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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 883 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 883

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to adjust the fee for 
collecting specimens for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests under the 
                           Medicare Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2003

  Mr. English (for himself and Mr. Deutsch) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
  in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to adjust the fee for 
collecting specimens for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests under the 
                           Medicare Program.

    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 ``Medicare Laboratory Services Access 
Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT IN MEDICARE LABORATORY SPECIMEN COLLECTION FEE.

    (a) In General.--Section 1833(h) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395l(h)) is amended--
                    (1) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ``in the 
                amount specified in paragraph (8)'' after ``a nominal 
                fee''; and
                    (2) by adding at the end the following new 
                paragraph:
    ``(8) The amount specified in this paragraph, for the nominal fee 
under paragraph (3)(A) for tests performed in--
            ``(A) 2004, is $5.42; or
            ``(B) a subsequent year, is the amount specified in this 
        paragraph for tests performed in the preceding year adjusted by 
        the annual percentage increase or decrease in the Consumer 
        Price Index for All Urban Consumers (United States city 
        average).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to fees for tests performed on or after January 1, 2004.
                                 <all>
```
**UNITED      STATES**

**SECURITIES      AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington,      D.C. 20549**

**CURRENT      REPORT**

**Pursuant      to Section 13 or 15(d) of**

**The      Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

|                        Date                of                Report:           | August                31, 2007 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                         (Date                of earliest event reported): | August                31, 2007 |

**Commission      File No. 1-14588**

**NORTHEAST      BANCORP**

| Maine                                                         | 01-0425066                                          |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| (State                or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS                Employer Identification Number) |
| 500                Canal StreetLewiston,                Maine | 04240                                               |
| (Address                of principal executive offices)       | (Zip                Code)                           |

**Item      3.01**

**Item      8.01**

**Item      9.01**

| (c)    | Exhibits                   |                                                                                             |
|--------|----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Exhibits                No | Description                                                                                      |
|   |    99.1     | Press                Release, dated August 31, 2007 regarding switching to                NASDAQ |

**SIGNATURE**

| Date:                September 6, 2007 | **NORTHEAST                BANCORP**By:  /s/                James D. Delamater            James                D. Delamater            President                and Chief Executive Officer |
|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-3775.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2013.*

Decided April 10, 2013.

*612Emily Kathleen Cremeans, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Hammond, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Benjamin Johnson, White Deer, PA, pro se.

Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge and MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge.

*

 This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f)

Order

Ever since his conviction for crack-cocaine offenses, Benjamin Johnson has been seeking a lower sentence.

Last July we rejected his contention that the retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines implementing the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 authorized the district court to cut his sentence. Johnson lost because anyone who distributed more than 8.4 kilograms of cocaine remains in the highest offense level and does not benefit from the changes. *United States v. Johnson,*No. 12-1617, 2012 WL 3105216 (7th Cir. July 9, 2012) (nonprecedential disposition).

The district judge then took up Johnson’s “motion to supplement” his original motion for a reduction, and denied this too. Johnson’s motion had been filed only two days after the district court’s original decision and therefore suspended its finality. *United States v. Rollins,*607 F.3d 500 (7th Cir.2010). This means that appeal No. 12-1617 should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, because the district court’s decision was not final — something no one pointed out in appeal No. 12-1617. But the current appeal is unquestionably from a final decision.

The current appeal fails for the same substantive reason as No. 12-1617, which we incorporate without repeating what we said there. Johnson believes that a motion under a retroactive Guideline requires the district judge to perform what amounts to a complete resentencing, recalculating from scratch the amount of cocaine for which he is responsible. We held otherwise last July, pointing out that *Dillon v. United States,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010), had rejected an argument that a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) permits a district judge to reexamine findings made in the original sentencing. More recently, we have reiterated that, in acting on a motion under a retroactive Guideline, the district court must apply all of the calculations made at the time of the original sentence and change *only*the Guideline tables that were reduced retroactively. *United States v. Wren,*706 F.3d 861 (7th Cir.2013). Given *Dillon*and *Wren,*the district court’s decision must be

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Principal Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ofSection 1350, as Created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

The undersigned officerof Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’sknowledge, that:

 (i)                                  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company forthe quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 (ii)                               the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

Date:       November 7, 2006

 
|   | By:    | **/s/ R.  Todd Joyce**                                    |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | R. Todd Joyce                                             |
|   |   | Vice President –  Corporate Controller and Treasurer |
|   |   | (Principal  Financial Officer)                            |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely toaccompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andis not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whethermade before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporationlanguage in such filing.

----
**OFFICE OF**  **THE AnORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

HonorableCharlesR. Xartln CountyAuditor HarrisonCounty hrshall, Texas.

