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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 924 

To require the National Credit Union Administration to hold public hearings 

and receive comments from the public on its budget, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2015 

Mr. HELLER (for himself and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the National Credit Union Administration to hold 

public hearings and receive comments from the public 

on its budget, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘National Credit Union 

5 Administration Budget Transparency Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BUDGET TRANSPARENCY FOR THE NCUA. 

7 Section 209(b) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 

8 U.S.C. 1789) is amended— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 924 IS

1 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 

2 paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively; 

3 (2) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so re4 designated, the following: 

5 ‘‘(1) on an annual basis and prior to the sub6 mission of the detailed business-type budget required 

7 under paragraph (2)— 

8 ‘‘(A) make publicly available and cause to 

9 be printed in the Federal Register a draft of 

10 such detailed business-type budget; and 

11 ‘‘(B) hold a public hearing, with public no12 tice provided of such hearing, wherein the pub13 lic can submit comments on the draft of such 

14 detailed business-type budget;’’; and 

15 (3) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated— 

16 (A) by inserting ‘‘detailed’’ after ‘‘submit 

17 a’’; and 

18 (B) by inserting ‘‘, and where such budget 

19 shall address any comments submitted by the 

20 public pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)’’ after 

21 ‘‘Control Act’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JUNE 30, 1999
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      38,987,068
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  514,147
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            39,894,378
<PP&E>                                       2,299,424
<DEPRECIATION>                                 857,590
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,336,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,426,443
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    49,735,892
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,826,123)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,336,212
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,103,609
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,329,925
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,920,836
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                22,666
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,669,263
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,629,263
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,629,236
<EPS-BASIC>                                      1.650
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.624


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.30


 


July 7,
2004


 


 


Via
Facsimile 858-646-8028


and
Certified Mail


Return
Receipt Requested


 


Quidel
Corporation


10165
McKellar Court


San
Diego, CA 92121


 


Attention:  Mark Paiz, Vice President


 


RE:                              Product Supply Agreement
dated as of July 3, 1997 by and between Quidel Corporation (“Quidel”) and
Heska Corporation (“Heska”) (the  “Supply
Agreement”)


 


Dear
Mr. Paiz:


 


This
letter will confirm the agreement of Heska and Quidel to amend Section 10.1
of the Supply Agreement by adding the following proviso at the end of such Section 10.1:


 


“provided, however, that Heska may deliver written notice to Quidel on
or before March 31, 2005, that it does not wish to renew this Agreement
for any additional renewal term following expiration of the renewal term that expires
in July 2005.”


 


Please
confirm Quidel’s agreement that this letter constitutes an amendment to the
Supply Agreement pursuant to Section 14.1 thereof.


 


Very
truly yours,


 


 


	
    /s/ 
  Carol Talkington Verser

  	
   

  
	
  Carol
  Talkington Verser, Ph.D.

  	
   

  
	
  Executive
  Vice President

  	
   

  
	
  Intellectual
  Property and Business Development

  	
   

  



 


 


ACCEPTED
AND AGREED:


QUIDEL
CORPORATION


 


 


	
  By:    

  	
   /s/  Mark E. Paiz

  	
   

  
	
  Its:    

  	
   COO
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 15, 2012 

s0612 

Order 

 

June 15, 2012 

144491 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144491 

 COA: 299493 

Jackson CC: 08-004955-FH 

JUSTIN LEE FILE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 29, 2011 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 MARILYN KELLY, J. (dissenting). 

I dissent from the Court’s order denying defendant’s application for leave to 

appeal. I would grant the application because I believe that defendant has raised a 

meritorious issue. He argues that he asserted his right to counsel when he stated, “I want 

to talk to a lawyer because I’m not sure, I love [my girlfriend] and I don’t want her in 

trouble.” At that point, defendant argues that his interrogation by the police should have 

stopped.1

 

 

1 Edwards v Arizona, 451 US 477, 482 (1981).
#### UNITED STATES v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO.

Civ. A. No. 1216.

United States District Court D. Delaware.

Sept. 13, 1951.

See also 11 F.R.D. 374.

James L. Minicus, Julius C. Renninger, Joseph M. Fitzpatrick, Philip L. Roache, Jr., William J. McAuliffe, Jr. and Forrest A. Ford, all of Washington, D. C., and William Marvel, U. S. Atty., of Wilmington, Del., for the United States.

