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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 225 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 225

Honoring the National Association of Women Business Owners on its 40th 
                              anniversary.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 21, 2015

   Mr. Vitter (for himself, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Risch, Mr. Coons, Ms. 
 Ayotte, Ms. Hirono, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Peters, 
   Mr. Gardner, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Ernst, and Mr. Enzi) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Honoring the National Association of Women Business Owners on its 40th 
                              anniversary.

Whereas women-owned businesses are one of the fastest-growing segments of the 
        United States economy;
Whereas 13,600,000 firms are 50 percent or more owned by women, and these 
        businesses employ nearly 15,900,000 people and generate 
        $2,700,000,000,000 in revenue as of 2013;
Whereas empowering more women entrepreneurs and business owners is important to 
        the economic future of the United States;
Whereas the National Association of Women Business Owners (NAWBO) was 
        established in 1975 by a group of like-minded businesswomen to serve as 
        the collective voice of women business owners across the country and 
        advocate on behalf of their entrepreneurial interests;
Whereas NAWBO's roots are in public policy, and NAWBO played an integral role in 
        the passage of the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988 (Public Law 
        100-533; 102 Stat. 2689);
Whereas NAWBO remains focused on collaborating to create a business-friendly 
        environment at the Federal, State, and local levels to enable women to 
        start and grow their businesses and create jobs; and
Whereas NAWBO represents a diverse universe of women business owners across an 
        array of sectors in the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate commends the National Association of 
Women Business Owners for its tireless efforts and decades of support 
of women entrepreneurs and business owners and congratulates the 
National Association of Women Business Owners on its 40th anniversary.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,695
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,253<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     47,326
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,969
<PP&E>                                          16,725<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,847
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            29
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,212
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,606
<SALES>                                         70,429
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,429
<CGS>                                           40,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    51
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 420
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,937
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,165
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,772
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,772
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Represents net amount
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19205]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line 
Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone 
Line Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel 
is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, October 18, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Smith at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-
317-3087.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone 
Line Project Committee will be held Wednesday, October 18, 2017, at 
2:30 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to 
make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due 
to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must 
be made with Fred Smith. For more information please contact Fred Smith 
at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3087, or write TAP Office, 1111 
Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1509--National Office, Washington, DC 
20224, or contact us at the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org. The 
committee will be discussing Toll-free issues and public input is 
welcomed.

    Dated: September 1, 2017.
Antoinette Ross,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2017-19205 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE WIRE HARNESS SYSTEMS ANTITRUST LITIGATION Lucha Bott, et al. v. Delphi Automotive LLP, et al., N.D. California, C.A. No. 3:11-04949 Susan LaCava v. Delphi Automotive LLP, et al., E.D. Michigan, C.A. No. 2:11-14399.

MDL No. 2311.

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Feb. 7, 2012.

Before JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman, KATHRYN H. VRATIL, BARBARA S. JONES, PAUL J. BARBADORO, MARJORIE O. RENDELL, and CHARLES R. BREYER, Judges of the Panel.

TRANSFER ORDER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiff in the action pending in the Eastern District of Michigan action moves to centralize this litigation in that district. This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in the Eastern District of Michigan and the Northern District of California.1

All responding parties agree that centralization of these actions is appropriate, and most support the Eastern District of Michigan as transferee district. Certain plaintiffs suggest other transferee districts, including the Northern District of California, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the Southern District of Alabama, and the District of Puerto Rico.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of all actions in the Eastern District of Michigan will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. It is undisputed that these actions share factual questions arising out of an alleged conspiracy to inflate, fix, raise, maintain, or artificially stabilize prices of automotive wire harness systems. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

We are persuaded that the Eastern District of Michigan is the most appropriate *1368transferee district. Most responding parties support centralization there, where the vast majority of the actions are pending, including the first-filed action. Moreover, several defendants are located in this district and a related criminal investigation is ongoing there.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the action pending in the Northern District of California is transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Marianne 0. Battani for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending there.