Your request for op f'ully

**Oonaidored** by this dope quest as follows: reoeitedand of0 

### rr0myour

lontis sleet and on* Road and Eridge Dolowiry manner: The lopsea mother me

Would it be a violationof aw for the County Commissionereleot 

### to tote ror, appoint,or oonflrm the appointment or an employee of the Road and Bridge Department of the CotUW who is a second 

### oousin by 

### ooneangulnlty, and one who is a third cousin to the oommis**sioner** by Oonsanguinlt~.

**“**

**. .**  **. .:**  **’ oare**  **re-**EonorablaCharleeR. Martin, Pwa 2



### Art1414 432, 

### v4m0n’o b0t8t0a Te~48 

### P404~c0d0, reads am followat

*wo oftioar oi this stats or any oftlear of a8iy 

### blatriot,

ooauty, oity graoinot, aohool dlmtrlot, otothar arrnlolpelaub&lviJonof this Stak,or may **otiiser** or amabar 

### or may 8ta&a, dlatrlot,aouatf, oltr, sohqcd **Uatriot** o*,ethar **mudolp41 b0u4,**  **00 Ja&ao~ot**  **my oorirt,**  **oruwa br**  

### or 

### rmd8r **author, itr**  **Of** 84 6SWl-d or S **aat** amber **06** tha **Leg18 !a**  l Oi& .&U Oi bhla State, Or **tqr0 ah4ll**  **appoint,** or Yota tu, 

### or aollfla the~appofOfw*m $0 any ottioe,



### a.~ 0;. 8OObiOm3

n~~'rs~b,'md

535. Opti& ;o.+&i ii this ~aputmant holds that 

### tha rplommt by om eomrty owmlaalonar ot tha neph8u of anotherHonorableCharles R. Martin, Page 3

oounty oommlsalonerto be paid out of county fundswould be in violationoi Artlola 432 or the Penal Cod4 0r this state.

OpinionNo. O-556 of this departm4ntholda that It would ba a ~IolatIoaor Art1014 432, Penal Oode or Texas, ror a oouuty 40afaiaalon4r 0r on4 pr4olnotof a oouaty to appoint as overaaor the nephew or th4 ooamisnionarof anotherpr4oInot or the oounty, or ta hire a relativewIthIn the prohibiteddsgr44 of another oosnlsaloner of the oounty to 

### repair road maahlnery

### of tha oounty 

### rrhen 1x354 was to be 

### paid

out 

### ot'

oounty 

### runda. OpinionHo. O-2925 of this departakeat also holds lllagal the eaploymtmt by 

### 050 oounty oonmlaalonerof the brother-in-law

or another county oommIsaIoaarror road 

### work to be paid out of the road and bridge ruada ot tha oouaty.

Under 

### t!14 **faots statad**  **in qaaatlon**  **Ao.** 1 the **aop** mlenioner and #a amployarare relatedwithin the bird dagree. W4 ammum tram 

### yourlatter that thla relation la by ooaaaagu5~ 

### Ity i if thla assumptionb4 oorr4ot 

### it la our opinion that 

### the 4s~ oymnt **would be**  1114galand **your question**  ahotild be anaw0raa in tha arrlmaitl~a.

In aamer to your **twaond question**  it la our oplnIon that th4 4mplopmat of tha **aaaond aoualn,**  who Is relatedafthln the third days8 to the oounty aosumlsalonsr **by** eonsangulnity* would be illegal, **but that**  **tha** 4laployarsnt or 

### tdlsoounty oommiaalonarta third eousln,ralatadto him rithln the fourth **dagraa by**  **ooneangtlinity, would**  **not ba**  lllogal. Vex7 truly yours A'lTORNEY

QEBew OF TEXAS

!Yn. J. Panning Aaalstau

t
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Focus Enhancements, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Gary L. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

 
| /s/Gary  L. Williams |   |
|----------------------|--------|

 

 

Gary L. WilliamsChief Financial OfficerMay 15, 2006

 

----
Report of Independent Accountants


To the Shareholders and
Board of Directors of
Capital Income Builder, Inc.

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of Capital
Income Builder, Inc. (the "Fund") for the year ended October 31, 2002, we
considered its internal control, including control activities for safeguarding
securities, in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of
expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to comply with the
requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and maintaining
internal control. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by
management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of
controls. Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the
entity's objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes that
are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles. Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or fraud may occur
and not be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of internal control to
future periods is subject to the risk that it may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation may
deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily disclose all matters
in internal control that might be material weaknesses under standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A
material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more
of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the
risk that misstatements caused by errors or fraud in amounts that would be
material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not
be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of
performing their assigned functions. However, we noted no matters involving
internal control and its operation, including controls for safeguarding
securities, that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined above as of
October 31, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of
Directors, management and the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not
intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified
parties.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
December 2, 2002
DEL WEBB CORPORATION

                  SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN NO. 2

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 5


     The Del Webb Corporation  Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan No. 2 (the
"Plan") is hereby amended as follows, effective as of July 22, 1999:

     Section 2.1 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

2.1  ELIGIBILITY AND PARTICIPATION

     (a)  ELIGIBILITY.  Eligibility  to participate in the Plan shall be limited
          to key management  personnel approved by the CEO.  Participants in the
          Del Webb Corporation  Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan No. 1 are
          not eligible to participate in this Plan.

     (b)  PARTICIPATION.  An  employee's  participation  in the  Plan  shall  be
          effective  upon   notification  of  the  employee  of  eligibility  to
          participate   and  completion  by  the  employee  of  a  Participation
          Agreement.