Gerhard A. Gesell, James H. McGlothlin, David C. Acheson, Harvey Levin and George J. Kuehnl (of Covington & Burling), all of Washington, D. C., Hugh M. Morris and Alexander L. Nichols (of Morris, Steel, Nichols and Arsht), and Francis J. Zugehoer, of Wilmington, Del., for defendant.

6TH TRIAL MEMORANDUM

LEAHY, Chief Judge.

The Government has filed a comprehensive motion for production of documents under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.rule 34, 28 U.S.C.A. I think the motion has merit, but its terms are palpably too broad and sweeping. A reading of the motion demonstrates that it fails to meet the requirements of F.R. 34. The fact of the matter is the motion is concerned with issues, the proofs of which have not been brought forward as yet by defendant. These issues must be met, however, and the evidence on them adduced before me by both parties. I think the proper procedure should be something like this: there are two courses to follow:

1. Let duPont put in its case. • After that, or after duPont has announced it has finished with its proofs on the matters of *584substituted materials, postcomplaint evidence, and the Olin situation, both Court and counsel shall then be in a 'better position of focus as to what duPont relies on in these respects. After that, the Government may then renew its motion. At that time, the Government should'be in a position to arrive at greater specificity as to what it wants produced. If necessary, I shall del'ay the trial in order that the production may be had, and as to this, the Government will have additional time to study the produced documents if it so requests. Or,

2. Either the above course will be followed or before we resume the trial at this point counsel will get together and work •out with the Court some plan to produce documents on (1) substituted materials; (2) post-complaint evidence; (3) the Olin competition and relationship with duPont. The Court will be available next week if the •suggested course is to be followed.

An order may be submitted denying the motion without prejudice.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 10105]

The Department of State has approved the renewal of the charter for the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations' (OBO) Industry Advisory Group for an additional two-year period. The group's annual meeting is held in the Harry S Truman Building at the U.S. Department of State, located at 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC. Each meeting is devoted to an exchange of ideas between OBO's senior management and the group members on issues relating to property management; site acquisition; project planning; design and engineering; construction; facility maintenance; and building operations. The meetings are open to the public and are subject to advance registration and provision of required security information. Procedures for registration are included with each meeting announcement, no later than fifteen business days before each meeting.

OBO's mission is to provide safe, secure and functional facilities that represent the U.S. government to the host nation and support our staff in the achievement of U.S. foreign policy objectives. These facilities represent American values and the best in American architecture, engineering, technology, sustainability, art, culture, and construction execution.

                    For further information, please contact Christine Foushee at 312-353-1242 or                     *FousheeCT@state.gov.*

 William Moser,

Director, Acting, Overseas Buildings Operations, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2017-18507 Filed 8-30-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-51-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 609 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 609

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and increase the 
exclusion for benefits provided to volunteer firefighters and emergency 
                          medical responders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 27, 2015

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Ms. Collins) 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 extend and increase the 
exclusion for benefits provided to volunteer firefighters and emergency 
                          medical responders.

    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 ``Volunteer Responder Incentive 
Protection Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. BENEFITS PROVIDED TO VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY 
              MEDICAL RESPONDERS.

    (a) Increase in Dollar Limitation on Qualified Payments.--
Subparagraph (B) of section 139B(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``$30'' and inserting ``$50''.
    (b) Extension.--Subsection (d) of section 139B of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``beginning after December 
31, 2010.'' and inserting ``beginning--
            ``(1) after December 31, 2010, and before January 1, 2015, 
        or
            ``(2) after December 31, 2017.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
Tennessee Regulatory Authority Certificate of Franchise




 Exhibit 10.43 
 BEFORE THE TENNESSEE REGULATORY AUTHORITY 
 NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 
 December 15, 2008 
  

					
	 IN RE:
  
 APPLICATION OF KNOLOGY, INC. FOR A STATE-ISSUED CERTIFICATE OF FRANCHISE AUTHORITY
	  	)
 )
 )
 )
 )

	  	  
  
 DOCKET NO.
 08-00208


 CERTIFICATE OF FRANCHISE AUTHORITY 
 On November 3, 2008, an application for a state-issued certificate of franchise authority
complying with the provisions set forth in Public Chapter No. 932,1 also known as the Competitive Cable and Video Services Act (the
“CCVSA”), was submitted to the Tennessee Regulatory Authority (“TRA”) by Knology, Inc. (the “Company” or “Applicant”). Pursuant to the CCVSA, issuance of this state-issued Certificate of Franchise Authority
hereby conveys: 
 1. A nonexclusive grant of authority to provide cable or video service in the areas set forth in the application;

