alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 23 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the 

Environmental Protection Agency relating to ‘‘Standards 

of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 

New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: 

Electric Utility Generating Units’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the En4 vironmental Protection Agency relating to ‘‘Standards of 

5 Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, 

6 Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric 

7 Utility Generating Units’’ (published at 80 Fed. Reg. 

8 64510 (October 23, 2015)), and such rule shall have no 

9 force or effect. 

Passed the Senate November 17, 2015. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 23 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapElectric Utility Generating Units’’. fied, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modi- Agency relating to ‘‘Standards of Performance submitted by the Environmental Protection ter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule
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 Transportation

###### Federal Highway Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Highway Administration, DOT.

# ACTION:

Rescinding the Record of Decision.

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Highway Administration is issuing this notice to advise the public that the Record of Decision for the proposed State Route 704 Cross Base Highway in Pierce County, Washington is being rescinded.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Dean Moberg, Area Engineer, Washington Division, Federal Highway Administration, 711 Capitol Way, Suite 501, Olympia, WA 98501.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FHWA, as the lead federal agency, in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Transportation and Pierce County published a Record of Decision (ROD) on August 2, 2004 for the State Route 704 Cross Base Highway Project. This project involved a new arterial highway between State Route 7 and Interstate 5 in Pierce County. Since that time, WSDOT has only advanced one of five project stages, but has not advanced further design, right of way acquisition or construction of the other stages since 2007 due to public policy, litigation and transportation demand reasons. The FHWA has determined that the ROD dated August 2, 2004 for the September 2003 Final Environmental Impact Statement on this project is no longer a valid document without further environment analysis and review pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4321,                     *et seq.*                     and 23 Code of Federal Regulations 771 and therefore will be rescinded. Comments and questions concerning this proposed action should be directed to FHWA at the address provided above.                

Issued on: August 22, 2017.

Daniel M. Mathis,

Division Administrator, Washington Division, Federal Highway Administration.

[FR Doc. 2017-18262 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 983 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

to designate high priority corridors on the National Highway System 

in the State of North Carolina, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 16, 2015 

Mr. TILLIS (for himself and Mr. BURR) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 to designate high priority corridors on the 

National Highway System in the State of North Carolina, 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 ‘‘Military Corridor 

5 Transportation Improvement Act of 2015’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 983 IS

1 SEC. 2. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGH2 WAY SYSTEM. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal 

4 Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 

5 2032; 119 Stat. 1213) is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following: 

7 ‘‘(81) United States Route 117/Interstate 

8 Route 795 from United States Route 70 in Golds9 boro, Wayne County, North Carolina, to Interstate 

10 Route 40 west of Faison, Sampson County, North 

11 Carolina. 

12 ‘‘(82) United States Route 70 from its intersec13 tion with Interstate Route 40 in Garner, Wake 

14 County, North Carolina, to the Port at Morehead 

15 City, Carteret County, North Carolina.’’. 

16 (b) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ROUTE SEGMENTS ON

17 INTERSTATE SYSTEM.—Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the 

18 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

19 (109 Stat. 597; 119 Stat. 1213) is amended in the first 

20 sentence by striking ‘‘and subsection (c)(57)’’ and insert21 ing ‘‘subsection (c)(57), subsection (c)(81), and subsection 

22 (c)(82)’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.13


Form of Allocation Letter


Criteo 2015 Performance-Based Free Share (RSU) Plan








[Beneficiary Name and Address]


[Date]





Letter delivered by electronic delivery





[Name of Beneficiary],





We have the pleasure to inform you that, pursuant to the authorization granted by the shareholders’ meeting held on October 23, 2015, the board of directors (the “ Board ”) of Criteo S.A. (the “ Company ”), during its meeting held on [       ] (the “ Grant Date ”), granted to you free shares of the Company, under the terms and conditions provided for in articles L. 225-197-1 to L. 225-197-5 of the French Commercial Code and in the 2015 Performance-Based Free Share Plan of the Company (the “ 2015 Performance-Based Plan ”).


