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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2712 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2712

To ensure that all of Brevard County, Florida, is treated as a HUBZone, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2011

  Mrs. Adams introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure that all of Brevard County, Florida, is treated as a HUBZone, 
                        and for other purposes.

    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 ``Shuttle Workforce Revitalization Act 
of 2011''.

SEC. 2. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

    (a) In General.--During the covered period, any portion of Brevard 
County, Florida, that is not otherwise a HUBZone, as such term is 
defined under section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
632(p)), shall be treated as a HUBZone for purposes of that Act.
    (b) Covered Period Defined.--In this section, the term ``covered 
period'' means the period beginning on the date of enactment of this 
Act and ending on January 1, 2020.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jose Ramirez et al., Appellants, v Mark T. Miller et al., Defendants, and Eichner Rudd Management Associates, Ltd., Respondent.

Submitted December 17, 2007;

decided March 13, 2008

*785Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Exhibit 32.1

        Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Henry E.
Gemino, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of Profile
Technologies, Inc., hereby certify that the Quarterly Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Profile Technologies, Inc.


Date:  May 15, 2004                  /s/  Henry E. Gemino
       ------------                  ------------------------------------------
                                          Henry E. Gemino
                                          Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,375
<SECURITIES>                                     7,898
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,747
<PP&E>                                           4,013
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,297
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,728
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,491
<SALES>                                         11,213
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,498
<CGS>                                              470
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    730
<INCOME-TAX>                                       276
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                454
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       454
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T OS C ARDA NI E L B OL AN E S - B L AN C O, a. k . a. O scar B o l an o s, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71836 A ge nc yN o. A 029- 769- 354 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 20, 2011 ** B efo re: R Y M E R , T H O M A S , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. O s c a rD a ni e l B ol a ne s - B l a nc o, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of N i c ar a gua , pe t i t i ons p r o s e f o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o a r do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m ot i on t o r e ope n. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e gr antthe pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w a nd r e m a nd. 

# FI LED APR22 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 71836 2 T he B I A de ni e d B ol a ne s - B l anc o’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n w i thoutthe be ne f i tof ourde c i s i on i n C oyt

v. H older , 5 9 3 F . 3 d9 0 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) , i n wh i c h we concl ud ed that8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(d) di d n otappl y t o cause the w i thd raw alof a m ot i on t o r e ope n f

i l e d byape t i t i one rw ho s ubs e que nt l yha s be e n r e m ove d f r om th e U n ite dS ta te s . See Coyt , 5 9 3 F .3 da t 9 0 6 - 0 7 . W e r e m an din lig h t o f th is i nt e rve ni ng c a s e l a w f

orthe B I A t o r e c ons i de rB ol ane s - B l anc o’ s m ot i on, in c lu d in g , if

n e c e s s a ry , w h e th e rth e 9 0 - d ayf ilin g lim ita tio n s h o u ldb e e q u itab ly t ol l e d. W e c o n s tru e B o lan e s - B lan c o ’s le tte ro f J an u ary2 6 , 2 0 0 9 , a s am o tio n to s up p le m e n t th e r e c o r d . S o c o n s tru e d , th e m o tio n is d e n ie da s m o o t. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.
mit8k020711ex1020.htm - Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing


 






1






 






2






 






3






 






4






 






5






 






6






 






7






 






8






 






9






 






10






 






11






 






12






 






13






 






14






 






15






 






16






 






17






 






18






 






19






 






20






 






21






 






22






 






23






 






24






 






25
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

VICTOR LAMAR DOZIER, ) DOC #C06165, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-26 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed March 6, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kimberly Fernandez and Christopher C. Sabella, Judges. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit
      32.2








**ICONIX
      BRAND GROUP, INC.**


**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 Iconix Brand Group, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Warren
      Clamen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1) 
      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.











/s/
      Warren Clamen


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


Warren
      Clamen


Chief
      Financial Officer





March
      21,
      2006
Exhibit 23

                     SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.
                        CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

                               63 PINE STREET
                   WEST PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01960-3635
                          TELEPHONE (978) 535-0206
                          FACSIMILE (978) 535-9908

                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Slade's Ferry Bancorp of our report dated January 14, 2000.

                                     /s/ SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.
                                         SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.

