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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5092

To amend part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 to include hold-harmless provisions for local educational 

agencies that no longer meet the minimum eligibility criteria for targeted 

grants and education finance incentive grants, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2004

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia (for himself, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, and Mr. 

WOLF) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL

To amend part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 to include hold-harmless provisions for local educational agencies that no longer meet 

the minimum eligibility criteria for targeted grants and 

education finance incentive grants, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. HOLD-HARMLESS PROVISIONS. 

4 (a) TARGETED GRANTS.—Paragraph (2) of section 

5 1122(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

6 of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6332(c)) is amended—
2

•HR 5092 IH 

1 (1) by striking ‘‘If sufficient funds’’ and insert2 ing the following: 

3 ‘‘(A) CONCENTRATION GRANTS.—If suffi4 cient funds’’; and 

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

6 ‘‘(B) TARGETED GRANTS.—Notwith7 standing the inability of a local educational 

8 agency to meet the minimum eligibility criteria 

9 described in section 1125(a)(1) for a fiscal 

10 year, if sufficient funds are appropriated, the 

11 amount made available to the agency under sec12 tion 1125 for that year shall be—

13 ‘‘(i) if the agency met such minimum 

14 eligibility criteria and received a grant 

15 under section 1125 for the preceding fiscal 

16 year, not less than 67 percent of the 

17 amount of such grant; or 

18 ‘‘(ii) if the agency met such minimum 

19 eligibility criteria and received a grant 

20 under section 1125 for the second pre21 ceding fiscal year (but not the preceding 

22 fiscal year), not less than 34 percent of the 

23 amount of such grant. 

24 ‘‘(C) EDUCATION FINANCE INCENTIVE

25 GRANTS.—Notwithstanding the inability of a 
3

•HR 5092 IH 

1 local educational agency to meet the minimum 

2 eligibility criteria described in section 1125A(c) 

3 for a fiscal year, if sufficient funds are appro4 priated, the amount made available to the agen5 cy under section 1125A for that year shall be—

6 ‘‘(i) if the agency met such minimum 

7 eligibility criteria and received a grant 

8 under section 1125A for the preceding fis9 cal year, not less than 67 percent of the 

10 amount of such grant; or 

11 ‘‘(ii) if the agency met such minimum 

12 eligibility criteria and received a grant 

13 under section 1125A for the second pre14 ceding fiscal year (but not the preceding 

15 fiscal year), not less than 34 percent of the 

16 amount of such grant.’’. 

17 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by this 

18 section apply only with respect to funds appropriated for 

19 fiscal year 2005 or any subsequent fiscal year.

Æ
Q i$ s on U1R Arpert

V’. Mag. N. 1,1-2528 (E)

tVtD W1aZ *ié OZR YQR cflIUAN’OE

t7D?WI

Thj tatts 1*Vizi ooe baaa’a the CQLzrt Q, the joint

ap1iatibt of Paul . Piarnsn, tLta4 Stataw ttorzay fo the

?iQtriCt of New CR. aa.i,h Grib3eo, aistmt U13

Attorsy 1eaxing), a4 4Eenda to David Nux az4 uy Wx

(b7itc1ifl iY. au4 twn aaaara, S;., ppeax’ing),

an od gz’ntI a ootinana. of t2t jroo.din in t1i

ahev.capt.ic74ed mat’: and the 6aaLta and their cnu1

bajug aws that ci rnfoatii or Za6Idtmant oriuarily zuSt he

i1e within thirty O) Eiays of dsf.4t’ initjg.1 appeara.noe

on thie puririat to 18, Un.ted Statoe Vde, Beotion

U61 (y and, u*wa1t to L’itls 1,E, tLte ttes Coda, wn

318() (7) (A), thr aibad StRtgs azi4 ths d £idnte bavin

reusntad t a.zct1 aontinuane so that the part.s aan

negotiate plaa agr.4nia@ts and Se’ehy avoid a psaibs t’iai; exid

for 9ecd ceuea aown

on t1L ‘1Y of it1y, 2Qi2,

O?DE tht t4 tine forn the date thu rde’

Rtere6, to and inoitding iasptuer 27, ZD.2, shal,1. be exol.udad

oRIoulatng the ts within ich aa Xnforiuation or Ziotment
tim to diacu pci eotiation, wbic w1d da ay grn

tuxy prvoeediiqe sxu. y uwequ tia1 e tbii matter

Purwut to Titla 8, United statee code, ecti

;3.e1(h) (7) (A), the da o atd.m .z’ved by gartg t1be

otinuauce outw*Jg * ieant t)le U.b1ic ed tite

defezdLuts .zz a spe4y

/

arm. Douat.u E.

