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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3463 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3463

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt student workers 
 for purposes of determining a higher education institution's employer 
                   health care shared responsibility.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2016

  Mr. Johnson introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt student workers 
 for purposes of determining a higher education institution's employer 
                   health care shared responsibility.

    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 ``Student Worker Exemption Act of 
2016''.

SEC. 2. STUDENT WORKERS EXEMPTED FROM DETERMINATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION 
              INSTITUTION'S EMPLOYER HEALTH CARE SHARED RESPONSIBILITY.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 4980H of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), 
and (7) as paragraphs (6), (7), and (8), respectively, and by inserting 
after paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Exception for student workers.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Services rendered as a student 
                worker to an eligible educational institution (as 
                defined in section 25A(f)(2)) shall not be taken into 
                account under this section as service provided by an 
                employee.
                    ``(B) Student worker.--For purposes of this 
                paragraph, the term `student worker' means, with 
                respect to any eligible educational institution (as so 
                defined), any individual who--
                            ``(i) is employed by such institution, and
                            ``(ii) is a student enrolled at the 
                        institution and is carrying a full-time 
                        academic workload, as determined by the 
                        institution, under a standard applicable to all 
                        students enrolled in a particular educational 
                        program.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to months beginning after December 31, 2015.
                                 <all>
```
H. Res. 309

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 9, 2003.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order

to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 438) to increase the

amount of student loans that may be forgiven for teachers in

mathematics, science, and special education. The bill shall be

considered as read for amendment. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour

of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Education and the Workforce; (2) the further

amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules

accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative

George Miller of California or his designee, which shall be in

order without intervention of any point of order or demand
2

•HRES 309 EH

for division of the question, shall be considered as read, and

shall be separately debatable for ten minutes equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3)

one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 10.3

 



 

September 10,2012

 

CONFIDENTIAL

 

COMBIMATRIX CORPORATION

310 Goddard,Suite 150

Irvine,CA 92618

 

Attention:  Judd Jessup

 

RE: Addendum to Engagement Letter dated July 13, 2012

 

Dear Mr. Jessup:

 

This letter shall serve as an addendum to the engagement agreement (the “Engagement Letter’’)  entered into by and between C. K. Cooper & Company, Inc. (“CKCC’’)  and CombiMatrix Corporation (the “Company”)  dated July 13, 2012.

 

The term under the Engagement Letter shall be changed to an expiration date of October 10, 2012 instead of July 31, 2012 with the option of 45-day extension (September 10, 2012) as it currently reads.  The effect of this change will be to extend the period of time under which the other terms and conditions of the Engagement Agreement shall be in force between CKCC and the Company.

 

If this addendum is acceptable, please acknowledge by signing below No other terms or conditions of the Engagement Agreement are being modified as a result of the execution of this addendum.

 

	
 
    	
Very truly yours,
    
	
 
    	
C.K. COOPER &   COMPANY, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Alexander G.   Montano
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Alexander G. Montano
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Managing Director
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Accepted and agreed to   as of the date first written above:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
COMBIMATRIX   CORPORATION
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ Judd Jessup
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Judd Jessup
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Chief Executive Officer   & President
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

18300 Von Karman Ave., Suite 700 · Irvine, California 92612

TEL: 949 477-9300 · FAX: 949 477-9211 ·  TOLL-FREE: 888 477-9301 · administration@ckcooper.com
Exhibit 32.1

OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

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 Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jackson E. Reasor, President and Chief Executive 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:

(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.



|                   |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 11, 2011 |  |                                      
|                   |  | /s/ JACKSON E. REASOR                
|                   |  | Jackson E. Reasor                    
|                   |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  | (Principal executive officer)        



30
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS APPEARING IN THE FORM 10-Q TO
WHICH THIS SCHEDULE IS AN EXHIBIT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      19,215,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,339,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,920,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,033,000
<PP&E>                                      20,888,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,908,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,154,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,052,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        84,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,113,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,154,000
<SALES>                                     15,900,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,761,000
<CGS>                                       11,965,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,749,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               377,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             563,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,543,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   587,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            956,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   956,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**     The undersigned executive officer of Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. (the “Registrant”) herebycertifies that the Registrant’s Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2006 fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Registrant.       /s/ Douglas J. Timmerman Douglas J. Timmerman, Chairman of the Board, President    and Chief Executive Officer  August 7, 2006**Note:**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 has been provided to Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. and will be retained by AnchorBanCorp Wisconsin Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
38
Exhibit 99.2



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 Annual Report of Wisconsin Gas Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Paul Donovan, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.

/s/ Paul Donovan
Paul Donovan
Chief Financial Officer
