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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5214 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5214

    To require combination 3-point safety belts on all school buses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 5, 2004

   Mr. Baca introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require combination 3-point safety belts on all school buses.

    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 ``Save Every Child Using Restraints 
Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

     Congress finds the following:
            (1) According to a National Transportation Safety Board 
        report, the current safety feature of compartmentalization does 
        not protect school bus passengers during lateral impacts and 
        rollover crashes because passengers do not always remain 
        completely in their seat.
            (2) Studies by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
        Administration indicated less trauma to the head and neck of 
        those passengers wearing 3-point safety belts in school buses 
        than by passengers in buses without 3-point safety belts, or 
        wearing only lap safety belts.
            (3) Such studies also concluded that 3-point safety belts 
        may not be compatible with seats designed according to the 
        current safety mechanism of compartmentalization.
            (4) Such studies have also shown the need for proper use of 
        safety belts and the need for increased education in school bus 
        safety and safety belt use.

SEC. 3. 3-POINT SAFETY BELTS IN SCHOOL BUSES.

    The Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations 
establishing a safety standard requiring that all school buses with a 
gross vehicle weight of more than 10,000 pounds be equipped with 3-
point safety belts on all seats. In formulating the safety standard, 
the Secretary shall consider the compatibility of 3-point safety belts 
on seats designed according to the current safety mechanism of 
compartmentalization, as designated by the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration.
                                 <all>
```
#### CHECKER CAB MFG. CORPORATION v. CHECKER TAXI CO. et al.

Civ. A. No. 1251.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Jan. 12, 1943.

See, also, 2 F.R.D. 547.

Wm. A. Kneeland, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Damon E. Hall, Charles J. Innes, and Francis P. Garland, all of Boston, Mass., for defendants.

SWEENEY, District Judge.

The defendants, as a defense to this action of contract, have set up the illegality of the contract as being a contract that was void or voidable because of the plaintiff’s violation of the common law and certain pertinent State and Federal statutes. It ap*229pears that the defendants have in mind the Sherman Anti-Trust and Clayton Acts, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 et seq., 12 et seq., and similar State statutes.

The plaintiff has presented a motion for an order to limit the scope of the defendants’ examination in the taking of depositions.

The test whether an agreement or combination is monopolistic or in restraint of trade so as to make it illegal appears to be whether the restraint is shown to have or is intended to have an effect upon prices in the market, or otherwise to deprive purchasers or consumers of the advantages which they derive from free competition. See Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469, 501, 60 S.Ct. 982, 84 L.Ed. 1311, 128 A.L.R. 1044.

It appears from argument of counsel that there were other competitors of the plaintiff in the field of taxicab manufacturing and sales which would seem to indicate that any such agreement or combination on the part of the plaintiff and its subsidiaries was merely a combination amongst themselves to protect their own interests. If such an agreement or combination does not have the effect of fixing prices to the public or lessening competition in the open market, then, of course, it is not a prohibited agreement. But since the defendants have raised the question of the monopolistic character of the plaintiff and its subsidiaries and associates, I cannot deny them the right to make such pertinent inquiries as would tend to establish that point.

The plaintiff alleges that the inquiry is a mere fishing expedition. I cannot characterize it as such at this point in the proceedings.

In the light of all the circumstances, I feel that I must deny the plaintiff’s motion to limit the scope of the examination, but I reserve the right to assess the costs of the examination against the defendants if it develops, either in whole or in part, that their inquiry has turned out to be a mere fishing expedition and of no avail to them in the defense of their case.