 2. A nonexclusive grant of authority to construct, maintain and operate facilities through, along, upon, over and under any public
rights-of-way, subject to the laws of the state of Tennessee, including the lawful exercise of police powers of the municipalities and counties in which such service is delivered; 
 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 & 2 above, this grant of authority is subject to lawful operation of the cable and video service by
the Applicant or its successor in interest; and, 
 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 & 2 above, this grant of authority
does not confer upon the holder of the state-issued certificate of franchise authority the right to place facilities on private property without the owner’s consent to such placement, except that nothing herein shall alter the condemnation
authority provided pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 65-21-204 for internal improvements or as provided in title 29, chapter 16 of the Tennessee Code. 
 BE IT HEREBY ISSUED. 
  

	
	
	/s/ Tre Hargett
	Tre Hargett, TRA Chairman


  

	 1
	 2008 Tenn. Pub. Acts 932.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40934 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE MEDINA-SALDANA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-03-CR-270-1

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Medina-Saldana appeals the sentence imposed following entry of his guilty plea to a charge of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Medina argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. Medina-Saldana acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), but he asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt byNo. 03-40934 -2- Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for Supreme Court review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 729 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 729

    To amend title 11, United States Code, with respect to certain 
                 exceptions to discharge in bankruptcy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2015

 Mr. Durbin (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Franken, Mr. Blumenthal, 
 Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Ms. Warren, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kaine, 
 Mr. Schatz, Mrs. Gillibrand, and Ms. Hirono) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 11, United States Code, with respect to certain 
                 exceptions to discharge in bankruptcy.

    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 ``Fairness for Struggling Students Act 
of 2015''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO DISCHARGE.

    Section 523(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``dependents, for'' and all that follows through the end of 
subparagraph (B) and inserting ``dependents, for an educational benefit 
overpayment or loan made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit 
or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental 
unit or an obligation to repay funds received from a governmental unit 
as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend;''.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 April 4, 2017

a0327

Order 

Clerk

April 4, 2017

153668

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153668

COA: 319020

Wayne CC: 12-009382-FC

FELANDO DAMONE HUNTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2016 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 91 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 91

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow refunds of Federal 
 motor fuel excise taxes on fuels used in mobile mammography vehicles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 2015

Mr. Heller (for himself and Mr. Vitter) 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 allow refunds of Federal 
 motor fuel excise taxes on fuels used in mobile mammography vehicles.

    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 ``Mobile Mammography Promotion Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. REFUNDS OF FEDERAL MOTOR FUEL EXCISE TAXES FOR FUEL USED IN 
              MOBILE MAMMOGRAPHY VEHICLES.

    (a) Refunds.--Section 6427 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by inserting after subsection (f) the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Fuels Used in Mobile Mammography Vehicles.--Except as 
provided in subsection (k), if any fuel on which tax was imposed by 
section 4041 or 4081 is used in any highway vehicle designed 
exclusively to provide mobile mammography services to patients within 
such vehicle, the Secretary shall pay (without interest) to the 
ultimate purchaser of such fuel an amount equal to the aggregate amount 
of the tax imposed on such fuel.''.
    (b) Exemption From Retail Tax.--Section 4041 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(n) Fuels Used in Mobile Mammography Vehicles.--No tax shall be 
imposed under this section on any liquid sold for use in, or used in, 
any highway vehicle designed exclusively to provide mobile mammography 
services to patients within such vehicle.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

NICOLE MALLARD, §

§ No. 556, 2017

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellant, §

§

v. § Court Below—Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

DEPARTMENT OF SERVICE §

FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND § File No.: 17-03-07TN

THEIR FAMILIES, § Petition No.: 17-06903

§

Petitioner Below, §

Appellees. §

§

IN THE INTEREST OF: §

JASON A. MALLARD §

Submitted: August 15, 2018

Decided: September 28, 2018

Corrected: October 9, 2018

O R D E R

This 28

th day of September, 2018, after careful consideration of the parties’ 

briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that the judgment of the 

Family Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in its 

November 27, 2017 order. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

BEVERLY LOUISE BROOK

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 1026

[ November 17, 2022 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Martin County ; Kathleen H. Roberts , Judge; L.T. Case No.

432021MM000464A

.

Beverly Louise Brook, Port St. Lucie, pro se.

No appearance filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, L EVINE and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.