February 28, 2003

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 10.13  BASE
SALARY AND TARGET BONUS
FOR THE NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS  The following table sets forth the current annual base
salaries and target bonuses of the Chief Executive Officer and the other named
executive officers of Zale Corporation (the Company).  Name
  
  Base
  Salary
  
  Target
  Bonus %Neal L. Goldberg 
  Chief Executive Officer
  
  $
  1,025,000
  
  125
  %Theo Killion 
  President
  
  $
  595,000
  
  75
  %Matthew W. Appel 
  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
  
  $
  400,000
  
  75
  %William Acevedo 
  Executive Vice President and Chief Stores Officer
  
  $
  450,000
  
  75
  %Gil Hollander 
  Executive Vice President, Chief Sourcing and Supply Chain Officer
  
  $
  475,000
  
  60
  %  For additional information regarding the compensation
of the Companys executive officers, please refer to the information under the
headings Executive Compensation in the Companys definitive Proxy Statement
on Schedule 14A, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). I H / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J UA N M I GU EL ALCARAZM ARTINEZ, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 05- 76692 A ge nc yN o. A 035- 476- 149 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jua n M i gue l A l c a r a z - M a rt i ne z , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order a ff i rm i ng an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s ( “ IJ ”) re m ov alorder and denyi ng hi s app l i cat i on for a 

# FI LED DE C 07 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSI H / Res ea r ch 05- 76692 2 § 2 1 2 ( c ) w a iv e ro f

in a d m is s ab ility . O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w de novo c l a i m s of due pr oc e s s vi ol a t i ons i n i m m i gr a t i on p r o c e e d in g s , Sa n c h ez - Cr u zv . I NS , 2 5 5 F . 3 d7 7 5 , 7 7 9 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) , a n dwe d is m is s in p a rt an dd e n yin p a rt th e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the B IA ’ s di sc re t i on ary deni alof A l cara zM a rtin e z ’s ap p lic a tio n f o ra§ 2 1 2 ( c ) w a iv e ro f

in a d m is s ab ility . See 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ; Pa lm a - Ro j a s v . I NS , 24 4 F . 3d 11 91 , 11 92 (9th C i r. 20 01 ) ( per c u r ia m ) . A lc a r a z - M a rtin e z ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e B I A v io la te dh is du e p r o c e s s r ig h ts bydi s r e ga r di ng hi s e vi de nc e of har ds hi p and m i s appl y i ng the l aw t o the f a c t s of hi s c a s e i s nots upport e d bythe r e c or d a nd doe s nota m ountt o ac ol or abl e due p r o c e s s c la im . See M

art i nez-R osas v. G on zales , 4 2 4 F .3 d9 2 6 , 9 3 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . C o n tr a ryto A lc a r a z - M a rtin e z ’s c o n te n tio n , th e B I A d idn o t e n g a g e in im p e rm is s ib le f

a c t- f in d in g in th e c o u r s e o f

d e c id in g h is ap p e a l. C

f . B rezi l i en v. H older , 56 5 F . 3d 11 63 , 11 71 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). T h e B I A w a s n o t r e q u ir e dto d e f e rto the IJ ’ s det erm i nat i on thatA l cara z- M art i nez w arrant ed a grantof § 2 12 (c ) r el i ef as am a tte ro f

d is c r e tio n . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 1(d)(3)(i i ) ( “ T he B oard m ayre vi ew qu es t i on s of . . . di sc re t i on . . de no vo . ”) . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3475 

To delay the amendments to rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2016 

Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. DAINES, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. LEE, Mr. FRANKEN, 

Ms. BALDWIN, and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To delay the amendments to rule 41 of the Federal Rules 

of Criminal Procedure. 

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 ‘‘Review the Rule Act 

5 of 2016’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the order en8 tered by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 

9 28, 2016— 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3475 IS

1 (1) effective on the date of enactment of this 

2 Act, rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Proce3 dure is amended to read as it read on November 17, 

4 2016; and 

5 (2) the proposed amendments to rule 41 of the 

6 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure set forth in 

7 such order shall take effect on July 1, 2017. 

8 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Notwithstanding the amend9 ment made by subsection (a)(1), for any warrant issued 

10 under rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 

11 during the period beginning on December 1, 2016, and 

12 ending on the date of enactment of this Act, such rule 

13 41, as was in effect on the date on which the warrant 

14 was issued, shall apply with respect to the warrant. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 37 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 09 -m d- 02 03 6- JLK, 1 :0 9- cv -2 36 32 -J LK
InRe: CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT LITIGAT ION

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ JEFF REY BUFFINGTON, JEANETTE BUFFINGTON, on be ha lf o f th em se lv es an d a ll ot he rs si m il arl y si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff

s- App el le es , ve rs us SUNTRUST BANKS, INC., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 28 , 20 11 )Befo re PRYOR an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d WATKINS, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Afte r or al arg um en t in th is cas e, th e Uni te d St at es Supr em e Co urt de ci de d AT& T Mob il it

y LLC v. Co nc ep ti on , No. 09 -8 93 , 20 11 W L 15 61 95 6 (Ap ril 27 , 20 11 ). T he di st ric t co urt’s or de r de nyin g th e m ot io n to co m pe l arb it rat io n is VACATED, and th is cas e is rem an de d to th e di st ric t co urt fo r reco ns id erat io n in li gh t of th e Supr em e Co urt’s o pi ni on . VACATED AN D REMANDED. 1

Honora ble W. Keith Watkins, United States District J udg e fo r the Middle District of * Alabama , sitti ngby

desig nation. This is an unlimi ted re mand. 1 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6733
JOE LEE FULGHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WESTBROOK J. PARKER, Honorable Judge; JUDGE, ???; JUDGE, ???, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:05-cv-00401-JBF) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 28, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe Lee Fulgham, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Joe Lee Fulgham appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fulgham v. Parker, No. 2:05-cv-00401-JBF (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 24, 2006 & entered Feb. 27, 2006). 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
Exhibit
15.1











May 9,
2008





Securities
and Exchange Commission


100 F
Street, N.E.


Washington,
D.C. 20549





Commissioners:





We are
aware that our report dated May 9, 2008 on our review of interim financial
information of Stratus Properties Inc. for the three month periods ended
March 31, 2008 and 2007and included in the Company's quarterly report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 is incorporated by reference in
its Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-78798, 333-31059,
333-52995 and 333-104288).







Very
truly yours,







/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6652

COREY T. SNEED,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RICK JACKSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (5:06-hc-02099-BO)

Submitted: November 6, 2007 Decided: December 10, 2007

Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey T. Sneed, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Corey T. Sneed appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion to resubmit his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Sneed v. Jackson, No. 5:06-hc-02099-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr.

10, 2007). 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