*

 Judge W. Royal Furgeson, Jr. took no part in the decision of this matter.

1

. The parties have notified the Panel that 42 additional related actions are pending. These actions are potential tag-along actions. *See*Rule 7.1, R.P.J.P.M.L.
EXHIBIT 32.1








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 BMC Stock Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Peter C. Alexander, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 15, 2016


/s/ Peter C. Alexander Peter C. Alexander President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BMC Stock Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by BMC Stock Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          13,217
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (89)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,588
<PP&E>                                             965
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (338)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,714
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,184     
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,641
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,539
<SALES>                                          9,549
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,549
<CGS>                                              689
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      689
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,472
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,672
<INCOME-TAX>                                       961
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,711
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6650

BOBBY JOE BARTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SCOTT LEWIS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. 

R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (9:18-cv-00748-RBH)

Submitted: September 1, 2020 Decided: September 4, 2020

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Joe Barton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Joe Barton seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Barton’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 

(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barton has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, deny Barton’s motion to place his appeal in abeyance, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.9

Amendment to Original Proposal Contract Between Cleartronic and Waldman and Associates

 

Reference is made to the Interim Consulting Proposal dated January 22, 2010 between Cleartronic, Inc.  (the "Company") and Waldman and Associates ("Dana").

Dana currently serves as informal CEO with the following compensation:

·

Monthly consulting fee of $8,000 and $4,000 per month accruing in shares or warrants at Dana's discretion through May 31, 2011.

The agreement is amended as of June 1, 2011 and both parties agree as follows:

·

Dana will now take on the official role of CEO and be elected as a member of the Board of Directors.

·

Monthly consulting fee will now be $12,000 and $4,000 per month accruing in shares or warrants at Dana's discretion through May 31, 2012. The exercise or conversion price of the shares or warrants shall be the average VWAP of the stock for the 30 days prior to the grant date. The “VWAP” shall be defined as the daily Volume Weighted Average Price (“VWAP”), as reported on Bloomberg.

·

the Current Value as defined in the "Cleartronic, Inc. 2011 Incentive Equity Plan" on the last trading day of each month.

·

The company will reimburse actual health insurance premium costs, expected to be approximately $9,000 per quarter.

·

1 year total of all the above is $228,000

·

Special financing arrangements have been secured to fund the payments to Dana for the next 12 months, and those funds will be kept available for 12 full months starting June 1, 2011. These funds will not be used for any other purpose and will be available.

·

If Dana quits for any reason other than for “good reason as defined below, during the 12 months, he keeps the current month’s fees and pro-rated portion of health insurance premiums, and forfeits the rest of the money.

·

If Dana is terminated without cause, or quits for “good reason” during the 12 months, then the balance of the $228,000 is due to him when he leaves.

o

Good reason is defined in his employment contract as loss of title or being essentially demoted.

·

If the company somehow collapses during the 12 months, the balance of the $228,000, is still due to Dana.




Agreed to and Accepted    /s/ Larry Reid                      

7/7/11


Larry Reid                                             Date




Agreed to and Accepted   /s/  Dana Waldman     

7/7/11                                   


Dana Waldman                                     Date
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

ANDREW COLLINS, AS EXECUTOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF RICHARD A. COLLINS, 

DECEASED

v.

MANOR CARE OF LANCASTER, PA, LLC 

D/B/A MANORCARE HEALTH 

SERVICES-LANCASTER, HCR MANOR 

CARE, INC., HCR HEALTHCARE, LLC, 

HCR HEALTHCARE II, LLC, HCR 

HEALTHCARE III, LLC, MANORCARE 

HEALTH SERVICES, INC., MANOR 

CARE, INC., LANCASTER GENERAL 

REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC., 

D/B/A LANCASTER REHABILITATION 

HOSPITAL, LLP, CRH OF LANCASTER, 

LLC, AND LANCASTER GENERAL 

HEALTH

PETITION OF: MANOR CARE OF 

LANCASTER, PA, LLC D/B/A 

MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICESLANCASTER, HCR MANOR CARE, INC., 

HCR HEALTHCARE, LLC, HCR 

HEALTHCARE II, LLC, HCR 

HEALTHCARE III, LLC, MANORCARE 

HEALTH SERVICES, INC., MANOR 

CARE, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 550 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Unpublished Judgment Order and 

Order of the Superior Court at No. 762 

MDA 2014 entered on June 18, 2015, 

affirming the Order of the Lancaster 

County Court of Common Pleas at No. 