As the inquiry seems to be a rather searching one, and since it is being made purely as a matter of defense to an action on a contract, the use of any information developed through the inquiry is limited strictly to the present case.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2599

NELDA A. PERKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES JEROME WARE, Esq.; CHARLES JEROME

WARE, Esq. P.A.; CHARLES JEROME WARE, P.A. and

Associates,

Defendants - Appellees,

versus

HARRY T. ALEXANDER, Honorable,

Third Party Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA93-389-DKC)

Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nelda A. Perkins, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Martinez, ECCLESTON &

WOLF, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting

summary judgment to Defendants in a legal malpractice action. We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Perkins v. Ware, No. CA-93-389-DKC (D. Md. July 28,

1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 11


                           IBAH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                   (unaudited)


<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                                                              FOR THE THREE             FOR THE THREE
                                                               MONTHS ENDED              MONTHS ENDED
 COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY                                       SEPTEMBER 30,             SEPTEMBER 30,
 NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE:                                      1996                      1997
----------------------------------------                  ----------------------    ----------------------
<S>                                                       <C>                       <C>

 Net Income Applicable to Common Stockholders                $            40,000      $            709,000
                                                          ======================    ======================

 Weighted Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding                 18,498,000                23,139,000

 Assumed Conversion of Preferred Stock                                 2,249,000                 2,072,000

 Assumed Conversion of Options and Warrants                            4,336,000                 2,249,000
                                                          ----------------------    ----------------------

                                                                      25,083,000                27,460,000
                                                          ======================    ======================

 Primary Net Income per Share                                $                 -      $               0.03
                                                          ======================    ======================
</TABLE> 

Fully-diluted net income per common share for the three months ended September
30, 1996 and 1997 is the same as primary net income per common share calculated
above. A calculation for the nine month periods ended September 30, 1996 and
1997 has not been presented since the effect of any preferred stock conversion,
and the effect of option and warrant exercises would be anti-dilutive. 

                                     -20-
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4950

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the requirement for biennial 

reports from the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2004

Ms. HERSETH (for herself and Mr. EVANS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the requirement for biennial reports from the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of 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. SIX-YEAR EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENT FOR 

4 BIENNIAL REPORTS. 

5 Section 541(c)(1) of title 38, United States Code, is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2009’’.

Æ
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 quarterly report of Ben Franklin Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glen A. Miller, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (2) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2008                   
|                                          
|/s/ Glen A. Miller                        
|Glen A. Miller                            
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4346

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DERRICK LEON SAMUELS,

Defendant - Appellant,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:08-cr-00183-RBH-1)

Submitted: June 22, 2010 Decided: July 8, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell W. Mace III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States 

Attorney, Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Leon Samuels pleaded guilty to being a felon 

in possession of ammunition, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) and 924(e) (2006). The district court 

enhanced Samuels’s sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act 

(ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), after determining that 

Samuels had three prior convictions for violent felonies. On 

appeal, Samuels contends that the district court erred in 

counting his 1994 conviction under South Carolina law for 

failure to stop for a blue light as a violent felony. 

In United States v. Roseboro, 551 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 

2009), we held that a conviction under South Carolina law for 

failure to stop for a blue light, S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-750(A), 

constituted a crime of violence under the ACCA only in some 

circumstances, namely, intentional violations of the statute. 

Id. at 240. The district court, acting only with the benefit of 

that decision, determined that Samuels’s conviction under the 

statute was intentional because “the indictment does indicate 

the word willfully,” which the district court felt “equate[d] to 

intentional conduct.” Accordingly, the district court concluded 

that Samuels’s conviction counted as an ACCA predicate offense.

We recently held, however, that in light of the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Chambers v. United States, U.S. 

 , 129 S.Ct. 687 (2009), which was issued eight days after 
3

Roseboro, “a violation of South Carolina’s blue light statute . 

. . does not qualify as a predicate offense for purposes of the 

ACCA.” United States v. Rivers, 595 F.3d 558, 560 (4th Cir. 

2010).

Accordingly, the district court erred in counting 

Samuels’s conviction for failure to stop for a blue light as a 

violent felony for purposes of the ACCA. We therefore vacate 

the judgment of the district court and remand the case for 

resentencing consistent with our decision in Rivers. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED
Case 3:10-cr-00640-PGS Document 25 Filed 01/04/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 65
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-12 Filed 06/03/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 134
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-12 Filed 06/03/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 135
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-12 Filed 06/03/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 136
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-12 Filed 06/03/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 137
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-12 Filed 06/03/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 138
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Criminal No. 11-cr—447 (WHW)

v. ORDER

JAMES EDWARD PENDER, RONALD

BASSETT and RUSSELL FLUKER

Defendants.

