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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 738 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 738

 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that fill 
                 material cannot be comprised of waste.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2003

 Mr. Pallone (for himself, Mr. Shays, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Ms. Baldwin, 
   Mr. DeFazio, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Holt, Mr. 
 Honda, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Leach, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Wexler, 
Ms. Schakowsky, Mrs. Capps, and Mr. Smith of Washington) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that fill 
                 material cannot be comprised of waste.

    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 ``Clean Water Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF FILL MATERIAL.

    Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(24) Fill material.--The term `fill material' means any 
        pollutant which replaces portions of the waters of the United 
        States with dry land or which changes the bottom elevation of a 
        water body for any purpose. The term does not include any 
        pollutant discharged into the water primarily to dispose of 
        waste.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Frederick D. HOLMES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-30645

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Helina S. Dayries, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Frederick Angelo Menner, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*322Rebecca Louise Hudsmith, Esq., Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Frederick D. Holmes, White Deer, PA, pro se.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Frederick D. Holmes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*886 U.S. 788, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Holmes’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cra. R. 42.2. Holmes’s request for appointment of new counsel is DENIED. *See United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 560 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 560

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain manufacturing equipment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2003

  Mr. DeMint introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain manufacturing equipment.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking heading 
9902.84.83 and inserting in numerical sequence the following new 
heading:

      

``    9902.84.83    Machine tools     Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     for working                                                             31/2005          ''
                     wire of iron or                                                                           .
                     steel certified
                     for use in
                     production of
                     radial tires,
                     designed for
                     off-the-highway
                     use, and for
                     use on a rim
                     measuring 63.5
                     cm or more in
                     diameter
                     (provided for
                     in subheading
                     4011.20.10,
                     4011.61.00,
                     4011.63.00,
                     4011.69.00,
                     4011.92.00,
                     4011.94.40, or
                     4011.99.45),
                     numerically
                     controlled, or
                     parts thereof
                     (provided for
                     in heading
                     8463)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert L. Howard-Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of Occam Networks,
Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Occam Networks, 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;



|                   |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 19, 2006 |  |  |  |                                      
|                   |  | 
|                   |  |  |  | /s/ Robert L. Howard-Anderson        
|                   |  |  |  | Robert L. Howard-Anderson            
|                   |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
MTRN-EX10bb_2012.12.31




Exhibit  10bb
MATERION CORPORATION
FIRST AMENDMENT 
TO THE 
2006 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR EQUITY PLAN 
(AS AMENDED AND RESTATED AS OF MAY 4, 2011)
This First Amendment to the 2006 Non-employee Director Equity Plan (As Amended and Restated as of May 4, 2011) (this “Amendment”) is made as of February 6, 2013 by the Governance and Organization Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Materion Corporation, an Ohio corporation (the “Company”).  This Amendment is operationally effective as June 1, 2012 as described herein.


WHEREAS, on March 2, 2011, the Board approved and adopted, subject to the approval of the Company’s shareholders at the Company’s 2011 annual meeting of shareholders, the 2006 Non-employee Director Equity Plan (As Amended and Restated as of May 4, 2011) (the “2006 Director Plan”);


WHEREAS, on May 4, 2011, the Company’s shareholders approved the 2006 Director Plan;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Company to amend the 2006 Director Plan, operationally effective as of June 1, 2012, by the Amendment to revise the method of crediting dividend equivalents on Deferred Stock Units (as defined in the 2006 Director Plan) credited to participants’ accounts under the 2006 Director Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Committee may amend the 2006 Director Plan under Section 12 of the 2006 Director Plan to make the change described above.
NOW, THEREFORE, the 2006 Director Plan is hereby amended by this Amendment as follows:
1.Amendment to Section 8(c) of the 2006 Director Plan.  Section 8(c) of the 2006 Director Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:
“Each Participant will be credited with dividend equivalents in an amount equal to the amount of any cash dividends declared and paid by the Company on the Common Shares underlying the Deferred Stock Units in the Participant’s account during the deferral period.  Such dividend equivalents, which shall likewise be credited with dividend equivalents, shall be deferred until the end of the deferral period for the Deferred Stock Units with respect to which the dividend equivalents were credited and shall be paid out in Common Shares.”







