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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5056

To adjust the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

National Forests in the State of Montana. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2004

Mr. REHBERG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL

To adjust the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in the State of Montana.

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 ‘‘Montana National For5 ests Boundary Adjustment Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) FOREST.—The term ‘‘Forest’’ means the 

9 Helena National Forest, Lolo National Forest, and 
2

•HR 5056 IH 

1 Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in the State 

2 of Montana. 

3 (2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means—

4 (A) the map entitled ‘‘Blackfoot Commu5 nity Project Acquisition Proposed Adjustments, 

6 Helena National Forest Boundary’’ and dated 

7 March 11, 2004; 

8 (B) the map entitled ‘‘Blackfoot Commu9 nity Project Acquisition Region One, Lolo Na10 tional Forest Boundary’’ and dated March 11, 

11 2004; and 

12 (C) the map entitled ‘‘Blackfoot Commu13 nity Project Acquisition Proposed Adjustments, 

14 Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Bound15 ary Adjustment’’ and dated March 11, 2004. 

16 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

17 the Secretary of Agriculture. 

18 SEC. 3. HELENA, LOLO, AND BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NA19 TIONAL FORESTS BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT. 

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—The boundaries of the Forests are 

21 modified as depicted on the maps. 

22 (b) MAPS.—

23 (1) AVAILABILITY.—The maps shall be on file 

24 and available for public inspection in—
3

•HR 5056 IH 

1 (A) the Office of the Chief of the Forest 

2 Service; and 

3 (B) the office of the Regional Forester, 

4 Missoula, Montana. 

5 (2) CORRECTION AUTHORITY.—The Secretary 

6 may make technical corrections to the maps. 

7 (c) ADMINISTRATION.—Any land or interest in land 

8 acquired within the boundaries of the Forests for National 

9 Forest System purposes shall be managed in accordance 

10 with—

11 (1) the Act of March 1, 1911 (commonly known 

12 as the ‘‘Weeks Law’’) (16 U.S.C. 480 et seq.); and 

13 (2) the laws (including regulations) applicable 

14 to the National Forest System. 

15 (d) LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND.—For 

16 purposes of section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation 

17 Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601–9), the boundaries 

18 of the Forests, as adjusted under subsection (a), shall be 

19 considered to be the boundaries of the Forests as of Janu20 ary 1, 1965. 

21 (e) EFFECT.—Nothing in this Act limits the author22 ity of the Secretary to adjust the boundaries of the Forests 

23 under section 11 of the Act of March 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 

24 521).

Æ
Exhibit 10.25

FIRST HORIZON PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION

December 10,
2002

Mr. Michael
Leone
295 Flowers Cove Ln.
Lilburn, GA 30047



Dear
Mike:

Before
you leave First Horizon's employment, I wanted to take this opportunity to confirm with you your understanding of the restrictive covenants contained in the Employment Agreement
which you entered into with us earlier this year. As you know, under Section 9 of your Employment Agreement, you have agreed that, for a period of 36 months after your termination of
employment, you will not be engaged in or have a financial interest in any business which is in competition with First Horizon, that you will not solicit any current supplier, customer or client of
First Horizon's (excluding certain customers as are articulated in Section 9(b) of the Agreement), and that you will not solicit, employ or engage any person who, during the 12 month
period immediately preceding your termination, was an employee of the Company, or any affiliate of the Company. In addition, Section 10 of the Employment Agreement provides that, for a period
of sixty (60) months after your termination, you will not disclose any of our trade secrets or confidential information.

Please
acknowledge on the attached copy of this letter your receipt of this letter and your understanding of the restrictions contained in your Employment Agreement where indicated below
and return that copy to me by December 20th.

As
we discussed earlier, for accounting and benefit purposes your last official day at First Horizon will be December 31, 2002. You will receive your normal compensation,
benefits, and have use of your cell phone, blackberry organizer and company vehicle until that date and the six months of severance benefits provided for in your Employment Agreement will commence on
January 1, 2003. Your last day in the office, however, will be today.

Finally,
I call to your attention that given your insider position within the Company between December 15th, 2002 and three days after the 4th quarter
results are released you cannot sell any of your First Horizon shares or options.

We
have always had the greatest respect for your integrity and I have every expectation that you will live up to the covenants which you previously entered into with us.

|                                                      |  | Very truly yours,         
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|                                                      |  | /s/ Chris OffenChris Offen
|ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED
This 13 day of December, 2002 |  |                           
|/s/ Michael LeoneMichael Leone                        |  |                           
|cc: Bill Campbell                                     |  |                           

---
1

Charting the U.S. Labor Market in 2005

U.S. Department of LaborBureau of Labor Statistics

June 2006
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Network Communications, Inc.;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 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)) for the registrant and 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;(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; and(d)
    
    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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) 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 (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 (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; and(b)
    