This matter having been opened to the Court on the joint

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

District of New Jersey (Sharon Ashe, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

appearing) and defendants James Pender (Thomas Ambrosio, Esq.,

appearing), Ronald Bassett (Ronald Rubinstein, Esq., appearing)

and good cause having been shown, the Court makes the following

findings:

1. This case is sufficiently complex, due to the nature of

the prosecution, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate

preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial within the

time limits established by Title 18, United States Code,

section 3161; and
H) (0 C) (0 I-’

c

a

0

a

I-1

0

B ‘0 it it ‘0 it

Y I-’-

C CD N) I-’

0 CD

0 it

0 ‘-3

0

H F’-

a XJ II

Z F’- ‘-3

Z lb

Z CD N) CD it it -3

N (*) iQ Ii

N

H CD CD :‘ it to I-I

N

O it I-’ lb t$

N CD F’-

H I-’ F’- -.3

Z F’-

0

0

Z CD

B

a lb it it

9

m F-’ it it

a

tb., it CD

0 ‘ Ci)

co I—’ lb lb it CD Cl)

0

C

0 tt

a lb -i H) ,-‘-

H

—

a N) it it I. H) it H) CD CD

0 Z’

B

o

D1 I-I Ci) it 11 CD lb Lio F’- CD it

C it lb CD

Z ‘0 it Co

Z’ F-’

0

C CD it

CD CD

H ‘0 it 0’ &i F’- CD Z’ F-’ ()

o (0 0’ II F’- it F’-

C CD

CD

- ‘0 CD F’- Co Z’

0

Z CO CD

0 F’- it Cl)

o

- CD CD

a

B

—

a

< lb 0) lb F’- CD

z F-’ I-i

W ‘<

0

0 it

a

Cl)

H H) it COCD

CD —- ‘-3

C CD it CD

a ‘-i

a it i-i

it F’- CD F’- CD it 0’CD lb

a

B F’- CD ‘< F—’ CD in

a

a

B lb H) lb CD 0’ lb

CD

P

0 H)

0 ‘C H) CD 1 a

0 Ii Fl

0 CD ,-l

0 it

0 1$

0

0

- it

B it H)

a i-’ ii ‘0 Z’ F’- lb

C CD

X

z

Z F’- I-I lb

C lb it

Z N) CD 1.0 ‘0 ‘< CD I-I N)

C

0

C

C

a

0 F’-

0 lb

H

- lb I-c F-

,‘ Z I-’

N) I-’- ‘0

C

0

< it

0 lb CD

lb Cl) N) it N)

0

it ‘ it CD

0 1-’-

0 CO

C

0

0 0)

H

H

H ‘0 it H)

H lb N) N) CD

E

o F-’

0 Cl) CD CD it

a H) it CD

a ‘a- z’ Z’ ‘0 1< ‘.0 CD F’- Cl I-I it it • 0 CD it it Co

C

B ‘-I it II F’- • ‘.0 0’ F’- Z’ F’- CD

0 Z’ CD lb CD lb • ,-1

H

H
1J—11Z Z1ba Pg 4/4

Thomas Anibro o Esq 1

Attorney or James Pender

tinitcd District Tudge

Ronald Rubinstein, !sq.

Attorney for Ronald Bassett
Honorable William H. walls

United States District Judge

Sharon Ashe, A.U.S.A

Thomas Ambrosio, Esq.