12-15908 entered on April 4, 2014

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is GRANTED. The Superior Court’s order is VACATED, and the matter is 

DECIDED: November 15, 2016
[550 MAL 2015] - 2

REMANDED for reconsideration in light of Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc., 

___ A.3d ___, 2016 WL 5630669 (Pa. Sept. 28, 2016).
#### *In re*Schneider.*

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

March 24, 1883.)

Bankruptcy—Assignee's Charges.

A former assignee of a bankrupt has not a prior claim for his compensation, to that of a subsequent assignee in whose hands there are not sufficient funds to pay the charges of both.

*Semble,*that in that case the amount should he divided *pro rata*between the two assignees.

*914In Bankruptcy.

*Abbett & Fuller,*for the motion.

*Henry J. Darby,*for the assignee.

*

 Reported by R. X). & Wyllys Benedict.

Benedict, J.

This is an application for an order directing the present assignee of the above-named bankrupt to pay out of the funds in his hands the sum heretofore found due a former assignee, on being discharged from his trust. It is evident that there has been no violation of the order of February 28, 1882, and so the moving party concedes. The only question, therefore, is whether the petitioner is at this time entitled to be paid the sum heretofore determined to be his proper compensation.

■ If the claim of the petitioner were entitled to priority of payment over the claim of the present assignee for his compensation, inasmuch as there are funds in the hands of the present assignee sufficient to pay the petitioner, there would be no reason for deferring his payment. But it is not seen that any such right of priority exists. The account of the assignee shows that the funds in his hands are not sufficient to pay his own proper charges and also those of the former assignee. If there was no likelihood of any additions to the fund, it would seem proper now to divide the amount *pro rata*between the two assignees; but as the papers show a probability that sufficient money will shortly be realized by the present assignee to enable him to pay both claims in full, it is hardly worth while to make a division at the present time. The present motion is therefore denied, without prejudice to another motion, and without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60605

Summary Calendar

GASPAR BONIFACIO MARCOS-CARDONA, also known as Angel CardonaRios,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A200 967 830

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gaspar Bonifacio Marcos-Cardona petitions this court for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of the 

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. He 

argues that this court has jurisdiction because he raises questions of law. 

Marcos-Cardona contends that the BIA and IJ failed to aggregate the hardship

 

* 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

September 30, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60605 Document: 00513213066 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2015
No. 14-60605

2

factors he presented, which resulted in a violation of his due process rights and 

the right to present evidence. He also argues that the IJ and BIA failed to 

consider the impact of removal on his children’s education. In addition, 

Marcos-Cardona contends that his son’s speech impediment should have been 

given more consideration because his testimony in support of the speech 

impediment was credible. Finally, he argues that the IJ and BIA failed to 

render an individualized hardship determination as to each child.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), no court shall have jurisdiction to 

review any judgment relating to requests for relief under § 1229b. This 

provision does not, however, preclude review of constitutional claims or 

questions of law. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Wilmore, v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 524, 526 

(5th Cir. 2006). But the alien’s framing of an issue is not dispositive. We will 

decline to consider an abuse-of-discretion argument cloaked in constitutional

or legal garb. Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 2006); DelgadoReynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2006). That is the case 

here. Because Marcos-Cardona’s arguments are nothing more than a 

disagreement with the weighing of the factors underlying the discretionary 

decision whether he merited cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction. See

Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION.

 Case: 14-60605 Document: 00513213066 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2015