work more than 20 hours per week.
| | ---- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3.01 |  | Initial Eligibility. Any Employee who shall be employed by the Company on the date his/her participation in the Plan is to become effective shall be eligible to participate in
Offerings under the Plan.
| | ---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**KFS** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 18
- 0 66 6 THOMAS KOOP, III ,

Petitioner and Appellant , v. STATE OF MONTANA ,

Respondent and Appellee
.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a n extension of ti me, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including April 4, 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court March 6 2020

03/06/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0666
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5112 

To provide for a certificate recognizing employees of defense companies for 

contributions to the national defense during the Cold War. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 

Mr. ISRAEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide for a certificate recognizing employees of defense 

companies for contributions to the national defense during the Cold War. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION FOR EMPLOY4 EES OF DEFENSE COMPANIES DURING THE 

5 COLD WAR. 

6 (a) PREPARATION OF CERTIFICATES.—The Sec7 retary of Defense shall prepare a certificate recognizing 

8 the contributions to the national defense during the Cold 

9 War by eligible persons employed by defense companies 
2 

•HR 5112 IH 

1 and shall provide the certificate to such persons, in accord2 ance with this Act. 

3 (b) ELIGIBLE PERSONS.—A person who was em4 ployed by an eligible defense company during the Cold 

5 War is eligible to receive a certificate under this Act. 

6 (c) APPLICATION.—The Secretary shall provide a cer7 tificate prepared under subsection (a) to any eligible per8 son who submits an application to the Secretary at such 

9 a time, in such manner, and containing such information 

10 and assurances as the Secretary may require. 

11 (d) ISSUANCE TO REPRESENTATIVE OF DE12 CEASED.—If an eligible person dies before being issued a 

13 certificate under this Act, a representative of that person 

14 may apply for a certificate and the certificate may be pro15 vided to such representative. 

16 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

17 In this Act, the following definitions apply: 

18 (1) COLD WAR.—The term ‘‘Cold War’’ means 

19 the period beginning on September 2, 1945, and 

20 ending on December 26, 1991. 

21 (2) ELIGIBLE DEFENSE COMPANY.—The term 

22 ‘‘eligible defense company’’ means a private entity 

23 engaged in providing significant and substantial de24 fense-related systems, products, or services to the 
3 

•HR 5112 IH 

1 Department of Defense or the Department of En2 ergy (or any predecessor agency). 

Æ