     (c)  PARTICIPANT.  "Participant" means any individual who has satisfied the
          conditions  of  this  Section  and  includes  any   individual   whose
          employment  status has terminated or changed under Section 2.2 and who
          continues to have vested benefit rights.

     Except as  otherwise  provided  above,  the  provisions  of the Plan  shall
continue in full force and effect.


                                        DEL WEBB CORPORATION


                                        By:
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Robertson C. Jones

                                        Its: Senior Vice President
f10k2012ex10viii_neonode.htm


Exhibit 10.8


 



















Neonode Inc.


2006 Equity Incentive Plan


 


Option Grant Notice


 







Neonode Inc. (the “ Company ”), pursuant to its 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (the “ Plan ”), hereby grants to Optionholder an option to purchase the number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock set forth below. This option is subject to all of the terms and conditions as set forth herein and in the Option Agreement, the Plan, and the Notice of Exercise, all of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein in their entirety.


 



	
Optionholder:

	  
	
Date of Grant:

	  
	
Vesting Commencement Date:

	  
	
Number of Shares Subject to Option:

	  
	
Exercise Price (Per Share):

	  
	
Total Exercise Price:

	  
	
Expiration Date:

	  





     



	
Type of Grant:

	
 ̈ Incentive Stock Option 1

	
 ̈ Nonstatutory Stock Option







 



	
Exercise Schedule :

	
1/3 th of the shares vest and become exercisable on the date of grant; the balance of the shares vest and become exercisable in a series of twenty-four (24) successive equal monthly installments measured from the date of grant.













	
Payment:

	
By one or a combination of the following items (described in the Option Agreement):







 



	  	
ý

	
By cash or check


	  	
ý

	
Pursuant to a Regulation T Program if the Shares are publicly traded


	  	
ý

	
By delivery of already-owned shares if the Shares are publicly traded


	  	
 ̈

	
By net exercise 2







 


Additional Terms/Acknowledgements: The undersigned Optionholder acknowledges receipt of, and understands and agrees to, this Option Grant Notice, the Option Agreement, and the Plan. Optionholder further acknowledges that as of the Date of Grant, this Option Grant Notice, the Option Agreement, and the Plan set forth the entire understanding between Optionholder and the Company regarding the acquisition of stock in the Company and supersede all prior oral and written agreements on that subject with the exception of (i) options previously granted and delivered to Optionholder under the Plan, and (ii) the following agreements only:


 



	
Other Agreements:

	  
	  	  





   


1 If this is an Incentive Stock Option, it (plus other outstanding Incentive Stock Options) cannot be first exercisable for more than $100,000 in value (measured by exercise price) in any calendar year. Any excess over $100,000 is a Nonstatutory Stock Option.


2 An Incentive Stock Option may not be exercised by a net exercise arrangement.


 




  





  











  






 



	Neonode Inc.	  	Optionholder:
	 	  	  	 	  
	By: 	
   

	  	 	  
	 	
  Signature

	  	 	
  Signature


	Title:	
  

	  	Date:  	
  


	Date:	
    

	  	 	  





 


Attachments : Option Agreement, 2006 Equity Incentive Plan, and Notice of Exercise
|                                       |   | State ofIncorporation |   | Percent OwnedBy Registrant |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
| Albany      Public Markets, Inc.           |   | New      York              |   |                                 | 100    | % |
| Dutch      Valley Food Company, Inc.       |   | Pennsylvania               |   |                                 | 100    | % |
| King’s      Supermarkets, Inc.       |   | Pennsylvania               |   |                                 | 100    | % |
| Martin's      Farm Market, Inc.            |   | Pennsylvania               |   |                                 | 100    | % |
| Shamrock      Wholesale Distributors, Inc. |   | Pennsylvania               |   |                                 | 100    | % |
| SuperPetz,      LLC                        |   | Pennsylvania               |   |                                 | 100    | % |
| Weis      Transportation, Inc.             |   | Pennsylvania               |   |                                 | 100    | % |
| WMK      Financing, Inc.                   |   | Delaware                   |   |                                 | 100    | % |

----
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ANDRES TERRAZAS,

Appellant,

v.

BESAI TERRAZAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 00159

- CV

Appeal from the

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2015DCM2535)

CORRECTED J UDGMENT

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We

further order that this decision be certified below for observ ance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2015.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 981 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 981

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 27, 2003

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 141 Erie Street in Linesville, Pennsylvania, as the ``James R. Merry 
                             Post Office''.

    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 141 
Erie Street in Linesville, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated 
as the ``James R. Merry Post Office''.

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 ``James R. Merry Post 
Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 26, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```