The Board granted to you [     ] restricted stock units in respect of ordinary shares of the Company (the “ Shares ”), with a par value of EUR 0.025 each (the “ Grant ”).


There is a period (named “ vesting period ”) at the end of which the Grant will become effective and final (i.e., the Shares will be issued to you and be your property). The Shares may be definitively acquired by you not earlier than [        ] unless you shall cease to be an employee of the Criteo group for any reason whatsoever during the vesting period , and subject to the attainment of the following performance goals: [      ].


In the event of Disability (as defined under Article 6.4 of the 2015 Performance-Based Plan) before the end of the vesting period, the free Shares shall be definitively acquired on the date of Disability. In the event of death during the vesting period, the free Shares shall be definitively acquired at the date of the request of allocation made by your beneficiaries in the framework of the inheritance. The request for allocation of the Shares shall be made within six (6) months from the date of death in compliance with Article L. 225-197-3 of the French Commercial Code.


By acknowledging this Grant, you hereby acknowledge and agree that any Allocation (as defined in the 2015 Performance-Based Plan) pursuant to the 2015 Performance-Based Plan shall be subject to any applicable Company clawback policy, as adopted by the Company from time to time.


The detailed terms of this Grant are described in the 2015 Performance-Based Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto.


Thank you for sending us a copy of the 2015 Performance-Based Plan to legal.corporate@criteo.com, duly initialed and signed, not later than [        ], failing which the above grant shall be null and void.





Yours sincerely,


CRITEO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet at September 30, 1996 (Unaudited) and the Statement of Operations for the
Nine Months Ended September 30, 1996 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          18,552
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  131,905
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               150,457
<PP&E>                                       2,150,198
<DEPRECIATION>                                 485,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,827,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,827,298
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,827,298
<SALES>                                        327,272
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               370,723
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               216,699
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                154,024
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            154,024
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   154,024
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    23.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    23.08
        

</TABLE>
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 26, 2013 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-10-00461-CV 

V3 GLOBAL, INC., SAMEER MOHAN, AND S.K. MOHAN, Appellants 

V. 

TOUCH TELL, INC. D/B/A TOUCH TELL COMMUNICATIONS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 05-01575-B 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice FitzGerald, and Justice Lewis 

Opinion Per Curiam 

On its own motion, the Court REINSTATES this case. The Court has before it the 

parties’ June 27, 2013 joint motion to dismiss appeal. The Court GRANTS the motion and 

DISMISSES the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). 

 PER CURIAM 

100461F.P05 

 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

V3 GLOBAL, INC., SAMEER MOHAN, 

AND S.K. MOHAN, Appellants 

No. 05-10-00461-CV V. 

TOUCH TELL, INC. D/B/A TOUCH TELL 

COMMUNICATIONS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 05-01575-B. 

Opinion delivered per curiam. Chief Justice 

Wright, Justice FitzGerald and Justice Lewis 

sitting for the Court. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee TOUCH TELL, INC. D/B/A TOUCH TELL 

COMMUNICATIONS recover its costs of this appeal from appellants V3 GLOBAL, INC., 

SAMEER MOHAN, AND S.K. MOHAN, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. 

Judgment entered July 26, 2013 

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ 

KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE
#### Thurman Jerome BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-5331-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 11, 2008.

Thurman Jerome Brown, Rome, NY, pro se.

PRESENT: Hon. RALPH K. WINTER, Hon. CHESTER J. STRAUB, and Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Thurman Jerome Brown, *pro se,*appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joanna Seybert, J-udge) entered on October 18, 2006, dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case, and the arguments on appeal.

“We review *de novo*a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” *Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.,*282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002).

Having reviewed the record, we agree with the District Court that Brown’s complaint failed to state a claim for relief because the named defendants—the New York State Unified Court System (“NYSUCS”) and the Office of Court Administration—are not “persons” within the *308meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1988. *See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police,*491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); *Zuckerman v. Appellate Div., Second Dep’t, Supreme Court of N.Y.,*421 F.2d 625, 626 & n. 1 (2d Cir.1970).