Une4 tate i ista ics

Ne1on Lt. yar, ifz Attoniev Z hag•, renon Cie

se 1bo

ftZ ZJefendmt Wax

Stv áax, q.owiar or df w’qz 3idy Wac

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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-70,353]

Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 21, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Straits Steel and Wire Company, Dallas, Texas.

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition (TA-W-70,287) filed on May 20, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of June 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15747 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5089 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2,2′-[(3,3′-Dichloro[1,1′-biphenyl]-4,4′- 

diyl)bis(azo)]bis[N -(2,4-dimethylphenyl)–3-oxobutyramide] Butanamide, 

2,2′-[(3,3′-dichloro[1,1′-biphenyl]-4,4′-diyl)bis(azo)]bis[N -(2,4- 

dimethylphenyl)–3-oxo-. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 

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

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2,2′-[(3,3′-Dichloro[1,1′- 

biphenyl]-4,4′-diyl)bis(azo)]bis[N -(2,4-dimethylphenyl)– 

3-oxobutyramide] Butanamide, 2,2′-[(3,3′-dichloro[1,1′- 

biphenyl]-4,4′-diyl)bis(azo)]bis[N -(2,4-dimethylphenyl)– 

3-oxo-. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5089 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON 2,2′-[(3,3′- 

2 DICHLORO[1,1′-BIPHENYL]-4,4′- 

3 DIYL)BIS(AZO)]BIS[N-(2,4-DIMETHYLPHENYL)– 

4 3-OXOBUTYRAMIDE] BUTANAMIDE, 2,2′-[(3,3′- 

5 DICHLORO[1,1′-BIPHENYL]-4,4′- 

6 DIYL)BIS(AZO)]BIS[N-(2,4-DIMETHYLPHENYL)– 

7 3-OXO-. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

9 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

10 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following: 

‘‘ 9902.35.12 2,2′-[(3,3′-Dichloro[1,1′- 

biphenyl]-4,4′- 

diyl)bis(azo)]bis[N-(2,4- 

dimethylphenyl)–3- 

oxobutyramide] Butanamide, 

2,2′-[(3,3′-dichloro[1,1′- 

biphenyl]-4,4′- 

diyl)bis(azo)]bis[N-(2,4- 

dimethylphenyl)–3-oxo- 

(CAS No. 5102–83–0) (provided for in subheading 

3204.17.90) ......................... Free No Change No Change On or Before 

12/31/2007 ’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

13 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

14 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

 

No. 11-1764

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY JONES,

Defendant, Appellant.

 

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on December 2, 2011, is

amended as follows:

 On page 28, line 2, replace “21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)(B)(iii)” 

with “21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii)”
Exhibit No. 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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 Juhl Wind, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the undersigned’s knowledge:





(1)   the Report of the Company filed today fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or (15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:  August 15, 2011
/s/John P. MitolaJohn P. MitolaPresident
Exhibit 10.34.2



 Exhibit 10.34.2 

AMENDMENT TO THE 
 GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC. 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 2005 CHANGE IN CONTROL
PLAN 
 THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) to the Genworth Financial, Inc. Amended and
Restated 2005 Change in Control Plan (the “Plan”) is made this 5th day of December, 2012. 
 The Management Development and Compensation Committee of
the Board of Directors of Genworth Financial, Inc. (the “Corporation”) has determined that it is in the best interests of the Corporation and its stockholders to amend the Plan to add protective language relating to the timing of a release
of claims, based on recent IRS interpretations of Code Section 409A relating to deferred compensation arrangements. 
 1.
The Plan is hereby amended by deleting the first sentence of the last paragraph of Section 3(a) and replacing it with the following: 
 “Subject to Section 11 of this Plan, Basic Severance Benefits described in paragraphs (i) through (iv) above shall be paid within ten (10) business days (or at such earlier time
as required by applicable law) following the Participant’s termination of employment in accordance with the provisions of this Section 3(a), provided, however, that if such period begins in one calendar year and ends in the next calendar
year, the payment or benefit shall not be made or commence before the second such calendar year.” 
 Except as expressly
amended hereby, the terms of the Plan shall be and remain unchanged and the Plan as amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.
Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS Document 24-3 Filed 09/23/10 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 492
Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS Document 24-3 Filed 09/23/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 493
Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS Document 24-3 Filed 09/23/10 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 494
Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS Document 24-3 Filed 09/23/10 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 495
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5039 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

United States Route 1 in Ridgeway, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Eva 

Holtzman Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2004 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD (for himself, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. BURR, Mr. COBLE, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. HAYES, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. TAYLOR of North 

Carolina, Mr. WATT, and Mr. MILLER of North Carolina) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at United States Route 1 in Ridgeway, North 

Carolina, as the ‘‘Eva Holtzman Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EVA HOLTZMAN POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at United States Route 1 in Ridge6 way, North Carolina, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘Eva Holtzman Post Office’’. 
2 

•HR 5039 IH 

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the Eva Holtzman Post 

5 Office. 

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6551

HERMAN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FRANKLIN FREEMAN; DEPARTMENT OF PRISONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-95-924)

Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herman Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal

period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an

extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day

period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to

relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established

by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v.

Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting

United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district

court entered its order on January 31, 1996; Appellant's notice of

appeal was dated April 4, 1996, and filed on April 9, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of

the appeal period deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider

this case. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
CHARLES PRYOR

,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW

,
Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITI ON THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 0776

Opinion filed November 14, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

-- Original Jurisdiction

.
Charles Pryor, pro se , Petitioner.

Sarah J. Rumph, General Counsel, Florida Commission on Offender Review

, Tallahas see , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits

.

VAN NORTWICK, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ.

, CONCUR.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ewan Henry, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 894]

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the complainant’s testimony was not incredible as a matter of law *(see People v Almonte,*23 AD3d 392 [2005]; *People v Davis,*299 AD2d 420 [2002]). Further, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; *People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the *898verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Helen, JJ., concur.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1321 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interference with voting 

systems under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 6, 2019 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) 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 prohibit interference with voting systems under the Computer Fraud 

and Abuse Act. 

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 ‘‘Defending the Integ5 rity of Voting Systems Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON INTERFERENCE WITH VOTING 

7 SYSTEMS. 

8 Section 1030(e) of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1321 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (2)— 

2 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or’’ 

3 at the end; 

4 (B) in subparagraph (B), by adding ‘‘or’’ 

5 at the end; and 

6 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(C) that— 

8 ‘‘(i) is part of a voting system; and 

9 ‘‘(ii)(I) is used for the management, 

10 support, or administration of a Federal 

11 election; or 

12 ‘‘(II) has moved in or otherwise af13 fects interstate or foreign commerce;’’; 

14 (2) in paragraph (11), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

15 end; 

16 (3) in paragraph (12), by striking the period 

17 and inserting a semicolon; and 

18 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(13) the term ‘Federal election’ means any 

20 election (as defined in section 301(1) of the Federal 

21 Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 

22 30101(1))) for Federal office (as defined in section 

23 301(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

24 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101(3))); and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1321 IS

1 ‘‘(14) the term ‘voting system’ has the meaning 

2 given the term in section 301(b) of the Help Amer3 ica Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21081(b)).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

STEVE EDWARD WILSON, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 263 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.
Case 3:11-cv-02506-JAP-TJB Document 102 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1935
Exhibit 24.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated March 17, 1998 (except for note N, as to which
the date is March 23, 1998) accompanying the financial statements and the
financial schedule of Ultra Pac, Inc. included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended January 31, 1998. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Ultra Pac, Inc. on
Forms S-8 (File No. 333-03479, 333-03481, 333-03483, 333-03485 and 333-03487,
each effective May 10, 1996; and File No. 333-18415, effective December 20,
1996).



/s/  DIVINE, SCHERZER & BRODY, LTD.



Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 23, 1998
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Colby A. Thompson, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 678]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Delaware County (Becker, J.), rendered August 8, 2005, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree.

Defendant was indicted for murder in the second degree after she smothered her 95-year-old adoptive father with a pillow while he slept. A psychiatric examination indicated that defendant was suffering from a number of mental disorders at the time of the crime and, as a result, a plea agreement was reached allowing defendant to plead to a reduced charge of manslaughter in the first degree in satisfaction of the indictment. Although no specific sentence was promised as part of the plea agreement, the prosecution indicated that it would recommend a 15-year sentence to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. At the time of her plea, defendant reserved her right to appeal the sentence to be imposed. County Court sentenced defendant to 12V2 years in prison, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision, and defendant now appeals.

Defendant argues that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive. Based upon our review of the record, we disagree. County Court took into consideration defendant’s difficult life, including her many emotional and psychological problems as detailed in the report of the examining psychiatrist, in fashioning an appropriate sentence. With these factors in mind, it imposed a sentence that was less than the prosecution’s recommendation. Defendant’s extreme emotional disturbance was a mitigating factor already considered by the court in allowing her to plead guilty to manslaughter, thereby reducing the period of incarceration she would face if she were convicted of murder *(see People v Johnstone,*184 AD2d 929 [1992], *lv denied*80 NY2d 905 [1992]). In sum, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice *(see People v Irizarry,*289 AD2d 875 [2001]).

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.