2.    Miscellaneous.  Except as amended by this Amendment, the 2006 Director Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.  Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment have the respective meanings ascribed thereto in the 2006 Director Plan.
Exhibit 10.19

	
 
    
	

    	
 
    	
 

 

 

Harry Somerdyk

Executive   Vice President &

Chief   Human Resources

and   Communications Officer
    


 

January 24, 2012

 

David Whitmore

Thurnets

Lower Moushill Lane

Milford

Surrey,  GU8 5JX  UK

 

Dear David,

 

Further to the letter dated & signed 16 December 2011 from Mike Connors and the Change of Control Agreement entered into on the same date, I am writing to clarify the position with respect to your employment agreement with Compass Limited.

 

From 1 January 2012 you will fulfill two roles within ISG:

 

·                  Vice Chairman

·                  President, Americas

 

Your role as President, Americas will be based at the company’s headquarters in Stamford, CT and will be subject to a separate employment letter.

 

Your role as Vice Chairman will involve significant travel and will be based from the UK. This will result in the following changes to your employment agreement with Compass Limited:

 

1.              Your corporate title remains ISG Vice Chairman.

2.              You will report directly to Mike Connors, Chairman and CEO of ISG.

3.              On an annual basis it is anticipated that you will devote approximately 37% of your time to the Vice Chairman role with the balance devoted to the President, Americas role under separate employment arrangement.

4.              Your 2012 annual fixed salary for the Vice Chairman’s role will be £112,900. You will also be entitled to participate in the ISG Global Variable Incentive Plan (“GVIP”) with a target payment of £84,800 in 2012. The payment of any GVIP amount will be subject to the rules of the plan provided to you separately.

5.              Any pension entitlement in 2012 will be based on your new UK fixed salary.

6.              For 2012, you will be entitled to the reimbursement of reasonable external advisory fees with respect to the preparation of your annual UK tax returns.

7.              The annual leave entitlement with respect to the Vice Chairman role will be 9 days.

 

All other terms of your employment agreement remain unchanged. Assuming the above is consistent with your understanding based on previous discussions, I would appreciate your signing and returning an executed copy at your convenience. As always, please feel free to call with any questions.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

	
 
    	
Agreed   and Acknowledged by:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
David Whitmore
    


 

	
Information Services Group, Inc.
    	
t:   203 517 3100
    
	
Two   Stamford Plaza
    	
f:   203 517 3199
    
	
281   Tresser Boulevard, Stamford, CT 06901
    	
www.informationsg.com
Exhibit 10.3






Exhibit 10.3


Summary of the principal terms of the contract for state-owned construction land use
right assignment between Wuxi Bureau of Land and Resource and Finisar Optical 
Communications Technology (Wuxi) Co., Ltd.
(Original document in Chinese)




Beginning on March 15, 2012, Finisar Optical Communications Technology (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., as Assignee, entered into a contract for state-owned construction land use right assignment with the Wuxi Bureau of Land and Resource, as Assignor, regarding property located at South of Wudu Road and East of Hong Ming Company, Wuxi, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.  The initial term of the agreement is for 50 years, starting on March 15, 2012.  The agreement allows Assignee to make application to the Assignor to renew or extend the agreement not less than one year prior to the expiration of the initial term.  The total assigned space is 49,952 square meters.  Assignee paid a one time assignment fee of CNY 37,364,300.


The ownership of the assigned land belongs to the People's Republic of China.  Assignee has rights of occupancy, use, earnings and disposal in accordance with laws and shall be entitled to construct buildings, structures and their auxiliary facilities by making use of the land.


The Agreement also contains provisions covering transfer, ease and mortgage of the State-Owned Construction Land Use Right, expiration of use duration, force majeure, liabilities for breach of the contract, governing laws, and dispute resolution.
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 Form 10-QSB of DirectView, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michele Ralston,
Acting 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.




/s/Michele Ralston
Michele Ralston
Acting Chief Financial Officer
May 16, 2005

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
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.


<page>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brien T. HILLS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-30296

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Helina S. Dayries, Robert William Piedrahita, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gwendolyn Kay Brown, Attorney, Parish Attorney’s Office, for East Baton Rouge Parish, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Brien T. Hills has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. *323738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Hills has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 11, 2024.

