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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 850 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the transportation of 

horses in interstate transportation in a motor vehicle containing 2 or 

more levels stacked on top of one another. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 24, 2015 

Mr. KIRK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the transportation of horses in interstate transportation in a 

motor vehicle containing 2 or more levels stacked on 

top of one another. 

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 ‘‘Horse Transportation 

5 Safety Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION OF HORSES. 

7 Section 80502 of title 49, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 850 IS

1 (1) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘This section 

2 does not’’ and inserting ‘‘Subsections (a) and (b) 

3 shall not’’; 

4 (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub5 section (e); 

6 (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(d) TRANSPORTATION OF HORSES.— 

9 ‘‘(1) PROHIBITION.—No person may transport, 

10 or cause to be transported, a horse from a place in 

11 a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or 

12 possession of the United States through or to a 

13 place in another State, the District of Columbia, or 

14 a territory or possession of the United States in a 

15 motor vehicle containing 2 or more levels stacked on 

16 top of each other. 

17 ‘‘(2) MOTOR VEHICLE DEFINED.—In this sub18 section, the term ‘motor vehicle’— 

19 ‘‘(A) means a vehicle driven or drawn by 

20 mechanical power and manufactured primarily 

21 for use on public highways; and 

22 ‘‘(B) does not include a vehicle operated 

23 exclusively on a rail or rails.’’; and 

24 (4) in subsection (e), as redesignated— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 850 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘A rail carrier’’ and insert2 ing the following: 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A rail carrier’’; 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘this section’’ and insert5 ing ‘‘subsection (a) or (b)’’; and 

6 (C) by striking ‘‘On learning’’ and insert7 ing the following: 

8 ‘‘(2) TRANSPORTATION OF HORSES IN MULTI9 LEVEL TRAILER.— 

10 ‘‘(A) CIVIL PENALTY.—A person that 

11 knowingly violates subsection (c) is liable to the 

12 United States Government for a civil penalty of 

13 at least $100, but not more than $500, for each 

14 violation. A separate violation of subsection (c) 

15 occurs for each horse that is transported, or 

16 caused to be transported, in violation of sub17 section (c). 

18 ‘‘(B) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.— 

19 The penalty imposed under subparagraph (A) 

20 shall be in addition to any penalty or remedy 

21 available under any other law or common law. 

22 ‘‘(3) CIVIL ACTION.—On learning’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41054

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BLADMER MERCADO-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:16-CR-290-1

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Bladmer MercadoGarcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mercado-Garcia has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41054 Document: 00513956346 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2017
No. 16-41054

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-41054 Document: 00513956346 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2017
10-K 2008 Exhibit 10.34





                                                                                    Exhibit 10.34



SECOND AMENDMENT

                                   TO

                                EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




	The Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") entered into as of March 17, 2008, by and between NPS
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Francois Nader, M.D., as previously amended, is hereby further amended as follows:



	Section III.c is hereby amended by adding the following at the end thereof:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, commencing January 15, 2009, the option grant provided by this Section III.c shall be made
on an annual basis, on the first scheduled meeting of the Compensation Committee of the calendar year, rather than on a quarterly
basis; provided, however, that the annual option grant to be made on January 15, 2009 shall cover only Sixty-Seven Thousand Five
Hundred (67,500) stock options, as the first quarterly installment grant of Twenty-Two Thousand Five Hundred (22,500) stock options
will have been made on January 15, 2009."






	Except as amended herein, the Agreement is confirmed in all other respects.

Executed this 21st day of January, 2009 by the parties hereto.





NPS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


   By:/s/ Andrew Rackear

 Andrew Rackear

   General Counsel & SVP, Legal Affairs



/s/ Francois Nader

   Francois Nader, M.D.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 753 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 753

    To amend the method by which the Social Security Administration 
   determines the validity of marriages under title II of the Social 
                             Security Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 17, 2015

  Mrs. Murray (for herself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Markey, Mr. Schatz, Mrs. 
Shaheen, Mr. Udall, and Mr. Coons) introduced the following bill; which 
        was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the method by which the Social Security Administration 
   determines the validity of marriages under title II of the Social 
                             Security Act.

    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 ``Social Security and Marriage 
Equality Act''.

SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF VALID MARRIAGE UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 216(h)(1)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 416(h)(1)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``is domiciled'' and 
all that follows through ``the District of Columbia,'' and inserting 
``and such applicant were married (or, if such insured individual and 
such applicant were not married in any State but were validly married 
in another jurisdiction, the courts of any State)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to all final determinations of family status made after June 26, 
2013.
                                 <all>
```
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Corporate Trust Services

 

MAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel:  410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.

383 Madison Avenue

31st Floor

New York, New York 10179

 

 

 

 

RE:   Annual Statement of Compliance for JP Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2013-LC11 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-LC11

 

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2013 (the "Agreement" ), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the "Reporting Period" ) :

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

 

February 25, 2015

 

/s/ Brian Smith 

BRIAN SMITH 

Vice President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, NA
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 936 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 936

 To amend the Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Canalway Act of 1996 
                   to repeal the funding limitation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2015

   Mr. Brown introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Canalway Act of 1996 
                   to repeal the funding limitation.

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

SECTION 1. OHIO & ERIE NATIONAL HERITAGE CANALWAY.

    Section 810(a) of the Ohio & Erie National Heritage Canalway Act of 
1996 (Public Law 104-333; 110 Stat. 4275; 122 Stat. 826) is amended by 
striking the second sentence.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2


   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C.
 SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
                                      2002

         In connection with the filing of Zunicom,  Inc. and  Subsidiaries  (the
"Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),I,  Julie  Sansom-Reese,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of  the  Company,
certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C. (SS) 1350,
as enacted 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 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/ Julie Sansom-Reese
----------------------
Julie Sansom-Reese
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer

May 12, 2006




























                                    32.2-1
Exhibit 10.3

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE KRONOS INCORPORATED

2003 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

Section 9 of the 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan is hereby amended to remove the look-back provision and to stipulate that the purchase price will
be 85% of the closing price of the common stock on the last business day of the period.

Adopted by the Board of
Directors on August 2, 2005

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE KRONOS INCORPORATED

2003 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

The
2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended (the 2003 ESPP), of Kronos Incorporated (the Company) is hereby amended as follows (capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the respective meaning ascribed
to such terms in the 2003 ESPP):



| | 1. | The second sentence of the introductory paragraph of the 2003 ESPP shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two million, one hundred and twenty five thousand (2,125,000) shares of common stock in the aggregate have been approved for
this purpose.

Except as aforesaid, the 2003 ESPP shall remain in full force and effect.

Adopted by the Board of Directors on November 16, 2006

Approved by the Stockholders on February 16, 2007
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Section 1350 Certification -- Principal Executive Officer** 

 

**Citizens Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Citizens Financial Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) I, Darrell R. Wells, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

 

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. 

 

 

Date: May 12, 2006

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Citizens Financial Corporation and will be retained by CFC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Each of theundersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her capacity as an officer of e.Digital Corporation (the “Company”), that, to his or herknowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained insuch report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. 

 

Date: February 13, 2004 

 

/s/ ALFRED H. FALK 

 

Alfred H. Falk, 

President and ChiefExecutive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) 

 

 

Date: February 13, 2004 

 

/s/ RENEE WARDEN 

 

Renee Warden, 

Chief Accounting Officer,

Treasurer and Corporate Secretary (Principal Financial Officer)
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Certification of CFO Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a  14 and 15d  14 as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Sherry A. Sturman, the Chief Financial Officer of OrthoLogic Corp., certify
that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OrthoLogic Corp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. Date: November 9, 2004
#### Darrell Devon HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.C. TURNER, DHO; Sergeant Horn; Officer Glenn; Tim Riley, Warden; Brock; Officer Grant, IGC; Herb Johns; Officer Rice; Officer Bishop; W. Calhoun, Sergeant; Sergeant Johnson; Officer Campbell; Sergeant Davis; Officer Gossett; Captain Alexander; David Campbell, Officer, B1 Shift; K. Davis, Sergeant, B2 night shift, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-7221.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 24, 2008.

Darrell Devon Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. John Evans James, III, Lee, Erter, Wilson, James, Holler & Smith, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darrell Devon Hunter appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 *544U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Hunter that failure to file timely specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Hunter failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Hunter has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, .we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      34,635,549
<SECURITIES>                                47,291,184
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,341,943
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            86,424,602
<PP&E>                                       9,916,336
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,319,577)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              99,080,952
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,585,474
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       204,756
<OTHER-SE>                                  87,310,446
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                87,515,202
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,649,573
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,784,971
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,908,730)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,908,730)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,908,730)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7615

IRVIN E. COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. O. WARD; J. TYLER, Captain; D. HODGES, Superintendent, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-98-263-2) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Irvin E. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh McCoy Fain, III, MaryElizabeth Skora, SPOTTS, SMITH, FAIN & BUIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Irvin E. Coleman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Coleman v. Ward , No. CA-98-263-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 1999). 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