West Peabody, Massachusetts
March 21, 2000
##### 



Exhibit 10.1 TWELFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED
SALARIED EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Sterling Chemicals, Inc. (the Employer) presently maintains the
Sterling Chemicals, Inc. Amended and Restated Salaried Employees Pension Plan,
effective as of May 1, 1996 (the Plan); and WHEREAS, the Employer, pursuant to Section 15.1 of the Plan, has the right
to amend the Plan from time to time subject to certain limitations. NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the following manner: 1. Effective as of the date of the execution hereof, Section 4.10 of the
Plan is hereby added to read as follows: 4.10 Additional Compensation Earned With Respect to Strike or
Lockout. Notwithstanding anything in this Plan to the contrary,
additional earnings or other forms of compensation (in excess of
normal salary) received by a participant in connection with
services provided by a participant during a strike or lockout
shall not increase or be used in determining or calculating such
participants accrued benefit or Monthly Retirement Income under
the Plan. 2. Effective as of the date of the execution hereof, Section 17.14 of the
Plan is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph to read as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Average Monthly
Earnings shall not include additional earnings or other forms of
compensation (in excess of normal salary) received by a
participant in connection with services provided by a participant
during a strike or lockout.




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer has executed this Twelfth Amendment to
the Sterling Chemicals, Inc. Amended and Restated Salaried Employees Pension
Plan on the    day of    , 2004. STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.By:Name:Title:
 2
exv10w29wxhy






Exhibit 10.29(h)




SECOND AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made by and between
Richard M. Bracken (the “Executive”) and HCA Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), effective as of February 9, 2011.



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, HCA Inc. previously entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”)
with the Executive dated November 16, 2006, as amended on January 1, 2009;



     WHEREAS, on November 22, 2010, the Company completed a corporate reorganization pursuant to
which the Company became the direct parent company of, and successor issuer to, HCA Inc. (the
“Corporate Reorganization”);



     WHEREAS, the Company assumed the Employment Agreement in connection with the Corporate
Reorganization; and



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement so as to
reflect the Executive’s responsibilities and duties as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Company.



     NOW, THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, and other valid consideration, the receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby amend the Employment Agreement
as follows:



     1. Amendment. Section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement is deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following:



     “a. During the Employment Term, Executive shall serve as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
of the Company. In such position, Executive shall have such duties, authority and responsibility as
shall be determined from time to time by the Board of Directors of the Company (the
“Board”), which duties, authority and responsibility are consistent with those attendant to
such offices with the Company with respect to the business of the Company. For so long as Executive
is an officer with the Company, Executive shall serve as a member of the Board. Executive shall, if
requested, also serve as a member of the Board of Directors of any affiliate of the Company,
without additional compensation.”



     2. Certain Definitions. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment not otherwise
defined herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Employment Agreement.



     3. Effect of Amendment. Except as modified hereby, the Employment Agreement shall
remain unaffected and in full force and effect.



 









 





     4. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall
be an original but all of which shall constitute but one document.



[Signature page follows]






2









 







     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement, intending to be legally
bound, as of the date first stated above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 	HCA HOLDINGS, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By: 	 	/s/ John M. Steele	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	John
M. Steele 

	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Senior
Vice President – Human Resources 

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	
 

	 	 
	 	 	
/s/
Richard M. Bracken
	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	Richard M. Bracken
**PURSUANT      TO**

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

|                               |                                                                                |                                   |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
| Dated:                May 21, 2007 |                                                                                |                                   |
|                                    |                                                                                     | */s/                Donald S. Robbins* |
|                               | Donald                S. RobbinsChairman                and Chief Executive Officer |

|                               |                                                                |                                |
|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| Dated:                May 21, 2007 |                                                                |                                |
|                                    |                                                                     | */s/                K. Bruce Jones* |
|                               | K.                Bruce JonesChief                Financial Officer |

----
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-1837EA

_____________ Kevin S. Ellison, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Arkansas. * Gary Sims, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: January 29, 1999

Filed: February 10, 1999

_____________ Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Kevin S. Ellison's appeal has been submitted on the briefs. Having considered the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the district court correctly granted summaryjudgment in favor of the party sued by Ellison. We thus affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Ellison's pending motions.2–

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
CERTIFICATION





I, Stewart A. Stockdale, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The J.G. Wentworth Company; and





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.








Date: December 28, 2017/s/ Stewart A. StockdaleStewart A. StockdaleChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6160

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT ISADORE RICHARDSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, 

at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00040-GMG-1; 3:17-cv00023-GMG)

Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Isadore Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Isadore Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as 

successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) 

(2012). 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) (2012). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50193 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FELIPE GOMEZ-SALINAS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-96-CR-271-3

- - - - - - - - - - August 20, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Felipe Gomez-Salinas seeks to appeal his sentence of 120 months after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. Gomez-Salinas waived his right to appeal his sentence in his plea agreement. See United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992). His appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6559

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte , Senior District Judge. ( 8:97

- cr - 00053

- PJM

- 1; 8:18

- cv - 01184

- PJM )

Submitted : June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018

Before DIAZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the de nial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the consti tutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositi ve procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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 proces s. DISMISSED