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, June 11, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24D0356. IN THE INTEREST OF G. A. T., A CHILD (FATHER) .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

23JV00116
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,547,352
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,079,625
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    706,459
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,450,597
<PP&E>                                       1,815,877
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,298,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,207,762
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,736,124
<COMMON>                                           714
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,298,605
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,314,377
<CGS>                                          569,667
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,525,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              96,880
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,279,686)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,279,686)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
VII 

Private Calendar No. 6 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 710 

[Report No. 108–776] 

For the relief of Mrs. Florence Narusewicz of Erie, Pennsylvania. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2003 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

NOVEMBER 17, 2004 

Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be printed 

A BILL 

For the relief of Mrs. Florence Narusewicz of Erie, 

Pennsylvania. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF VETERANS BENEFIT AUTHOR4 IZED. 

5 Notwithstanding sections 5121(a) and 5122 of title 

6 38, United States Code, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

7 shall pay to Mrs. Florence Narusewicz of Erie, Pennsyl-
2 

•HR 710 RH 

1 vania, the sum of $28,000, representing the amount of 

2 an award for a disability incurred by her husband Leo E. 

3 Narusewicz during active military service in World War 

4 II, which was paid to Mr. Narusewicz in two installment 

5 checks, neither of which could be deposited or cashed by 

6 Mrs. Narusewicz after his death. 

Private Calendar No. 6 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 710 

[Report No. 108

–776] 

A BILL 

For the relief of Mrs. Florence Narusewicz of Erie, 

Pennsylvania. 

NOVEMBER 17, 2004 

Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
#### In the Matter of Jason W. Longton, Jr., Respondent, v Village of Corinth et al., Appellants.

[853 NYS2d 224]

Lahtinen, J.

Petitioner was suspended from his position as a police officer with respondent Village of Corinth and, following a hearing, he was terminated. He commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking various relief and, in June 2006, Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the resolution under which petitioner was terminated and remanded the matter for a new hearing. Such relief was granted because respondents had failed to make a proper record of the hearing. After Supreme Court had annulled and remanded the matter, petitioner sought to be reinstated and receive back pay pending the new hearing. Respondents refused, prompting this second CPLR article 78 proceeding. Respondents contended that Supreme Court had necessarily decided the issue of restoration and back pay against petitioner in the earlier proceeding. Supreme Court rejected this contention and granted the petition to the extent of awarding back pay subject to certain setoffs and continuing petitioner’s pay until such time as he is either duly terminated or reinstated. Respondents appeal.

Respondents argue on appeal that since a request for back pay was included among the many requests for relief in the original petition and Supreme Court failed to address that issue in its June 2006 decision, such issue was necessarily decided *996against petitioner. In support of this argument, respondents rely on the general proposition that a court’s failure to rule on part of a motion “is deemed a denial of that part of the . . . motion” *(Brown v U.S. Vanadium Corp.,*198 AD2d 863, 864 [1993]; *see Love v New York State Thruway Auth.,*17 AD3d 1000, 1002 [2005]; *Barrett v Huff,*6 AD3d 1164, 1167-1168 [2004]). This general rule had its origin in cases involving the failure of a trial court to rule on a motion during trial *(see People v Bailey,*58 NY2d 272, 275 [1983]; *Brenan v Moore-McCormack Lines,*3 AD2d 1006, 1006 [1957]; *see also Motyl v Motyl,*35 AD2d 1051, 1052 [1970]). The current case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding where Supreme Court did not finally resolve the matter but sent it back for a new hearing on a proper record. There is no reason under such circumstances to consider all of the various issues that were not addressed (and which did not need to be addressed to provide the relief granted) to have been decided adversely to the party advancing such issues. Moreover, Supreme Court thereafter specifically explained that it had not considered the issue of back pay.

To the extent that respondents are still asserting that collateral estoppel applies, this assertion is without merit since the issue of back pay was neither decided nor essential to the decision in the first petition *(see e.g. Church v New York State Thruway Auth.,*16 AD3d 808, 810-811 [2005]).

Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.