On appeal, Brown contends that the District Court failed to construe his *pro se*complaint liberally because the “essence” of his complaint was that Carol M. Hamm, Deputy Inspector General of the NYSUCS, violated his equal protection rights by refusing to investigate crimes allegedly perpetrated against him. Even if the complaint can be interpreted as having named Hamm as a defendant, however, his claims still fail because, *inter alia,*the complaint includes no allegations that Brown was treated differently from others similarly situated. *See Crowley v. Courville,*76 F.3d 47, 52-53 (2d Cir.1996); *see also Village of Willowbrook v. Olech,*528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Cf. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000). “[W]e are entitled to affirm ... on any ground for which there is support in the record, even if not adopted by the District Court.” *AmBase Corp. v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust,*326 F.3d 63, 72 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,529
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,088
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           1,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                     820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 369,979
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         28,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            86
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,760
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   369,979
<SALES>                                            649
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,241
<CGS>                                              435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,228
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   169
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,018
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,826
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,730
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,096
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,096
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 12 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 12

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                         relative to marriage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 23, 2015

  Mr. Cruz introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                         relative to marriage.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The United States and each State, territory, and 
possession thereof shall have the power to define marriage as limited 
to the union of one man and one woman. Nothing in this Constitution 
shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents 
thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of one man and 
one woman or to require that a State recognize a marriage that was 
licensed in another State. No decision or order of any court to the 
contrary, including any decision or order issued before the date of 
ratification, shall have any force or effect.''.
                                 <all>
```
Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT to the Executive Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) by and between Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) and Robert Martin Lynch (“Employee”) is made and entered into this 21st day of December, 2011. 

WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has determined that certain changes to Employee’s
title, duties and compensation are in the best interest of the Company; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Employee wish to amend
the Agreement to reflect such changes. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is amended as set forth below, effective January 1,
2012: 
 FIRST: The first sentence of Section 1.1(a) is revised to read as follows: “The Company will employ
Employee in the position of President and Chief Executive Officer and, in that position, Employee will report directly to the Board of Directors of the Company.” 
 SECOND: The term, “Chief Operating Officer,” in the first sentence of Section 1.3 is replaced with the term, “Chief Executive Officer.” 

THIRD: The phrase, “the Chief Executive Officer and/or the Board of Directors,” in Section 1.3(a) is replaced with
the phrase, “the Board of Directors.” 
 FOURTH: The phrase, “the Company, the Chief Executive Officer
and/or the Board of Directors,” in Section 1.3(b) is replaced with the phrase, “the Company and/or the Board of Directors.” 
 FIFTH: Section 1.4(a) is replaced with the following: 

(a) Base Salary. Employee shall receive an annual base salary of $550,000 payable to Employee in accordance with
the Company’s normal payroll schedule. The Company shall withhold state and federal income taxes, social security taxes and shall make such other payroll deductions as may be required by law or mutually agreed upon in writing by Employee and
the Company. 
 SIXTH: The phrase, “up to 75% of Employee’s base salary,” in the second sentence of
Section 1.4(c) is replaced with the phrase, “up to 100% of Employee’s base salary.” 
 SEVENTH: The
term, “Chief Executive Officer,” in Section 3.1 is replaced with the term, “Secretary.” 







 EIGHTH: The notice address in Section 5.12 for Employee shall be changed to the
following: 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement or caused it
to be executed as of the date first written above. 
  

							
	EMPLOYEE	 		 	LUMBER LIQUIDATORS HOLDINGS, INC.
				
	 /s/ Robert Martin Lynch
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Jeffrey W. Griffiths

	Robert Martin Lynch	 		 	  
 Name:
	 	 Jeffrey W. Griffiths

				
		 		 	Title:	 	 President and Chief Executive Officer