    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.
 NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.October 18, 2007
    /s/  Daniel R. McCarthyDaniel R. McCarthyChairman and
Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk January 25, 2013

p0122 

# Order

January 25, 2013

146109

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146109

COA: 310346

Gd Traverse CC: 11

- 011321

- FH

BRIAN JEFFERY SANDBERG,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Case 2:11-cv-02309-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 1
Case 2:11-cv-02309-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 2 of 13 PageID: 2
Case 2:11-cv-02309-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 3 of 13 PageID: 3
Case 2:11-cv-02309-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 4 of 13 PageID: 4
Case 2:11-cv-02309-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 5 of 13 PageID: 5
Case 2:11-cv-02309-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 6 of 13 PageID: 6
Case 2:11-cv-02309-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 7 of 13 PageID: 7
Case 2:11-cv-02309-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 8 of 13 PageID: 8
Case 2:11-cv-02309-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 9 of 13 PageID: 9
Case 2:11-cv-02309-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 10 of 13 PageID: 10
Case 2:11-cv-02309-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 11 of 13 PageID: 11
Case 2:11-cv-02309-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 12 of 13 PageID: 12
Case 2:11-cv-02309-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 13 of 13 PageID: 13
Order issued M ay 28 , 201 5 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

________________________________________

No. 05

- 1 4

- 0 0 962

- CR

No. 05

- 14

- 00963

- CR

________________________________________

ALLEN HO , Appellant



### V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee



### O R D E R

Before Justices Fillmore, Myers, and Evans

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the January 27, 2015 motion of

Sharita Blacknall for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk

of the Court to remove Sharita Blacknall as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the

Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspo ndence to Allen Ho , TDCJ

No. 1945313

, Formby State Jail, 998 County Road AA, Plainview, Texas, 79072.

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5364 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5364

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 5505 Stevens Way in San Diego, California, as the ``Earl B. Gilliam/
                Imperial Avenue Post Office Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5364

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 5505 Stevens Way in San Diego, California, as the ``Earl B. Gilliam/
                Imperial Avenue Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 5505 
Stevens Way in San Diego, California, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Earl B. Gilliam/Imperial Avenue Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Earl B. Gilliam/Imperial 
Avenue Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of PRIMEDIA Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dean B. Nelson,Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

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

| /s/ DEAN  B. NELSON                               |     |     |
|---------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|
| Dean B. Nelson                                    |     |
| *Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President* | * * | * * |

 

May 10, 2007

 

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to theextent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theCompany for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131071 & (25) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 131071 

 COA: 264945 

Livingston CC: 00-011454-FH 

SANDY RUSSELL GLOVER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 23, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

s1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                          17,289
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,401
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     25,558
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,178
<PP&E>                                          16,377
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,762
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,053
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            86
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,658
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,762
<SALES>                                         31,446
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,446
<CGS>                                           14,151
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,530
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,921
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,072
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,883
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 60826 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
TEVIN LADARIUS MITCHELL , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:18

- CR

- 70

- 1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant

- Appellant Tevin Ladarius Mitchell appeals the 57

- month, within guidelines range sentence imposed on his guilty plea to unlawful use of a controlled substance while in possession of a firearm. Mitchell contends that the district court procedurally erred by assessing him a criminal history point based on his 2015 Missi ssippi drug conviction , which he argues is invalid under state and federal law because (1) he was tried in absentia and (2) he was tried

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 12, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-60826 Document: 00515073291 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2019No. 18

- 60826

2 in an adult court as a juvenile. He further asserts that the district court improperly found the relevant sentencing f acts by only a preponderance of the evidence

. Mitchell ’s contentions are wholly without merit. “ [A] bsent an allegation that the defendant was denied counsel in the prior proceeding, a district court sentencing a defendant may not entertain a collateral a ttack on a prior conviction used to enhance the sentence unless such an attack is otherwise recognized by law.” United States v. Longstreet , 603 F.3d 273, 277 (5th Cir. 2010) ; accord U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(d), comment. (n.6). Mitchell neither avers that he was unrepresented by counsel during his 2015 prosecution nor cites any legal authority permitting him to collaterally attack his 2015 conviction through an objection to his criminal history computation. He thus fails to sh ow error in applying the Guidelines. See United States v. Solis

- Garcia , 420 F.3d 511, 514 (5th Cir. 2005). Moreover, any such error would be harmless because subtracting the single point for Mitchell’s 2015 conviction “would leave him in the same crimina l history category and would not affect his sentence.” United States v. Jackson , 22 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 1994). Mitchell’s argument regarding the applicable standard of proof at sentencing is baseless. “[A]s a general matter, the burden of proof at

s entencing is by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Brooks , 681 F.3d 678, 712 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted; brackets in original)

. Although he points to this court ’ s prior suggestion that there could be ca ses where a higher burden of proof applies, he points to no case at all in our circuit that mandates a higher standard of proof for prior convictions because there is none. We AFFIRM the judgment. Case: 18-60826 Document: 00515073291 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2019
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 573

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain sightseeing 

flights from taxes on air transportation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

Mr. HAYWORTH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt 

certain sightseeing flights from taxes on air transportation.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN SIGHTSEEING FLIGHTS EXEMPT 

4 FROM TAXES ON AIR TRANSPORTATION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4281 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 (relating to small aircraft on nonestab7 lished lines) is amended by adding at the end the following 

8 new sentence: ‘‘For purposes of this section, an aircraft 

9 shall not be considered as operated on an established line 
2

•HR 573 IH 

1 if such aircraft is operated on a flight the sole purpose 

2 of which is sightseeing.’’. 

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

4 this section shall apply with respect to transportation be5 ginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

6 but shall not apply to any amount paid before such date.

Æ