Attorney for dames Pender

Ronald Rubinstein,

6L

Esq

Attorney for Ronald Bassett
Exhibit 10.39

 

THE IRON MOUNTAIN COMPANIES SEVERANCE PLAN

SEVERANCE PROGRAM NO. 1

 




 

FIRST AMENDMENT

 




 

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Iron Mountain Incorporated (the “Company”) hereby amends The Iron Mountain Companies Severance Plan Severance Program No. 1 (the “Program”), effective immediately.

 

*   *   *   *   *

 

1.                                      Section 3.3 of the Program shall be amended by adding the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph thereof.

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of any Performance Unit Agreement to the contrary (including, without limitation, the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 3 of Performance Unit Agreement Version 1), vesting acceleration of an Earned Performance Unit hereunder shall not accelerate the date on which the Underlying Shares (as defined in the Performance Unit Agreement) shall be delivered, which date shall remain the initially established Vesting Date (as defined in the Performance Unit Agreement).

 

*   *   *   *   *

 

2.                                      Section 3.4(b) of the Program shall be amended in its entirety as follows.

 

(b)                                 Severance Pay will be paid in equal installments over the Severance Period in accordance with the Covered Employee’s regular payroll intervals prior to the Qualifying Termination and will be subject to applicable withholding.  Payments will commence as of the first regular payroll date following the Qualifying Termination; provided, however, that the applicable revocation period under a Separation and Release Agreement has expired before any payment and within the sixty-day period following Qualifying Termination; and provided, further, that to the extent Section 409A of the Code applies to a payment within the sixty-day period following a Qualifying Termination, such payment(s) will be deferred and paid in a lump sum on the sixtieth day following a Qualifying Termination.  Iron Mountain may also deduct any amounts owed by the Covered Employee to the extent permitted by applicable law.

 

*   *   *   *   *

 

3.                                      Except as hereinabove specifically amended, all provisions of the Program shall continue in full force and effect; provided, however, that the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company hereby reserves the power from time to time to further amend the Program.
BY: 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 83593 

FILE 

GERALDINE TRICE, AN INDIVIDUAL, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING 

CORPORATION, AN ARIZONA 

CORPORATION, 

Res i ondent. 

DEC 1 5 2021 

EUZAB BROWN 

MEE OF S PREME COURT 

BY / 

DEM . CLEW 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This appeal was docketed on October 8, 2021, without payment 

of the requisite filing fee. See NRAP 3(e). That same day, this court issued 

a notice directing appellant to pay the required filing fee or demonstrate 

compliance with NRAP 24 within 10 days. The notice advised that failure 

to comply would result in the dismissal of this appeal. On November 8, 

2021, this court denied appellant's request to transfer and apply the filing 

fees appellant paid for her prior appeal to this appeal. Appellant was 

directed to pay the filing fee or demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 

within 14 days. To date, appellant has not complied. Accordingly, this 

appeal is dismissed. See NRAP 3(a)(2).1 

It is so ORDERED. 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

1On December 6, 2021, appellant untimely submitted another 

document asking this court to apply the fees in her prior appeal to this 

appeal. In light of the prior denial of the same request and this order, no 

action will be taken on this document. 

21-3.s-7?-6 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

10) 1947 4.11Wis> 
cc: Hon. Carli Lynn Kierny, District Judge 

Geraldine Trice 

Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.\Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

<-16Rit. 

2
**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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of China Healthcare
      Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      Steven Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. 
      The Report fully complies with the 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 operations of the Company.


/s/
                Steven WangSteven
                Wang, Chief Financial OfficerMay
                14, 2008
# cpsaat36
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Syndication Net.com, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Mrutyunjaya S. Chittavajhula., Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 Company.


Dated:   April 15, 2005

                                        /s/ Mrutyunjaya S. Chittavajhula.
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Mrutyunjaya S. Chittavajhula.
                                        Chief Financial Officer






                                       23